If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
GPS interference testing
When you call for Notams, as I understand it you must
ask specifically if there is anything slated for GPS testing, otherwise you will not be told what's up. For those who want to see what can happen please look at my flght log for 16 May on OLC. The test not only screwed up the gps instrument, it also 'moved me' on my PDA into the White Sands SUA. I am still waiting for a response from OLC as to the best way to correct the flight claim. howard banks/1XX |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Banks" wrote in message ... For those who want to see what can happen please look at my flght log for 16 May on OLC. The test not only screwed up the gps instrument, it also 'moved me' on my PDA into the White Sands SUA. Dunno, Howie, it looks like a Pez-type alien abduction to me. Where WERE you those 14 minutes? Bill Daniels |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
With the recent concerns (last year) over the security of traces, I'm
surprised the validation softward didn't have some trouble with your data. If I were an alogorithm, I would take special interest in your 118 statute mile leg completed at 474 miles per hour. Fly impressive do you, Jedi master. We've seen similar problems in the vicinity of you know where. We'll sometimes get bizarre navigation solutions, but we're yet to see any wormholing of traces. OC Howard Banks wrote: When you call for Notams, as I understand it you must ask specifically if there is anything slated for GPS testing, otherwise you will not be told what's up. For those who want to see what can happen please look at my flght log for 16 May on OLC. The test not only screwed up the gps instrument, it also 'moved me' on my PDA into the White Sands SUA. I am still waiting for a response from OLC as to the best way to correct the flight claim. howard banks/1XX |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Good point.
But what if it was just a few dozen extra miles at 150mph? Enough, for example, to get a record, but not so much that the eyes go wide with wonder? Seems clear that tampering can be managed from outside the unit while producing secure, valid record files. I've been amused, for instance, that the OLC will highlight a flight if it is downloaded improperly or transfered among media prior to uploading, but otherwise assume all is well. It's tough to thwart a determined cheater. But since the vast majority of cheating is a matter more of convenience than maliceaforethought, to most of us the emphasis on security seems draconian. Now that we have clear evidence that there are external devices that can spoof our recorders, is it the next step to require that recorders have some protection against such possibilities? Or is this where we throw up our hands and say "enough" and put the responsibility back into the hands of the observer? As an SN10 owner, I've always wondered at the prohibition of external GPS engines. Doesn't seem like the cable is really at issue anymore. Granted, it would take a smart guy with access to the proper tools, but that's also true of altering files post flight. Note that 1XX's trace may not be the result of a random anomaly but an indication of intential interference from a ground based transmitter. If I can spoof the signal, can't I then create the file? With the right set of tools and expertise (and an observer willing to cut some corners), I could fly to 100,000 feet and circumnavigate the globe... and deliver uncorrupted proof of my accomplishment. Getting people to accept the proof then is just a matter of proportion. Eric Greenwell wrote: wrote: With the recent concerns (last year) over the security of traces, I'm surprised the validation softward didn't have some trouble with your data. If I were an alogorithm, I would take special interest in your 118 statute mile leg completed at 474 miles per hour. Fly impressive do you, Jedi master. The algorithm that checks for this kind of problem resides in the head of the official evaluating the flight. Clearly bad points, temporarily dropped GPS signals or power loss, etc, are infrequent and best handled by a person, as they do not automatically invalidate a file or a flight. The IGC validation software checks the flight file for (basically) tampering only, and not external problems. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Forbes" wrote in message ... wrote: The sad thing is I think that this has just dealt a blow to those, who like myself, who would like to see records from commercial grade GPS equipment accepted for badge claims (especially silver and gold). Ian Ian, I'm afraid you may be right, but that doesn't mean it's logical. Let's take a journey down memory lane for a moment: Suppose we are back in the dark ages, when Barographs ruled the sky. Then, let's suppose I really, really wanted my gold climb but lacked either the aptitude or patience to get it. What to do? For starters, I could take a stroll to my local clock repair shop. The mechanism on the inside of a typical barograph is no more sophisticated (actually less sophisticated) than your typical grandfather clock (this isn't just supposition - a club member had his Winter repaired by a local Cuckoo Clock maker). A little adjustment to the "gain" on the recording stylus with a commensurate tweak to the rate of rotation (so as not to raise any suspicions about the rate of climb) and voila - the extra thousand or so feet I need. Of course, this is all done on a recently calibrated device, complete with current calibration trace. Is this far-fetched? Absolutely. But no more farfetched than the arguments being put forth by those trying to find reasons not to allow COTS GPS devices for basic badges. The sport survived for 70+ years without dual recording mechanisms, and we still seemed to be confident in the validity of the majority of flight claims. Why have we lost all sense of proportion? Let's fast forward to today. Suppose I want to set the Standard Class straight distance to a goal record (okay, not an FAI record, but bear with me). I mount my secure logger to the glider, declare my flight, and off I go. Oh, but I decided to strap the 18M tips on, just to give me that 10% extra float to extend the last glide. Could I find an OO willing to look the other way (or who might be ignorant enough not to notice an extra 3M of span)? I'm sure I could, especially if I wanted to make a small donation. So, off I go, and I finish the flight. The log file is downloaded in the presence of a bonded agent of Price Waterhouse Coopers, the 512bit encryption checks out, and I'm now the record holder. My East Coast buddies know me as an outstanding standard class pilot :-)), so no red flags are raised. Is this far-fetched. Absolutely. But is it more likely than somebody spending a few hundred hours and $$ building a GPS-signal generator. I think so. The first rule of security is to look at the system as a whole. Financial services companies learned long ago that all of the firewalls in the world can't prevent a couple of individuals on the inside from doing a world of harm. The only solution to the intransigence of certain parties (I have agreed to refrain from name calling) is for the grass roots folks to go directly to their national Soaring Associations and say - "enough". As long as there is a role for an OO in the system (and there always will be), security is simply a matter of good process. It will never be perfect. Erik Mann (P3) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPS Interference Testing # 711 reporting | [email protected] | Soaring | 8 | May 28th 05 11:01 PM |
drug/alcohol testing policy: effective? | gatt | Piloting | 159 | January 28th 05 06:19 AM |
Testing Stick Ribs | Bob Hoover | Home Built | 3 | October 3rd 04 02:30 AM |
RF interference issue again (esp. for E Drucker and Jim Weir and other RF wizards) | Snowbird | Home Built | 78 | December 3rd 03 09:10 PM |
RF interference issue again (esp. for E Drucker and Jim Weir and other RF wizards) | Snowbird | Owning | 77 | December 3rd 03 09:10 PM |