Narrative:

We were on a flight from ZZZ1 to elp. We were descending on the MOLLY4. Runway 22 was closed so we planned on an RNAV (GPS) Y rwy 26L. Our aircraft was not certified to perform the RNAV (rnp) Z rwy 26L. Approaching the terminal area; we received an ECAM message for navigation: FM/GPS position disagree. It was VMC; and we quickly verified our position. ATC also advised all in the area that there was GPS jamming coming from a military installation. We opted to switch to the VOR rwy 26L approach as it was the only other approach to the runway; and I didn't want to confuse elp with bif; the military airport less than 2 miles away. We had intermittent navigation indications while proceeding to the airport for a visual approach. We turned final; and I used the VOR approach directions from the FMS for guidance as seeing the PAPI was a little difficult in the bright afternoon sun. The FMS VOR indications lined us up nicely for the runway and with autopilot on; it started descending us for the runway. About 6 miles out though; the ca (captain) noticed differences in our FMS course depictions and aircraft positions. I turned off the autopilot; leveled off; and continued visually. At about 5 miles; I picked up the PAPI. We landed uneventfully. In hindsight; the [manufacturer] uses the GPS overlay almost exclusively for VOR approaches with only a bearing pointer to the VOR as the backup. With the GPS jamming in the area; I should have disregarded any FMS positions completely and potentially deselected the GPS inputs to the FMS. This is not part of the procedure in the QRH though. Had it been IMC; we would not have had a compatible approach to the field. We also did not recall seeing any GPS jamming notams prior to our arrival in the area.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier First Officer reported GPS jamming on approach.

Narrative: We were on a flight from ZZZ1 to ELP. We were descending on the MOLLY4. Runway 22 was closed so we planned on an RNAV (GPS) Y Rwy 26L. Our aircraft was not certified to perform the RNAV (RNP) Z Rwy 26L. Approaching the terminal area; we received an ECAM message for NAV: FM/GPS POS Disagree. It was VMC; and we quickly verified our position. ATC also advised all in the area that there was GPS jamming coming from a military installation. We opted to switch to the VOR Rwy 26L approach as it was the only other approach to the runway; and I didn't want to confuse ELP with BIF; the military airport less than 2 miles away. We had intermittent NAV indications while proceeding to the airport for a visual approach. We turned final; and I used the VOR approach directions from the FMS for guidance as seeing the PAPI was a little difficult in the bright afternoon sun. The FMS VOR indications lined us up nicely for the runway and with autopilot on; it started descending us for the runway. About 6 miles out though; the CA (Captain) noticed differences in our FMS course depictions and aircraft positions. I turned off the autopilot; leveled off; and continued visually. At about 5 miles; I picked up the PAPI. We landed uneventfully. In hindsight; the [manufacturer] uses the GPS overlay almost exclusively for VOR approaches with only a bearing pointer to the VOR as the backup. With the GPS jamming in the area; I should have disregarded any FMS positions completely and potentially deselected the GPS inputs to the FMS. This is not part of the procedure in the QRH though. Had it been IMC; we would not have had a compatible approach to the field. We also did not recall seeing any GPS jamming NOTAMs prior to our arrival in the area.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.