Printer Friendly

What if GPS doesn't?

The future of the National Airspace System is going to be heavily dependent upon the use of GPS navigation. It's sure great when it works, but what happens when it doesn't?

Anything that can go wrong, will, and at the worst possible moment--so states Finagles corollary to Murphy's Law. This notion is drilled into pilots from the beginning, so that it becomes second nature to have a plan to handle all sorts of potential failures that could be experienced in flight. Engine failure: check. Instrument and system malfunction: got it covered. Communication failure: no problem. GPS failure ... Uhhh, what? Hang on a minute.

A reader recently told us about a GPS outage while flying VFR along airways over Arizona. The pilot reported no GPS signal for around 100 NM. Other general aviation and airline traffic in the area reported a similar loss, and ATC seemed to be taken by surprise as well.

GPS signals at the receiver are weak, so it doesn't take much to interfere with them. For instance, in 2012, an illegal jammer installed in a GPS-tracked commercial truck to hide its location, interfered with pre-deployment testing of the ground-based augmentation system (GBAS) at Newark airport. The device was powered through the truck's cigarette lighter.

The FAA is gradually decommissioning many navaids through a program known as the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON). (See "lhe March To PBN," March 2017). However, GPS is a single point of failure that is managed by the Department of Defense, and civil use of the system is on DoD terms. The potential for widespread GPS signal degradation or loss exists through military jamming, illegal jamming by bad guys, or even an inopportune solar flare. We need to be as prepared for these situations as for a vacuum pump failure.

They're Jammin'

After the GPS signal loss, our reader reviewed NOTAMS and discovered that there actually was a NOTAM for potential GPS jamming being conducted at nearby Yuma Proving Ground. The NOTAM was in the en route navigational NOTAM section for Los Angeles Center and described the impacted radius and altitudes centered on a latitude and longitude location. In short, the notice was technically there, but was buried in a wall of text and not in a format that's actually helpful for pilots or ATC.

The areas described by these NOTAMs are not graphically depicted by any of the major flight planning platforms. A graphical advisory of the event did exist but was only sent to local pilots subscribed to such notices through FAASafety.gov. Unfortunately, the pilot was just passing through and didn't receive it. Of course it's always entirely the pilot's responsibility to be fully prepared for a flight, but the oversight that this pilot made is likely one that many pilots would have similarly committed.

The FAA's NOTAM search website (https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov) allows you to view the GPS NOTAMs on file for an ARTCC. In addition, graphical GPS flight advisories related to NOTAMs are available on the Public Notices section of FAASafety.gov (https://www.faasafety. gov/SPANS/notices_public.aspx) and are removed when no longer applicable. The graphical notices aren't interactive or very detailed, but at least depict the general area that's being described. The FAA also has a RAIM Service Availability Prediction Tool (SAPT) available at http://sapt.faa.gov/. It doesn't appear fully functional as of this writing, but does provide a link to generate a KML file of planned jamming events for viewing in Google Earth.

Contingency Planning

If the interference causes your GPS receiver to lose its satellite reception, IFR-certified units will give you a clear indication, but non-certified receivers like the ubiquitous tablets might not let you know. However, if the interference instead attempts to send false GPS signals (as some have reported during military jamming events), things get more interesting. The RAIM capability provided by IFR-certified GPS units should detect and exclude the faulty signals and not pass on bad position data to the pilot. Panel mounted VFR units and tablets that do not have RAIM may simply interpret the false signal, resulting in erroneous position data and unrealistic speed/altitude indications on the unit. Have fun with that.

Signal anomalies in IFR-certified GPS receivers are a required ATC report per AIM 5-3-3. After reporting the interruption, the next thing you'll likely hear is ATC asking you to "Say intentions." Unless you're nearing minimums on a GPS approach, loss of GPS nav shouldn't be an emergency, so take your time. Before reporting the loss, you should work out a plan that involves evaluating the impact of the loss of navigational capability on what you're doing at the moment, and whether or not you'll be able to continue to your planned destination.

That impact is highly dependent upon aircraft capability, weather, and approaches available at your destination. Many airliners and high-end business jets have RNAV systems with inertial references or DME triangulation. Those pilots might not even notice the loss of GPS right away. For high-performance aircraft capable of flight above any MVAs, ATC might be able to help with vectors. If your destination has an ILS approach, you'll likely still be able to make it in if continued flight under IFR is required. However, many GA operations don't satisfy these conditions, so for them there's more to think about.

You've Got a Problem

If you're on an airway at or above the MEA, just use VORs to keep going. However, if you're below the MEA, but at or above the GNSS MEA, you might have a problem. Since the GNSS MEA doesn't account for navaid coverage, you might not receive the needed VOR unless you climb to the MEA. If you're unable to climb due to weather or aircraft performance, that's a problem.

Similarly, if you're on a GPS-direct clearance or on a T or Q route then you no longer meet the requirements for navigation, so you'll need to work out a new clearance with ATC.

Keep in mind that as ADS-B Out becomes mandatory, it will become the primary ATC surveillance system. Since the ADS-B system depends on aircraft-reported GPS position, the loss of GPS capability may also impact ATC surveillance.

Another consideration is that many smaller airports only have GPS approaches. When that's the case for your destination and the weather precludes getting in under VFR or on a visual approach, you'll need to divert to an airport where you can get in visually or using terrestrial navaids. Knowing where the nearest visual conditions are is always a prudent plan, but it's worth keeping in mind where the nearest ILS is as well when planning a flight that will rely on GPS.

During recurrent aircraft training we exercise procedures and knowledge that we need to have when it counts, but don't typically need to use. Recurrent instrument training should be no different. Since most pilots flying with an IFR-certified GPS navigator routinely take full advantage of GPS substitution, on your next recurrent flight consider incorporating a couple truly raw-data approaches. That means no moving maps, no loaded procedures, no recommended hold entries, and no fix identification. You might find yourself needing to fall back on those skills someday, so best to keep them fresh.

One Step Forward, One Back

The FAA is fully aware that the GPS system is vulnerable to interference and that this will only become more significant as the VOR MON is implemented, so planning for GPS outages is a fundamental component of its implementation plans. A large part of the VOR MON backup plan is ensuring that there is sufficient DME coverage to allow aircraft to continue to navigate using DME/DME RNAV.

But that doesn't help GA pilots. The FAA gives us an assurance that there will be a VOR within 77 NM that's usable at or above 5000 feet AGL and an airport within 100 NM with a VOR, ILS, or LOC approach that doesn't depend on DME. Ironically, achieving this might mean installing new VOR and DME facilities. Hopefully pilots won't be too rusty to use those dueling needles again.

In the not too distant past, LORAN and VOR/DME RNAV units were the epitome of aeronautical navigation sophistication and the envy of lesser-equipped panels. These days it seems you can't even give them away, but they might yet have some life left. An old VOR/DME RNAV unit, like a KNS-80, would allow you to still fly direct to fixes, and do a lot of what GPS allows you to do, just over a shorter range and without a pretty moving map. In addition, although the Loran-C system was decommissioned in 2010, there is renewed interest in building out an upgraded LORAN network, known as eLoran, to serve as a backup system for GPS.

Since IFR GPS receivers have become commonplace, many aircraft owners have taken to pulling ADFs and DME receivers out of their panels, presumably for use as doorstops or boat anchors. However, in a situation where GPS navigation is disrupted, this lack of capability could leave pilots worse off than when they started. Like it or not, planning for a GPS navigation outage while in IMC should be a consideration during initial and recurrent instrument training and aircraft equipment updates.

BY IFR STAFF

THE QUIZ

The current AIM--dated December 10,2015, with amendments on May 26, 2016 and November 10, 2016--can be downloaded simply by searching for AIM at www.faa.gov. The amendments don't give us a lot of changes, but there are a few eyebrow-raisers here and there. Try this quiz to see if you're up on those changes. Answers are on page 23.

1. The obstruction clearance provided by the precision approach path (PAPI) indicator is now:

a. 4 statute miles from the runway threshold

b. 3.4 nautical miles

c. 5.0 nautical miles

d. As far as you can see it

2. Why did the FAA update the AIM's ATIS format?

a. To make the actual ATIS, METAR, and the AIM's discussion of them all consistent

b. To add LAHSO operations in use

c. To add time in local notation

d. To add instrument approach and runway in use

3. ATC now expresses all speed adjustments to the nearest:

a. 10 knots c. 5 knots

b. 15 knots d. 0.01 Mach

4. A Visual Climb Over Airport is a departure option for a(n):

a. IFR aircraft operating in VMC

b. Not-yet-IFR aircraft operating in VMC

c. Pilot who wants to understand what "careless and reckless" means

d. Aircraft with exceptional climb performance

5. A Visual Climb Over Airport (VCOA) is best conducted over:

a. A VOR on the field

b. The airport's rotating beacon

c. A densely inhabited neighborhood

d. The departure end of the runway

6. Why would a pilot elect to fly a VCOA? (May have multiple answers.)

a. Just for fun

b. To avoid climb gradients over 200 feet per nautical mile

c. Because altitude is safety

d. To avoid higher terrain near the airport

7. If you plan to fly the VCOA, what are you expected to do regarding ATC?

a. Receive a formal clearance to fly the VCOA.

b. Request the necessary climb-to altitude.

c. Advise ATC as soon as possible before departure of your intent to fly the VCOA option.

d. You can forget ATC until you begin the IMC portion of your departure.

8. Where can the VCOA procedure be found in printed form?

a. In the Chart Supplement

b. On a Departure Procedure

c. In your omniscient ForeFlight

d. In the Take-Off Minimums and (Obstacle) Departure Procedures section of the Terminal Procedures Publications

9. ATC can modify crossing altitudes and/or speed restrictions on obstacle departure procedures.

a. True

b. False

10. How can ATC assign you an altitude below the charted terminal arrival area altitude?

a. They can't.

b. You missed the fine print on the chart. It's in there.

c. Whenever operationally necessary

d. Using a minimum vectoring altitude (MVA) or minimum instrument altitude (MIA)

11. Bonus: What two new VFR chart products did the FAA introduce in the AIM?

QUIZ ANSWERS

1. b. This change was requested by the Aeronautical Charting Forum. Sponsored by the FAA, the ACF is a public forum held twice a year and is the primary method of adding and modifying charting specifications.

2. a. This change updates AIM subparagraph (b) to reflect the current METAR format and to be consistent with the Controller's Handbook. The FAA expends great effort to keep all its documents consistent.

3. c. Formerly, ATC issued all speed adjustments in ten knot increments. Mach numbers may be used above FL 240, but only to turbojets with Mach meters. Got one?

4. a. The AIM defines the aircraft performing the maneuver as operating under IFR.

5. d. VCOA procedures are developed to avoid obstacles greater than 3 statute miles from the departure end of the runway which would require a climb gradient of greater than 200 feet per nautical mile.

6. b., d. A VCOA is an alternative to complying with climb gradients exceeding 200 feet per nautical mile. That gradient implies answer d. as well. We'll give you a. and c. if you picked those, but they're certainly not very helpful, eh?

7. c. This is a new addition to the VCOA procedure.

8. d. It could also appear as an option on a Graphic ODP.

9. False. These are required to ensure obstacle avoidance.

10. d. The MVA/MIA may be lower than the TAA minimum altitude. If ATC assigns an altitude below the TAA minimum altitude, you will either be assigned an altitude to maintain until established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure, or climbed to the TAA altitude. Either way, good catch.

11. The Caribbean VFR Aeronautical Chart series and Alaska VFR Wall Planning Chart are both brand new. Look 'em up in AIM 9-1-4.

RELATED ARTICLE: Whatcha gonna do?

Most of us have become so reliant on GPS that we don't think what we'd do if it suddenly stopped working. This article made me think about that.

I'm old school enough that I have two VORs tuned when using GPS. I also flight plan with an occasional VOR on my route. However, most of my situational awareness comes from--yup--my GPS-driven moving maps. Oops.

Everything I need Is in the panel, but I also use a tablet. That panel stuff won't be much good without the GPS, but I can still easily move the maps around on the tablet. Without GPS I'll use the charts on the tablet, just like we did in the old days with paper charts. So, while loss of GPS at cruise would certainly get my attention, it shouldn't be too difficult to transition to VOR nav. Hopefully, you're in a similar comfort zone for en route navigation.

But, what about approach? Sure, there's a lot of skill overlap between a GPS and terrestrial-nav approach, so it shouldn't matter. But, I suspect that without GPS, my stress level would rise significantly, thereby lowering my performance and my situational awareness. The answer here is probably to spend a lot more time on ground-based approaches in the sim without that moving map.--FB

Caption: LEFT: If you fly enough, this is inevitable, even if only due to outside influences. Having an advance plan reduces stress.

Caption: RIGHT: GPS outage NOTAMS don't have graphics. Simple graphics are part of the original notice.
COPYRIGHT 2017 Belvoir Media Group, LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:SYSTEM NOTES
Publication:IFR
Date:May 1, 2017
Words:2583
Previous Article:Flight data controller: the unsung hero of the ATC radar room works hard behind the scenes to keep the system running smoothly.
Next Article:Put it together: DIY SOP.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters