4 ms·

I'm not going to argue that as it's always easy to blame dead people, but there's two different types of jamming. One is to actually jam the signal IOW prevent

by bb88 25d ago

I'm not going to argue that as it's always easy to blame dead people, but there's two different types of jamming. One is to actually jam the signal IOW preventing reception. The other is to overpower the satellites' signals and replace them with your own. That defeats the doppler calculations of GPS needed for triangulation, and instead the receiver believes it's where the jammer wants it to be. If the latter includes altitude information, then it's a huge problem.

sokoloff 25d ago
I believe it’s been made public that this was a jamming test, not a spoofing test.
- bb88 25d ago
  If you overpower a signal, is there a difference? I'm not saying you're right or wrong here. I'm just saying there's a long history of coverups in the government and military. If you can say, "oh we were only jamming" when in fact you were spoofing, well that's certainly a super easy excuse to hide behind.
  - sokoloff 25d ago
    In either case, asking for and being cleared for a visual approach (as the crew did and was) puts the onus on them to maintain continuous visual contact with the airport and to maintain their own terrain and obstacle clearance, which it’s safe to say they didn’t do.
  - 542354234235 25d ago
    >If you overpower a signal, is there a difference? Yes, obviously. Losing signal on your GPS unit, and having your GPS unit tell you that you are in a different position than you actually are, are two very different things. Also, since other aircraft reported GPS issues, that is evidence that would speak to jamming or spoofing. All three other aircraft reported a loss of GPS, not inaccurate GPS. Coverups are real, government conspiracies are real. But the completely evidenceless “I’m just saying…” or “isn’t it weird…” or “I’m just asking questions” is tiresome.

4 ms·

I'm not going to argue that as it's always easy to blame dead people, but there's two different types of jamming. One is to actually jam the signal IOW prevent

by bb88 25d ago

sokoloff 25d ago
I believe it’s been made public that this was a jamming test, not a spoofing test.
- bb88 25d ago
  If you overpower a signal, is there a difference? I'm not saying you're right or wrong here. I'm just saying there's a long history of coverups in the government and military. If you can say, "oh we were only jamming" when in fact you were spoofing, well that's certainly a super easy excuse to hide behind.
  - sokoloff 25d ago
    In either case, asking for and being cleared for a visual approach (as the crew did and was) puts the onus on them to maintain continuous visual contact with the airport and to maintain their own terrain and obstacle clearance, which it’s safe to say they didn’t do.
  - 542354234235 25d ago
    >If you overpower a signal, is there a difference? Yes, obviously. Losing signal on your GPS unit, and having your GPS unit tell you that you are in a different position than you actually are, are two very different things. Also, since other aircraft reported GPS issues, that is evidence that would speak to jamming or spoofing. All three other aircraft reported a loss of GPS, not inaccurate GPS. Coverups are real, government conspiracies are real. But the completely evidenceless “I’m just saying…” or “isn’t it weird…” or “I’m just asking questions” is tiresome.