Coming to a neighborhood near you

I had an interesting experience Thursday. I often fly from Baltimore to
Cumberland for business. This past Thursday, I decided to drive. I took my
Garmin Nuvi GPS along for the ride. In the vicinity of Hagerstown
(Maryland) the GPS went tango uniform. The screen worked, but the unit
indicated that satellite reception was lost. A few minutes later, the GPS
came back on, but then quickly died. On the way back to Baltimore late
Thursday morning, the unit remained nonfunctional. The satellite reception
page showed absolutely no signal from any bird. I tried wiggling the little
antenna panel, thinking that perhaps the antenna failed. I have a spare
antenna from my 295 which I thought I could use to test the receiver
function. I tried recycling the GPS, but nothing worked. The unit went
through its startup procedure, inquiring about relocation since last use,
etc. Even when reception is poor, the satellite page always shows some
level of signal unless the unit is indoors. There was nothing.

I left the unit on at the satellite page, primarily because I was too lazy
to reach up and turn it off. As I was coming down the ridge towards
Frederick (east), the unit lit up, and worked perfectly since, up through
today.

For those of you not familiar with this area of the country, P-40 or Camp
David is a little north of the route I was driving, just to the east of
Hagerstown. I received an email from AOPA that P-40 was supersized the
following day, Friday, indicating presidential or VIP presence. I have seen
notams about NAS Pax River spoofing/degrading/screwing with the GPS signal
in their vicinity, but I haven't seen anything about a remote interference
with the GPS signal (but since I drove, I didn't really check recently,
either).

So, for those of you (like me) who have become dependent upon GPS, you may
want to think about whether the government has a reason to block the signal
in the vicinity of your flight. If so, you may wish to make sure those VOR
frequencies are handy. The disappearance and reappearance of the signal was
so dramatic that my only conclusion is that the signal was blocked locally.

Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.



On Jul 20, 10:29 pm, "LWG" wrote:
I had an interesting experience Thursday. I often fly from Baltimore to
Cumberland for business. This past Thursday, I decided to drive. I took my
Garmin Nuvi GPS along for the ride. In the vicinity of Hagerstown
(Maryland) the GPS went tango uniform. The screen worked, but the unit
indicated that satellite reception was lost. A few minutes later, the GPS
came back on, but then quickly died. On the way back to Baltimore late
Thursday morning, the unit remained nonfunctional. The satellite reception
page showed absolutely no signal from any bird. I tried wiggling the little
antenna panel, thinking that perhaps the antenna failed. I have a spare
antenna from my 295 which I thought I could use to test the receiver
function. I tried recycling the GPS, but nothing worked. The unit went
through its startup procedure, inquiring about relocation since last use,
etc. Even when reception is poor, the satellite page always shows some
level of signal unless the unit is indoors. There was nothing.

I left the unit on at the satellite page, primarily because I was too lazy
to reach up and turn it off. As I was coming down the ridge towards
Frederick (east), the unit lit up, and worked perfectly since, up through
today.

For those of you not familiar with this area of the country, P-40 or Camp
David is a little north of the route I was driving, just to the east of
Hagerstown. I received an email from AOPA that P-40 was supersized the
following day, Friday, indicating presidential or VIP presence. I have seen
notams about NAS Pax River spoofing/degrading/screwing with the GPS signal
in their vicinity, but I haven't seen anything about a remote interference
with the GPS signal (but since I drove, I didn't really check recently,
either).

So, for those of you (like me) who have become dependent upon GPS, you may
want to think about whether the government has a reason to block the signal
in the vicinity of your flight. If so, you may wish to make sure those VOR
frequencies are handy. The disappearance and reappearance of the signal was
so dramatic that my only conclusion is that the signal was blocked locally.

Tina wrote:
Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.

In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
radio service.

However, the the US government is not bound by this.

Generally, all governmental organizations follow FCC rules, allocations,
etc. or there would be chaos.

But, if the magic words "National Security" are invoked, all bets are off.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
Tina wrote:
Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.

In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
radio service.

However, the the US government is not bound by this.

Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a police
state.

In practice, however, the citizens seem to turn a blind eye to the practice
of the government violating its own laws. See Gitmo.


Generally, all governmental organizations follow FCC rules, allocations,
etc. or there would be chaos.

But, if the magic words "National Security" are invoked, all bets are off.


This, IMHO, is bull****. Not your statement, but the fact that "National
Security" can call off the rule of law unilaterally. If *I* as a citizen
were to kill someone and claim "National Security," the cops would laugh at
me all to way to the jail g

DougS wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tina wrote:
Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.

In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
radio service.

However, the the US government is not bound by this.

Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a police
state.

The topic is interference with radio services.

In practice, however, the citizens seem to turn a blind eye to the practice
of the government violating its own laws. See Gitmo.

Gitmo has nothing to do with radio services.

Generally, all governmental organizations follow FCC rules, allocations,
etc. or there would be chaos.

But, if the magic words "National Security" are invoked, all bets are off.


This, IMHO, is bull****. Not your statement, but the fact that "National
Security" can call off the rule of law unilaterally. If *I* as a citizen
were to kill someone and claim "National Security," the cops would laugh at
me all to way to the jail g

There is no FCC rule against killing someone.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
DougS wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tina wrote:
Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.

In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
radio service.

However, the the US government is not bound by this.

Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a
police
state.

The topic is interference with radio services.

*And* the legality thereof.
Premise: It is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any radio
service.
Premise: The US government is bound by its own laws.
Conclusion: The US government cannot legally cause interference to any radio
service.

Your statement: The US government is not bound by this [the law that states
that it is illegal to cause interference].

OK. Either the law was written to give tacit government approval to cause
interference, or the US government can violate its own laws. I do not know
the exact law regarding interefernce, and don't know whether or not the law
explicity grants the rights of interference to the government, I presumed
case B.


In practice, however, the citizens seem to turn a blind eye to the
practice
of the government violating its own laws. See Gitmo.

Gitmo has nothing to do with radio services.

But it has EVERYTHING to do with the government's violating its own laws.
Gitmo was used as an example of our blind eye in the name of "National
Security." My point is that the government starts small. (Violating laws
that noone really cares/knows about). But by doing so, the citizens of the
country are slowly giving up liberties. It sets a dangerous precedent and
allows the country to follow a VERY slippery slope.


Generally, all governmental organizations follow FCC rules,
allocations,
etc. or there would be chaos.

But, if the magic words "National Security" are invoked, all bets are
off.


This, IMHO, is bull****. Not your statement, but the fact that "National
Security" can call off the rule of law unilaterally. If *I* as a citizen
were to kill someone and claim "National Security," the cops would laugh
at
me all to way to the jail g

There is no FCC rule against killing someone.

What does it matter? You've stated that there are magic words (namely:
National Security) that cause all bets to be off. Replace "kill someone"
with "interfere with radio services" if it makes you happy.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:09:12 -0400, DougS wrote:

Either the law was written to give tacit government approval to cause
interference, or the US government can violate its own laws. I do not
know the exact law regarding interefernce, and don't know whether or not
the law explicity grants the rights of interference to the government, I
presumed case B.


In fact, given the history of GPS, I'm not be particularly surprised to
find it legal for the US to degrade the signal, one way or another, in
times of National Emergency. It's not that long since it was degraded -
for civilian use - as a matter of course.

- Andrew

DougS wrote:
wrote in message
...
DougS wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tina wrote:
Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.

In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
radio service.

However, the the US government is not bound by this.

Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a
police
state.

The topic is interference with radio services.

*And* the legality thereof.
Premise: It is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any radio
service.
Premise: The US government is bound by its own laws.
Conclusion: The US government cannot legally cause interference to any radio
service.

The FCC doesn't write laws.

The FCC writes regulations.

The Congress writes laws.

I doubt you understand the difference and I have no desire to either
educate you or get into a long drawn out discussion on something not
at all related to piloting based on your dislike for the current
crop of government officials, all of which will change with the next
election anyway.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"DougS" wrote in
news:OaudnasLKOUmOT7bnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

This, IMHO, is bull****. Not your statement, but the fact that
"National Security" can call off the rule of law unilaterally. If *I*
as a citizen were to kill someone and claim "National Security," the
cops would laugh at me all to way to the jail g

And yet if you actually took out Osama or one of his 52 pickup face cards,
and were able to prove it, you would quickly be released as a national
hero. They'd probably even name a holiday after you.

People have turned a blind eye to rule-breaking in the name of protecting
the "greater good" for a very long time. It is only the recent blatant
abuse of this privilege by the current administration that has made the
entire world cynical about it, and has eradicated the trust in our country
and what it stands for by its own people and world population. So now, you
can claim, like everyone else who cries wolf, that you have behaved in the
best interests of National Security or the Greater Good. But it's so played
out that no one buys that load of crap anymore.


At one time in history, America was admired as a country that stood for
courage, integrity, dignity, and true democracy, even in the face of
terror, war (won or lost), and economic despair.

Our current president, and the 2 presidents before him, have effectively
turned this country into the punchline of a very bad ethnic joke.

Maybe I am wrong, because I am too young to remember personally, but I
don't think anyone ever questioned the _integrity_ of our entry into the
Vietnam war, even though many people objected to it. And when we left, we
still maintained a decorum of respect, instead of being laughing stocks and
depicted as wild, stupid, corrupt cowboys.

No one remembers the Depression as a time when the government manipulated
the country to eliminate the middle class and further separate the rich
from the poor. Instead, the government established public services
specifically to help the poor and prevent a recurrence. There was nothing
to Fear but Fear itself...

This country has gone through many tough times in its relatively short
history. But in our pursuit of Freedom and its protection, it always seemed
as though "Right beat Might", and in the end, and we were remembered in
history for our integrity and dignity, as we progressed further forward as
a world power.

Our Great Presidents were able to move worlds with just a few words and
their own passion, integrity, and respectability.

We desperately need a Great President.

I can't say how we will be remembered in history, but I don't think it will
match our model through time till now...

I am old enough to remember 'Nam, and Johnson and McNamara playing
their games, sending messages, and wasting lives while doing it. The
men and women wearing uniforms were insulted by those who objected to
that war, but the real objection should have been directed at the
leadership.

It was bad policy, or no policy. Nearly every conflict model suggests
if one side goes in with overwhelming force, total bloodshed will be
reduced. It took less time to end WW2 than this conflict, or for that
matter 'Nam, because the leadership lacked the courage to plan so as
to win and give the people in uniform all they need to finish a job
with a defined endpoint.

'Nam was a shame and we have a wall with 55,000 names on it because of
failed leadership. A shrine to those who fell in Iraq might have an
identical story. We weep at the graves in Normandy and elsewhere, but
most would agree the blood shed there, although tragic, brought a
worthwhile end. At the Wall in Washington I am as likely to curse as
weep because of the stupid waste of lives.

The ending in 'Nam and Iraq to not justify the means, and one could
argue Truman erred in Korea as well.

In time the US will become a minor power, and historians in China or
whomever is the world leader then might study this country's path from
about the 1950s onward to understand our decline as a world power.
Maybe their study will help them avoid making the same mistakes.

Tina