Re: [LEAPSECS] Report of Leap Second Problem with GPS Data

From: Rob Seaman <seaman_at_noao.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 08:14:58 -0700

On Jan 13, 2006, at 6:26 AM, Richard Langley wrote:

> FYI.

Thanks! Actual reports from the field, how novel!

> **********************************************************************
> ********
> IGS Station Mail 12 Jan 14:59:42 PST 2006 Message
> Number 760
> **********************************************************************
> ********
>
> Author: Michael Moore
>
> Geoscience Australia
> Australian Regional GPS Network
> Geodetic Operation
>
> ADVISORY:
>
> High rate data, 1Hz 15 minute files, from the ARGN suffered a software
> problem due to the recently introduced UTC leap-second. Data from
> DOY 001 to
> DOY 009 is 1s off in the timestamps reported n the RINEX files.
> This problem
> only applies to the 1Hz 15minute files submitted from the ARGN. The
> software
> problem has been fixed, and all files from DOY 010 is reporting the
> correct
> time.
>
> RINEX headers for DARR from DOY 009, was incorrectly reporting an
> antenna
> height of 0.000. The headers have now been fixed to report the correct
> antenna height of 0.0025, and the data from DOY 009 has been
> resubmitted with
> the correct header information.

I won't claim to know the intrinsic importance attached to this.
Critical systems may depend on the information. But is it fair to
sum up the situation by saying that a leap second triggered a couple
of bugs (or perhaps one common bug), they were detected, have been
fixed, and affected data products have been remediated? Also, it
appears that some other data products were unaffected?

So, the issue has been resolved - would likely have been resolved
sooner if a leap second had occurred earlier - and is no longer
directly pertinent to a discussion of future leap seconds?

Well done, Geoscience Australia!

Rob Seaman
NOAO
Received on Sat Jan 14 2006 - 07:15:18 PST