Fox News ran a story today on GPS jammers, saying that:

An electronic device small enough to fit in a shirt pocket and big enough to conceivably bring down an airplane can be easily purchased over the Internet. All a terrorist needs is a credit card and $49.

Unfortunately, News Limited’s website “news.com.au” regurgitated the story with this sensationalist headline:

Internet jammer can be bought for $55, can bring down plane, say experts.

Now, in the immortal words of the ABC’s Hungry Beast programme, this sounds “a little bit bullshit”.  Here’s why.

The GPS system was designed many years ago by the United States military. It is a network of up to 32 satellites in Medium Earth Orbit, and each of these satellites broadcasts a unique signal. When a terrestrial receiver can “see” or “hear” four or more satellites, the receiver can determine its latitude, longitude and altitude with some accuracy.

The system was used exclusively by the military up until the early-1990s. The emergence of domestic GPS receivers saw civilian access being allowed to an “intentionally degraded” signal, accurate to within about 15 metres, while the “military” signal provided accuracy to within a few metres. Because it was, and still is, a military navigation system provided free of charge to the masses, the old adage “caveat emptor” applied to early adopters of the technology.

By way of illustration, I was working for a government agency in the early-1990s, installing GPS receivers in a fleet of vehicles. These receivers were accompanied by a data transmitter which sent the vehicles’ locations back to a central controller. One morning in 1994 (?), when the United States commenced military action in Kuwait, our GPS system suddenly went haywire, with blatantly incorrect locations being reported by our vehicles. It took us some time to establish that there was nothing wrong with our network, rather the United States military had made changes to the GPS system ahead of large-scale troop movements in the Middle East.

At the time we used a differential GPS system to give us more accuracy; that is, we had fixed GPS bases (known locations) and compared the GPS signals received at these bases with their precise, known locations. This allowed us to calculate the error which was being introduced into the civilian signal, and get a much more accurate fix on our vehicles. The degradation of the civilian signal has since been significantly improved, if not completely removed, by the US military.

While the manufacture of “civilian” GPS receivers has now become a multi-million dollar industry, the facts remain that the GPS network is still owned and operated by the US military; it has errors which are intentionally introduced by the US military; and it’s provided to civilian users free-of-charge with no service guarantee whatsoever.

For these reasons, the aviation industry has never relied upon GPS as a primary system for navigation.

This may come as a surprise to the editors of Fox News and News Limited, but pilots in domestic aircraft were navigating their way around the world for many, many years prior to the availability of GPS receivers.

Pilots use a very stringent set of rules, systems and equipment in order to navigate. Pilots use transponders, Automatic Direction Finders (which include ground-based radio beacons, VHF omni-range systems) and other equipment to establish their location. They also talk to Air Traffic Controllers, and receive and comply with instructions which assist with navigation and help regulate air traffic.

Pilots use an altimeter to establish their altitude, which compares air pressure with that on the ground – not a GPS receiver.  Pilots use (surprise, surprise) a compass to determine their heading – not a GPS receiver.

Sometimes, planes might be fitted with a GPS receiver, which can be used to corroborate information provided by these other systems. Now I’m not a pilot, but I’ll go out on a limb here and say that if ever there was a discrepancy between a GPS receiver and a traditional navigation system, the GPS would largely be ignored.

If some joker actually managed to get a working “internet jammer” aboard an aircraft in the first place, a navigational discrepancy would probably be looked upon by a pilot simply as an interesting anomaly. Visions of planes falling out of the sky, as painted by News Limited’s headline, are both unfounded and unnecessary.

To say that an “Internet jammer can … bring down [a] plane”, well … it’s a little bit bullshit.

gps · jammer · navigation · plane

Fairfax Digital in its “Digital Life” column last week reported that, on the 9th of November this year, recommendations made in the Australian Road Rule 8th Amendment Package will be introduced into legislation in Victoria.

This package is an updated set of road and traffic laws which were approved by all state and territory Road Ministers in February.

The Amendment Package says that “the proposed amendments are required to make the Australian Road Rules more succinct and contemporary”, thereby contributing to the safety of road users and the efficient movement of traffic.

Unfortunately, Mr Stephen Hutcheon wrote an article for Digital Life which was published in the SMH, the Brisbane Times,  WA Today et cetera, with an alarming headline:

“Sat nav apps could be heading for a dead end“;

with a page title which read:

“New Road Rules Threaten Phone GPS”.

A report by the ABC was more objective and less sensational.

I’m pleased to report that the Fairfax headlines are misleading and incorrect.

Existing Legislation

The current Road Rule 300(1) prohibits drivers from using a hand-held mobile phone while driving.  It’s as simple as that.  If you are driving, and using, a mobile phone which is held in your hand, you are committing an offence.

This section says:

The driver of a vehicle (except an emergency vehicle or police vehicle) must not use a hand-held mobile phone while the vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parked, unless the driver is exempt from this rule under subrule (3).

Subrule (3) makes provision for drivers to be issued formal exemptions by VicRoads.

This road rule means, for example:

• if you’re holding a phone to your ear, while driving a car, you’re committing an offence;
• if you’re holding a phone on “loudspeaker” while driving, you’re committing an offence;
• if you’re holding a phone and texting while driving, you’re committing an offence;
• if you’re holding a phone and checking your GPS location in Google Latitude while driving, you’re committing an offence; and/or
• if you’re holding a phone and taking a photograph out the front windscreen while driving, you’re committing an offence.

Also:

• you can legally use a phone while driving, if the phone’s in a hands-free car-kit, and not being held in your hand;
• you can legally use a phone while driving, if the phone’s on the seat beside you, connected via Bluetooth to a hands-free headset (this will change soon, requiring drivers to have phones secured in a commercially manufactured phone holder or kit); and
• you can legally use a phone, holding it to your ear, if you’re legally stopped on the side of the road and the engine is switched off – i.e. you are no longer a driver and have no intention of driving until such time that your phone call is finished.

What the new Amendment Package seeks to do is clarify the existing rules with respect to modern technology contained within mobile devices, including but not limited to GPS functions.

The new Amendment Package also addresses concerns that GPS devices (not telephones) could be held in a driver’s hand while the driver is driving, while the rules relating to mobile phones did not allow a driver to have a mobile phone in his or her hand.

Road Rule 299 (1) says:

A driver must not drive a motor vehicle that has a television receiver or visual display unit in or on the vehicle operating while the vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parked, if any part of the image on the screen—

(a) is visible to the driver from the normal driving position; or

(b) is likely to distract another driver;

…while section (2) stipulates that the rule does not apply if the visual display unit is a driver’s aid, specifically including navigational equipment.

The new rules will provide consistency in that a GPS must be an integrated part of the vehicle, or secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle.

Proposed Amendments

Television receivers and visual display units in motor vehicles: Rule 299 will be modified to ensure that any GPS device can only be used if it is in a fixed mounting.

This amendment will provide consistency with rule 300.

Use of mobile phones: Rule 300 will be modified to ensure the original intent of the rule is clarified; a driver is not permitted to use a mobile phone held in any way by the driver, but is permitted to use a phone in a fixed cradle.

Impact on Mobile Phone, GPS & Smart Phone Users

In the interests of everyone’s road safety, I don’t think these changes are a big ask.

Importantly, and contrary to reports in the mainstream media, the new road rules will not threaten phone GPS functions, standalone GPS functions or the ability to use mobile telephones while driving.

The new rules won’t “kill the burgeoning market in apps and services that enable smartphones to be used as satellite navigation systems”.

The new rules will simply clarify what is and isn’t permissible with new technology that’s emerged since the last time the regulations were reviewed.

If you’ve got an iPhone, and use it for GPS navigation while driving, drop it in a cradle.  Simple.  There are hundreds out there and they cost next-to-nothing.

That is, they certainly cost a lot less than a $238 fine.

Sources:

• The Victorian Government Gazette P2 – Road Rules Victoria
• Sydney Morning Herald: Sat Nav Apps Heading for a Dead End
• ABC News: New road rules on mobiles, GPS
• National Transport Commission: Australian Road Rules 8th Amendment Package

gps · mobile phone · mobile phones · mobiles · road rules · road rules victoria · sat nav · satnav