Convert VFR plane to IFR platform?
jwit...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
How difficult is it to convert a well-equiped VFR plane to an IFR
platform? I'm considering the purchace of a nice 1956 Tri-Pacer which
has single Nav-Com, good VFR instruments, Transponder with mode C.
I'd like to get my instrument ticket, and will only buy this plane
if I can fairly easily make it a platform for IFR training and "light
IFR" flight. What needs to be done beyond equiping it with the
instruments and equipment as spelled out in the FARs? Is it
a process that would eliminate the economy of the plane purchace (it's a
good deal)? Thanks in advance for the advice and information.
-Jason
jwit...@ukans.edu
David Abrams
Jason,
When I bought my first plane (Ercoupe) it needed new radios. Having bought
a Sporty's handheld for $350 I assumed airplane radios were similarly
priced. After spending close to $5K to put in radios, loran, intercom, etc
I learded my lesson - which is buy the plane with the radios your want.
Putting them in could cost you as much as you spend to buy the plane.
David Abrams
Galactic Industries Corp
d...@galactic.com
www.galactic.com
jwit...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote in article
<1997Jul2...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>...
Robert Acker
On 28 Jul 97 19:56:01 CDT, jwit...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote:
>How difficult is it to convert a well-equiped VFR plane to an IFR
>platform? I'm considering the purchace of a nice 1956 Tri-Pacer which
>has single Nav-Com, good VFR instruments, Transponder with mode C.
>I'd like to get my instrument ticket, and will only buy this plane
>if I can fairly easily make it a platform for IFR training and "light
>IFR" flight. What needs to be done beyond equiping it with the
>instruments and equipment as spelled out in the FARs? Is it
>a process that would eliminate the economy of the plane purchace (it's a
>good deal)? Thanks in advance for the advice and information.
>
>-Jason
>jwit...@ukans.edu
If you are talking avionics only (meaning you have all the other
required equipment for IFR such as gyros, clock, etc)...check out the
ILS-400 (www.valavionics.com). Self contained LOC/GS/MB in one 3 1/8"
instrument for around $1400.
Rob (RV-6Q).
nightjar
jwit...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote in article
<1997Jul2...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>...
> How difficult is it to convert a well-equiped VFR plane to an IFR
> platform? I'm considering the purchace of a nice 1956 Tri-Pacer which
> has single Nav-Com, good VFR instruments, Transponder with mode C.
> I'd like to get my instrument ticket, and will only buy this plane
> if I can fairly easily make it a platform for IFR training and "light
> IFR" flight. What needs to be done beyond equiping it with the
> instruments and equipment as spelled out in the FARs? Is it
> a process that would eliminate the economy of the plane purchace (it's a
> good deal)? Thanks in advance for the advice and information.
>
If you plan to fly the Tri-Pacer for the rest of your flying career, it
doesn't matter much what you do to it. If you plan to sell it at some later
date you have to ask yourself very seriously whether there is a major
market for IFR equipped Tri-Pacers.
I would not think it worth while fitting out a Tri-Pacer for IFR work.
Avionics are expensive and, unless you plan to go for re-conditioned
equipment, you could find they add half as much again onto the cost of the
aircraft. That is assuming that the existing avionics are of adequate
quality for IFR work. If the aircraft was fitted out for VFR, there is no
guarantee that the equipment is Class 1.
What I suggest is that you find the instructor you are going to use for
your instrument rating first. That way you can discuss exactly what sort of
aircraft makes a good IFR platform and what equipment you are going to need
to make him or her happy.
Call me chicken, but I would not choose to fly in IMC without full de-icing
equipment and preferably colour weather radar, although a Stormscope would
do. A radar altimeter is also a very nice accessory to have and would
probably have prevented one recent IMC fatal accident in Scotland.
Colin Bignell
Bill Rychel
Chicken! Full De-ice, weather radar and radar altimeter - are nuts? If
U.S. G/A pilots all waited for that kind of equipment to fly in IMC, we
might as well park our planes and take public tranportation.
Colin - if I were you - I'd consider taking up bridge or chess. It's
pretty challenging, but doesn't require a boatload of expensive
equipment to make you feel safe!
Alexander Kluge
<jwit...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
> How difficult is it to convert a well-equiped VFR plane to an IFR
> platform? I'm considering the purchace of a nice 1956 Tri-Pacer which
Hasn't the plane himself to be certified for IFR? I remember
composite/plastic planes had problems to get certified because of the
danger of lightning. What about wooden planes?
Greetings
Alexander
--
Alexander Kluge
William Caefer
Bill Rychel <wry...@gnr.com> wrote in article <33DF24...@gnr.com>...
> nightjar wrote:
> >
> > jwit...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote in article
> > <1997Jul2...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>...
> > > platform? I'm considering the purchace of a nice 1956 Tri-Pacer
which
Bill, while I agree with you of course, I was trying to find a rather less
obnoxious way of saying it. He sounds like many pilots who don't have an
instrument rating and therefore don't realize what it really does for you.
Julian Scarfe
In article <01bc9c78$cb8f3560$8e83f2c2@default>, "nightjar" <nigh...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>Call me chicken, but I would not choose to fly in IMC without full de-icing
>equipment and preferably colour weather radar, although a Stormscope would
>do. A radar altimeter is also a very nice accessory to have and would
>probably have prevented one recent IMC fatal accident in Scotland.
Go on then. "Chicken!". I think that's a little OTT. Certainly in W Europe,
lack of a Stormscope or radar would ground you on maybe one day in twenty.
Lack of deicing may ground you for three months out of the 12 (as well as
about half of another two or three months). But you *can* pick your weather
so that neither is required and get in a lot of enjoyable IFR.
That said, my ideal Xmas present would be a set of boots... :-)
Julian Scarfe
John R. Johnson
If it is a well equipped VFR plane it may not be difficult. There
were many tri-pacers that were used for IFR trainers years ago. Most
would, of course, need newer radios for moder IFR flight. I would
want a vacuum pump instead of venturis. The later tripacers with the
O-320 series engines instead of the O-290 series I think do come with
vacuum pumps. You could spend a lot on the required radios.
Typically you need two nav-coms, an ADF, and/or DME. Make sure your
gyros are in good shape. I would put the DG and AH on vacuum and the
turn coordinator on electric myself. That way you are covered in one
system dies in flight. The Tri Pacer is sufficiently stable for IFR
work but does seem a little twitchy on the rudder to me. Of course,
I realize that I am spoiled by driving my big old Gull Wing Stinson.
John
On 28 Jul 1997 jwit...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote:
> How difficult is it to convert a well-equiped VFR plane to an IFR
> platform? I'm considering the purchace of a nice 1956 Tri-Pacer which
> has single Nav-Com, good VFR instruments, Transponder with mode C.
> I'd like to get my instrument ticket, and will only buy this plane
> if I can fairly easily make it a platform for IFR training and "light
> IFR" flight. What needs to be done beyond equiping it with the
> instruments and equipment as spelled out in the FARs? Is it
> a process that would eliminate the economy of the plane purchace (it's a
> good deal)? Thanks in advance for the advice and information.
>
> -Jason
> jwit...@ukans.edu
>
>
John R. Johnson
The aircraft does have to be certified for IFR, at least in the US.
This certification consists of installation of the equipment as specified
in part 91. It also consists of installing appropriate radio and navigation
gear for the operations desired! Then the pitot/static system has to be
tested and certified by an appropriately rated mechanic and some of the
instruments, such as the altimeter and the blind encoder/transponder have
to be tested and certified to comply with requirements for IFR flight.
When everything is taken care of then the aircraft can be certified IFR.
If it is a homebuilt, the FAA has to called in to amend the Certificate
Operating Limitations to allow IFR flight. A factory built aircraft
that has never been certified for IFR or that does not have the IFR
equipment in the "Master" equipment list may require a 337 form filed
with the FAA and/or a letter amending the certificate for IFR operation.
John
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Alexander Kluge wrote:
> <jwit...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
>
> > How difficult is it to convert a well-equiped VFR plane to an IFR
> > platform? I'm considering the purchace of a nice 1956 Tri-Pacer which
>
a. m. boardman
William Caefer <bca...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Bill, while I agree with you of course, I was trying to find a rather less
>obnoxious way of saying it. He sounds like many pilots who don't have an
>instrument rating and therefore don't realize what it really does for you.
That's funny; to me, he just sounds like an instrument pilot with
differing thoughts about risk management and acceptable levels thereof.
(Which, come to think of it, is probably why he's just bought a Seneca
with about the aforementioned level of equipment.)
The original points are valid, though I'd add that it's virtually
*always* a better idea to find the avionics you want already installed in
an aircraft. Having them installed yourself is always expensive and
usually gets you annoying downtime and new-installation glitches, too...
andrew
tsi...@us.ibm.com
In <B005FA4...@153.37.54.71>, "Jim Hill" <jim...@earthlink.net> writes:
>As the IFR system moves more and more to a GPS base, how long before some
>of the "old" equipment (and training) is no longer going to be required in
>IFR equipped planes? Anyone have a feel for this?
AOPA Pilot (and other publications) are betting that the "old" systems won't
go away any time soon. (Some are even arguing that they never should,
because we need a backup system in case GPS fails. There are some debates
about which system should be kept as a backup. I think AOPA is pushing for
LORAN as the primary backup.)
If the ILS/VOR system is deactivated, I think it's a pretty safe bet the
year of deactivation will be no earlier than 201x.
-----
Timothy F. Sipples
IBM Personal Software (Chicago)
Internet: tsi...@us.ibm.com
Beech Sundowner N6546R
Tarver Engineering
On 31 Jul 97 19:44:15 GMT, tsi...@us.ibm.com wrote:
<snip>
>AOPA Pilot (and other publications) are betting that the "old" systems won't
>go away any time soon. (Some are even arguing that they never should,
>because we need a backup system in case GPS fails. There are some debates
>about which system should be kept as a backup. I think AOPA is pushing for
>LORAN as the primary backup.)
LORAN is not funded past 1999. The Coast Guard would like to
deactivate in mid 1998.
DME may be derived from GPS.
INS Platform Ground Speed and Distance (TSO C115b) may to be derived
from GPS.
DGPS will replace ILS before 2010 at all major airports.
These system displays will look just like the ones they replace so you
will still need to know how to use the old ones.
John
Kevin Kirtley
I'm looking for a partner to share my 1960 Comanche-250. I'm based
at Schenectady (SCH) and need a partner to facilitate a complete
avionics upgrade. Expect a $20k to $25k cash investment for a 50%
share.
Kevin
1m1e
D.F.S.
In rec.aviation.owning Tarver Engineering <jta...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> On 31 Jul 97 19:44:15 GMT, tsi...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> <snip>
> >AOPA Pilot (and other publications) are betting that the "old" systems won't
> >go away any time soon. (Some are even arguing that they never should,
> >because we need a backup system in case GPS fails. There are some debates
> >about which system should be kept as a backup. I think AOPA is pushing for
> >LORAN as the primary backup.)
Great, but you are ignoring the issue of putting all your eggs in one basket.
There are three (I Think) GPS signals, 2 medium and high resolution signals
cyphered for military use only and a low resolution signal for civilian use.
There is an error signal that can and is injected into the civilian signal, S.A.
This was to allow the U.S. military to maintain control of highly accurate
positional info.
DGPS negates most of the effects of S.A.
There went your safety.
The Military couldn't care less if the civilian signal was shut down,
for important things they don't use it at all.
I take that back, they do care, they want it shut down, if the "Enemy"
has GPS it is going to be civilian units, if they have actual military
units for some reason there has to be a procedure to shut them down.
They can and reserve the right to shut it down.
> LORAN is not funded past 1999. The Coast Guard would like to
> deactivate in mid 1998.
So fund it if necessary.
> DME may be derived from GPS.
Until someone decides to spoof, jam it or the U.S. Gov. shuts it down.
> INS Platform Ground Speed and Distance (TSO C115b) may to be derived
> from GPS.
Until someone decides to spoof, jam it or the U.S. Gov. shuts it down.
> DGPS will replace ILS before 2010 at all major airports.
Until someone decides to spoof, jam it or the U.S. Gov. shuts it down.
> These system displays will look just like the ones they replace so you
> will still need to know how to use the old ones.
They could look like anything you want, it is all software.
Marc
Tarver Engineering
On 31 Jul 97 08:16:07 -0800, "Jim Hill" <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>My question:
>
>As the IFR system moves more and more to a GPS base, how long before some
>of the "old" equipment (and training) is no longer going to be required in
>IFR equipped planes? Anyone have a feel for this?
The systems being replaced by GPS are going to look as identical to
existing systems as possible. GPS is being given credit as a
replacement for existing systems. The little stick it to the
windscreen GPS is not for IFR.
John
Reece R. Pollack
On 4 Aug 1997 16:04:56 GMT, D.F.S. <d...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
>In rec.aviation.owning Tarver Engineering <jta...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>> On 31 Jul 97 19:44:15 GMT, tsi...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>> >AOPA Pilot (and other publications) are betting that the "old" systems won't
>> >go away any time soon. (Some are even arguing that they never should,
>> >because we need a backup system in case GPS fails. There are some debates
>> >about which system should be kept as a backup. I think AOPA is pushing for
>> >LORAN as the primary backup.)
>
>Great, but you are ignoring the issue of putting all your eggs in one basket.
>There are three (I Think) GPS signals, 2 medium and high resolution signals
>cyphered for military use only and a low resolution signal for civilian use.
>There is an error signal that can and is injected into the civilian signal, S.A.
>This was to allow the U.S. military to maintain control of highly accurate
>positional info.
The "error signal" is merely a dithering of the low order bits of the
time signal transmitted in the civilian GPS signal. It really isn't a
separate signal.
>DGPS negates most of the effects of S.A.
>There went your safety.
DGPS applies to a fairly small area. What the military was concerned
about was guidance of missiles, and they generally require an accurate
position over a fairly wide area. Anyway, every civilian GPS receiver
chip manufactured in the US will shut down if it detects a supersonic
speed. Since most of the available chips are civil chips, you don't
have to worry much about these being used in ballistic missiles.
>The Military couldn't care less if the civilian signal was shut down,
>for important things they don't use it at all.
>I take that back, they do care, they want it shut down, if the "Enemy"
>has GPS it is going to be civilian units, if they have actual military
>units for some reason there has to be a procedure to shut them down.
>They can and reserve the right to shut it down.
As they reserve the right to shut down the entire VOR network at the
flick of a switch. Didn't know about that one? Ohmygod, the military
could shut down the VOR network! Run and scream in circles!!
As I said, the military was worried about the safety of its hardened
missile silos. Civil GPS chips don't present a threat to them.
>> LORAN is not funded past 1999. The Coast Guard would like to
>> deactivate in mid 1998.
>So fund it if necessary.
Why? It isn't accurate enough for approach use. There are fewer and
fewer LORAN receivers out there.
>> DME may be derived from GPS.
>Until someone decides to spoof, jam it or the U.S. Gov. shuts it down.
Spoofing and jamming only work in a small area. If we're going to
worry about the government shutting GPS down, why not worry about them
shutting down the ARTCCs and leaving all the planes in the are to fend
for themselves?
>> INS Platform Ground Speed and Distance (TSO C115b) may to be derived
>> from GPS.
>Until someone decides to spoof, jam it or the U.S. Gov. shuts it down.
You're getting repetitive.
>> DGPS will replace ILS before 2010 at all major airports.
>Until someone decides to spoof, jam it or the U.S. Gov. shuts it down.
What about someone transmitting false approach clearances? There's a
guy from northern Virginia in a federal pen for doing just that. He
tried very hard to descend a couple of airliners into the mountains
west of Dulles.
If you're going to be paranoid, you should start worrying about things
like the conspiracy to change all the traffic lights to green all at
once.
--
Reece R. Pollack
CP-ASMEL-IA -- N1707H Piper Arrow III (based GAI)
MDICKINSON
My advice is: DON'T DO IT. If you want IFR equipment, ONLY buy a plane
that already has it.
Why? Because you'll spend $X on the plane, and $Y on avionics, and later
when you want a better plane (and believe me, you will), you will have to
sell your current plane for $ X+1000.
Y is likely to be $20,000. So putting new avionics in an old plane is
going to be a $19,000 mistake.
How do I know? It happened to me. I bought a 1960 airplane with 180hp,
added $15,000 in autopilot, radio, standby vacuum (all so it would be
better in IMC), and then after two years moved up to a 1980 airplane with
200hp.
I was totally unable to sell the 1960 airplane for only $5,000 more than I
paid for it. All that money spent on equipment should have been saved up
and spent on a better-equipped plane IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Hopefully my loss (read: learning experience) can be your gain.
--Malcolm
------------------
> jwit...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote in article
> <1997Jul2...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>...
> > How difficult is it to convert a well-equiped VFR plane to an IFR
> > platform? I'm considering the purchace of a nice 1956 Tri-Pacer which
> > has single Nav-Com, good VFR instruments, Transponder with mode C.
> > I'd like to get my instrument ticket, and will only buy this plane
> > if I can fairly easily make it a platform for IFR training
nightjar <nigh...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote in article
<01bc9c78$cb8f3560$8e83f2c2@default>...
D.F.S.
In rec.aviation.owning Reece R. Pollack <re...@eco.twg.com> wrote:
> The "error signal" is merely a dithering of the low order bits of the
> time signal transmitted in the civilian GPS signal. It really isn't a
> separate signal.
Yeah, I know that, poor choice of words.
> >DGPS negates most of the effects of S.A.
> >There went your safety.
> DGPS applies to a fairly small area.
There is talk of a geostationary statllite based DGPS type error negation
system.
> What the military was concerned
> about was guidance of missiles, and they generally require an accurate
> position over a fairly wide area.
If I can't get within that range with uncorrected GPS then pick up the
correction signal to hit the target I must be pretty stupid.
> Anyway, every civilian GPS receiver
> chip manufactured in the US will shut down if it detects a supersonic
> speed. Since most of the available chips are civil chips, you don't
> have to worry much about these being used in ballistic missiles.
Who the hell said anything about conventional warfare and building
ICBMS from scratch. If you can build missiles that work , you sure could
build an intertial navigation system.
While we are on the missile idea, Cruise missiles can be be perfectly
happy flying subsonic and could be built just like homebuilt planes
are all the time.
Maybe a slow missile like that is "Easy" for the military to take out,
but joe blow on the street couldn't shoot down a 150 with a student pilot.
That is the trouble with a terrorist war, where is the next attack coming
from and where is it going next. when they find how to counter your tactics
change them.
How about talking about REAL terrorist tactics.
A stolen 210 loaded to the teeth with explosives, with an autopilot coupled
to a GPS and a pilot with a parachute.
Without the parachute the GPS issue is moot and there is another name
for the tactic.
How about a shipping container FULL of explosives shipped to an address
with a GPS unit to set it off when it reaches the target.
With SA all the way up, a random huge bomb any place in Manhattan is
close enough.
How about a greyhound bus, how about a train...
> As I said, the military was worried about the safety of its hardened
> missile silos. Civil GPS chips don't present a threat to them.
Start a terrorist war and start taking out civilian targets and non-hardened
military targets, screw the nuclear silos, who they gonna nuke? ourselves?
> >> DME may be derived from GPS.
> >Until someone decides to spoof, jam it or the U.S. Gov. shuts it down.
> Spoofing and jamming only work in a small area.
Sorry, I don't buy it, it is the job of lots of highly paid people to find
ways to disable such systems. Just because YOU don't know how, just means
security clearances do sorta work in keeping joe blow off the street from
knowing military secrets. You better believe the method to disable or spoof
our best navigation system is kept under tight wraps.
> If we're going to
> worry about the government shutting GPS down, why not worry about them
> shutting down the ARTCCs and leaving all the planes in the are to fend
> for themselves?
What if all the flight plans were erased from the systems by a VIRUS, it
would be just like nobody "Filed a flight plan" and every body would
crash, the news blames GA crashes on not filing flight plans, must be true.
My hell, you really think the loss of air traffic control would cause
everybody to start flying into each other?
What pilot worth a shit couldn't announce his position, talk to each other,
look out the damn window and land his plane 747 or 150 just like we do
every day at uncontrolled fields all over the world.
Get everybody talking and relaying messages of how this should be done,
IE. go someplace else if your destination will be congested.
talk to each other on the same frequencies you would be using for approch,
tower and center and cooperate.
Marc
Ron Natalie
> How about a shipping container FULL of explosives shipped to an address
> with a GPS unit to set it off when it reaches the target.
Won't work, UPS is on strike :-)
> With SA all the way up, a random huge bomb any place in Manhattan is
> close enough.
Besides, all it needs to know that it is close to the right place
and has stopped moving. You don't even need GPS for the latter.
William Caefer
>
> My question:
>
> As the IFR system moves more and more to a GPS base, how long before some
> of the "old" equipment (and training) is no longer going to be required
in
> IFR equipped planes? Anyone have a feel for this?
Yeah, it's starting to happen already. One no longer has to demonstrate
NDB approaches for the IFR rating.
Rich Ahrens
Ron Natalie (r...@sensor.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
: > How about a shipping container FULL of explosives shipped to an address
: > with a GPS unit to set it off when it reaches the target.
: Won't work, UPS is on strike :-)
If they're requiring their drivers to lift containers, I don't blame
them for going on strike...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|r...@visi.com |----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?"|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Clarke
> In rec.aviation.owning Reece R. Pollack <re...@eco.twg.com> wrote:
>
> > The "error signal" is merely a dithering of the low order bits of the
> > time signal transmitted in the civilian GPS signal. It really isn't a
> > separate signal.
>
> Yeah, I know that, poor choice of words.
>
> > >DGPS negates most of the effects of S.A.
> > >There went your safety.
>
> > DGPS applies to a fairly small area.
> There is talk of a geostationary statllite based DGPS type error negation
> system.
> > What the military was concerned
> > about was guidance of missiles, and they generally require an accurate
> > position over a fairly wide area.
> If I can't get within that range with uncorrected GPS then pick up the
> correction signal to hit the target I must be pretty stupid.
GPS was created to solve a specific problem--submarine launched ballistic
missiles could not be used against hardened missile silos because the
position of the launch point (the submarine) could not be determined with
sufficient precision. GPS was created to provide that precision. The
_missile_ does not use GPS information, as it is not guided. It is the
_submarine_ that uses the information.
This is why SA existed--to allow the use of the GPS system for other
purposes while preventing an opponent from using it to obtain the same
benefits.
> > Anyway, every civilian GPS receiver
> > chip manufactured in the US will shut down if it detects a supersonic
> > speed. Since most of the available chips are civil chips, you don't
> > have to worry much about these being used in ballistic missiles.
>
> Who the hell said anything about conventional warfare and building
> ICBMS from scratch. If you can build missiles that work , you sure could
> build an intertial navigation system.
> While we are on the missile idea, Cruise missiles can be be perfectly
> happy flying subsonic and could be built just like homebuilt planes
> are all the time.
> Maybe a slow missile like that is "Easy" for the military to take out,
> but joe blow on the street couldn't shoot down a 150 with a student
pilot.
> That is the trouble with a terrorist war, where is the next attack coming
> from and where is it going next. when they find how to counter your
tactics
> change them.
If you are talking about terrorist use of nuclear weapons, GPS is not a
factor. If you are talking about conventional weapons, why would a
terrorist need GPS--so far they seem to prefer to drive up a van full of
fertilizer, set the timer, and run like Hell.
> How about talking about REAL terrorist tactics.
> A stolen 210 loaded to the teeth with explosives, with an autopilot
coupled
> to a GPS and a pilot with a parachute.
> Without the parachute the GPS issue is moot and there is another name
> for the tactic.
What about it? Are you under the impression that an autopilot cannot be
programmed to crash a plane into a specific target using navigational
systems other than GPS?
> How about a shipping container FULL of explosives shipped to an address
> with a GPS unit to set it off when it reaches the target.
> With SA all the way up, a random huge bomb any place in Manhattan is
> close enough.
Why is GPS required for this? Just send it to someone and when they open
it, BANG.
>
> How about a greyhound bus, how about a train...
How about them? What does GPS have to do with any of this?
>
> > As I said, the military was worried about the safety of its hardened
> > missile silos. Civil GPS chips don't present a threat to them.
>
> Start a terrorist war and start taking out civilian targets and
non-hardened
> military targets, screw the nuclear silos, who they gonna nuke?
ourselves?
In a terrorist war, the terrorists will be able to blow things up just fine
without GPS. If you believe otherwise you really should check out the
activities of the Irish Republican Army.
> > >> DME may be derived from GPS.
> > >Until someone decides to spoof, jam it or the U.S. Gov. shuts it down.
>
> > Spoofing and jamming only work in a small area.
> Sorry, I don't buy it, it is the job of lots of highly paid people to
find
> ways to disable such systems. Just because YOU don't know how, just means
> security clearances do sorta work in keeping joe blow off the street from
> knowing military secrets. You better believe the method to disable or
spoof
> our best navigation system is kept under tight wraps.
Maybe so, but remember that that system was designed so that it would be
difficult for the Soviet Union to disable, and they did have a significant
incentive to do so. Note also that nobody managed to disable it during
Desert Storm.
--John
--
Send email to jcl...@ibm.net. The above address is incorrect to defeat
automatic mailers.