With all these questions about how to integrate GPS into our everyday
operations, I'm tempted to believe we have allowed the advent of this
wonderful new technology to send our thinking back to the dark ages!

We want GPS to simply replace everything else - then all that "legacy"
stuff just becomes a backup, in case the GPS signal or on-board equipment
should become unreliable. This presents problems - as has been pointed
out in the above threads - as we are not usually flying airways and
overlays (at least that's the idea) so transitioning to the "legacy"
stuff is not always that quick and easy, especially in high workload
moments like approaches or missed approach procedures. I don't know why
we don't simply weave GPS into the RNAV web that was already part of our
mentality before GPS came along. With one integrator box, receiving
signals from VOR/DME/ILS/eLORAN and GPS we could fly random routes, RNAV
waypoints and approaches even with one primary system (GPS for example)
inoperative or unreliable. An in-flight failure of one such system would
still leave us with full RNAV capability, but might be our clue to fly an
overlay, such that the (unlikely) failure of a second system would make
transitioning easier.

We consider the old KNS-80 style RNAV boxes to be obsolete today - but in
a way they were more forward-looking than the way we're going about GPS
today.

G Faris

G Farris > wrote:
: We consider the old KNS-80 style RNAV boxes to be obsolete today - but in
: a way they were more forward-looking than the way we're going about GPS
: today.

I happen to really like my KNS-80. Although my panel-mount GPS/COM is VFR
only, it's what I generally use to point myself in the right direction. Unlike what I
suspect to be many pilots, I still follow along with the other equipment enroute.
Even if I had an IFR-certified GPS, I wouldn't be comfortable flying without a finger
on the chart, a VOR dialed in, and a DME blinking numbers at me.

I think many pilots have gotten lazy and want to have their Garmin 295 in
their lap coupled to the autopilot so they can punch D-> and take a nap while the
plane takes them where they want to go. That's the "new-fashioned" thinking causing a
lot of this mentality. Same with all the glass cockpit hubub... yeah, it's sexy and
modern and will practically shine your shoes while it flies you to your destination.
Will it keep your 172 from dropping out of the sky as an icy plane-cicle or getting
the wings torn off in a CB? No... laziness and complacency aren't a good thing to
encourage in GA. It's a pedantic argument of "primary means of navigation."

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

G Farris wrote:
> With all these questions about how to integrate GPS into our everyday
> operations, I'm tempted to believe we have allowed the advent of this
> wonderful new technology to send our thinking back to the dark ages!
>
> We want GPS to simply replace everything else - then all that "legacy"
> stuff just becomes a backup, in case the GPS signal or on-board equipment
> should become unreliable. This presents problems - as has been pointed
> out in the above threads - as we are not usually flying airways and
> overlays (at least that's the idea) so transitioning to the "legacy"
> stuff is not always that quick and easy, especially in high workload
> moments like approaches or missed approach procedures. I don't know why
> we don't simply weave GPS into the RNAV web that was already part of our
> mentality before GPS came along. With one integrator box, receiving
> signals from VOR/DME/ILS/eLORAN and GPS we could fly random routes, RNAV
> waypoints and approaches even with one primary system (GPS for example)
> inoperative or unreliable. An in-flight failure of one such system would
> still leave us with full RNAV capability, but might be our clue to fly an
> overlay, such that the (unlikely) failure of a second system would make
> transitioning easier.
>
> We consider the old KNS-80 style RNAV boxes to be obsolete today - but in
> a way they were more forward-looking than the way we're going about GPS
> today.
>
> G Faris
>

The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes. This
will take a long time, but it will happen.

And, it's all about Required Navigation Performance (RNP). RNP, by
definition, is sensor independent, although that has some practical
limitations today.

The new RNAV (RNP) procedures are premised on the possibility the GPS
will fail. Without this assumption, the target level of safety required
for small RNP containment areas cannot be achieved. This is
particularly true of the missed approach segment.

Note that the first FAA RNP procedure at KDCA does not require RNP for
the missed approach, just for the approach segments. OTOH, the newer
RNP procedure at KSUN requires RNP for the missed approach because of
terrain.

The DCA procedure can be flown without a second system of RNAV. The SUN
procedure cannot. Presently, the only approved second system is two
(preferably three) IRUs feeding at least two flight management systems.

Eventually, IRUs, or something quite similar, will become affordable for
light aircraft.

These concepts are where the forward thinkers are going, and not just in
this country by any means.

> wrote:

> I think many pilots have gotten lazy and want to have their Garmin 295 in
> their lap coupled to the autopilot so they can punch D-> and take a nap
> while the
> plane takes them where they want to go. That's the "new-fashioned"
> thinking causing a
> lot of this mentality.

Possibly, but so what?

Do we have any hard data that supports the idea that "excess" reliance on GPS
for navigation is raising the accident rate? Isn't it just as arguable that
GPS has a beneficial impact on safety by reducing the number of lost pilots?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

GPS, especially handheld ones with terrain, roads, rivers and such, ADD
to my enjoyment of the flight. It also gives me and my passengers
something to do on a long flight.

Knowing EXACTLY where I am at all times and being able to direct to
pretty much everywhere (just the prohibited and restricted airspaces,
oh and TFR's to go around), save time, money and fuel.

GPS is a terrific invention.

I've started using one in my car. Nice to punch in "nearest Mexican
Resturants" and get a list.

"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
> With all these questions about how to integrate GPS into our everyday
> operations, I'm tempted to believe we have allowed the advent of this
> wonderful new technology to send our thinking back to the dark ages!

I think the only problem with GPS is the human interface. We need either a
full keyboard input by keyboard or touch screen or they have to transition
them to voice activated, such as, Being able to just speak: "GPS - Direct
to - Kilo - Romeo - Victor - Bravo - Approach - ILS - One - Three" Then
there will be little to no heads down. For now I'd take the keyboard.

Kobra

In article <xl0kf.62898$qw.59268@fed1read07>, wrote:

> The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
> the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.

DME, and probably MLS, will be around for a while longer.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

In article >,
"Kobra" > wrote:

> "G Farris" > wrote in message
> ...
> > With all these questions about how to integrate GPS into our everyday
> > operations, I'm tempted to believe we have allowed the advent of this
> > wonderful new technology to send our thinking back to the dark ages!
>
> I think the only problem with GPS is the human interface. We need either a
> full keyboard input by keyboard or touch screen or they have to transition
> them to voice activated, such as, Being able to just speak: "GPS - Direct
> to - Kilo - Romeo - Victor - Bravo - Approach - ILS - One - Three" Then
> there will be little to no heads down. For now I'd take the keyboard.
>
> Kobra

I agree -- the biggest problem with today's crop of GPS is that the UIs all
stink. Having a full keyboard would help a lot (not full in the sense of a
normal PC keyboard, but all the digits and letters). The problem is,
there's no place to put such a thing in a typical GA cockpit. They are
starting to appear, however, in conjunction with cockpits designed from the
ground up to use modern systems (http://www.lancairusa.com/20051103.html,
for example).

> Knowing EXACTLY where I am at all times and being able to direct to
> pretty much everywhere (just the prohibited and restricted airspaces,
> oh and TFR's to go around), save time, money and fuel.

And you cannot do that with a map and compass?

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article <xl0kf.62898$qw.59268@fed1read07>, wrote:
>
>
>>The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
>>the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.
>
>
> DME, and probably MLS, will be around for a while longer.
>
Alas, where are the MLSes?

DME will remain only if the legacy carriers can keep flying, and keep
their first-generation, non-GPS, LNAV aircraft flying to need the arcane
DME/DME update protocol.

Roy Smith wrote:

>
>
> I agree -- the biggest problem with today's crop of GPS is that the UIs all
> stink. Having a full keyboard would help a lot (not full in the sense of a
> normal PC keyboard, but all the digits and letters). The problem is,
> there's no place to put such a thing in a typical GA cockpit. They are
> starting to appear, however, in conjunction with cockpits designed from the
> ground up to use modern systems (http://www.lancairusa.com/20051103.html,
> for example).

The avionics engineers call it panel "real estate."

No high-end FMS systems use the QWERTY keyboard, rather they use a
non-typist alpha-numeric keypad.

john smith wrote:

>>Knowing EXACTLY where I am at all times and being able to direct to
>>pretty much everywhere (just the prohibited and restricted airspaces,
>>oh and TFR's to go around), save time, money and fuel.
>
>
> And you cannot do that with a map and compass?

OMG, a true reactionary!

In article <a97kf.62950$qw.9566@fed1read07>, wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I agree -- the biggest problem with today's crop of GPS is that the UIs all
> > stink. Having a full keyboard would help a lot (not full in the sense of a
> > normal PC keyboard, but all the digits and letters). The problem is,
> > there's no place to put such a thing in a typical GA cockpit. They are
> > starting to appear, however, in conjunction with cockpits designed from the
> > ground up to use modern systems (http://www.lancairusa.com/20051103.html,
> > for example).
>
> The avionics engineers call it panel "real estate."

It's a common term. I do software development for a living. We talk about
"screen real estate", as in, "I'd really love to make that text field
bigger, but I don't think we can afford the real estate".

In article <z67kf.62948$qw.39145@fed1read07>, wrote:

> >>The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
> >>the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.
> >
> > DME, and probably MLS, will be around for a while longer.
> >
> Alas, where are the MLSes?

Outside of the US

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

john smith wrote:
>>Knowing EXACTLY where I am at all times and being able to direct to
>>pretty much everywhere (just the prohibited and restricted airspaces,
>>oh and TFR's to go around), save time, money and fuel.
>
>
> And you cannot do that with a map and compass?

What's a compass?

John

In article <Qn8kf.10512$_k3.3263@dukeread01>,
JPH > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
> >>Knowing EXACTLY where I am at all times and being able to direct to
> >>pretty much everywhere (just the prohibited and restricted airspaces,
> >>oh and TFR's to go around), save time, money and fuel.
> >
> >
> > And you cannot do that with a map and compass?
>
> What's a compass?
>
> John

It's that funny thing above the dashboard that you hang the fuzzy dice from.

In article <Qn8kf.10512$_k3.3263@dukeread01>,
JPH > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
> >>Knowing EXACTLY where I am at all times and being able to direct to
> >>pretty much everywhere (just the prohibited and restricted airspaces,
> >>oh and TFR's to go around), save time, money and fuel.
> >
> >
> > And you cannot do that with a map and compass?
>
> What's a compass?
>
> John

It's the funny-looking thing above the dashboard that you hang the fuzzy
dice from.

wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I agree -- the biggest problem with today's crop of GPS is that the
>> UIs all stink. Having a full keyboard would help a lot (not full in
>> the sense of a normal PC keyboard, but all the digits and letters).
>> The problem is, there's no place to put such a thing in a typical GA
>> cockpit. They are starting to appear, however, in conjunction with
>> cockpits designed from the ground up to use modern systems
>> (http://www.lancairusa.com/20051103.html, for example).
>
>
> The avionics engineers call it panel "real estate."
>
> No high-end FMS systems use the QWERTY keyboard, rather they use a
> non-typist alpha-numeric keypad.

We used to have those non-qwerty keyboards in our Approach Control
facilities. Don't know if it's true, but I heard rumors that they were
made that way to prevent overloading the computer with fast typing. They
never had to worry about that from me!
Some of the new PDA's have small folding keyboards that use bluetooth
technology to input the signal, those might be an option for tight
cockpits. No wires, and not much space required when not in use.

John

Bob Noel > wrote:

>In article <xl0kf.62898$qw.59268@fed1read07>, wrote:
>
>> The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
>> the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.
>
>DME, and probably MLS, will be around for a while longer.

Don't count on it...elimination of all ground-based navaids. Even the
FAA has reconsidered this flawed from the beginning concept.

Ron Lee

>And you cannot do that with a map and compass?

Nothing wrong with doing that way. But even when you can (and you can't
always, consider VFR on top), the GPS is more accurate. And when you
are flying over Canada, over unfamiliar terrain, it gives a level of
confidence that you don't get by map and compass. Compasses are subject
to magnetic anomolies, and many, many, aren't that accurate. When
coming into Las Vegas airspace (and never been there before) and I see
that the airport is 7.3 miles dead ahead, but still can't see the
airport, I KNOW where I am, where to fly next with ease and precision
you don't get with a map and compass. And I don't have to divert my
attention from flying the plane, just a glance at the GPS and I KNOW.

Also, it makes flight planning a breeze. No legs to figure. Just click
in your route, check for restricted/prohibited airspace and TFR's and
go direct! I have a Floatplane and I have put the Floatplane landing
lakes (and there are lots without anchors that you see on the charts),
into my GPS, so I have those without consulting some archane book.
Also, like I said, I have the names of the rivers and highways at my
fingertips for everyone to enjoy.

I flew direct (good to save fuel) from Sioux St Marie to a small
airport 200 miles north of Montreal over terrain that was remarkably
difficult to get good visual fixes on, and out of range of VOR's. There
were lakes, but one lake tended to look the same as the next. Other
than that, just rolling terrain that was endlessly similar.
Occasionally you would see a road or railroad (like every 150 miles),
but lets face it . What with tight on fuel, and such, I don't think I
would have gone direct here without a GPS. Too risky. I would have
diverted to the airways (which were NOT convenient), used more fuel and
taken longer.In that case enough longer I don't think I would have made
it in one day. That would have meant finding and airport with a hotel
and all that.

There seems to be some macho, hair on the chest attitude about not
using the GPS. Lots of instructors that ignore it's existence, won't
let their students use it, but lets face it, there isn't a pilot out
there that actually goes anywhere cross country that doesn't have one
and use it. No reason not too. They work great! There is a need to be
able to navigate by other means as there is always a chance the GPS
signal will not be there or your unit will malfunction. So cross
checking with other navigation techniques periodically is still a good
idea. I have over 2000 hours behind mine though, and have yet to really
loose a signal (a couple of times, temporarily, and I suspect it was my
unit, not the satellites).

When I land in a strange town and borrow the courtesy car (or rent
one), and want to see the sights, my Garmin car unit tells me where the
museums are, where the resturants are, where the rivers are. Great
little device for that too.

In article >,
says...

>I think the only problem with GPS is the human interface.

I disagree. I think there is a more important problem. If you're flying direct
routes and RNAV with GPS as primary(and only random route) source of
navigation, in the event of a GPS signal degradation, you have a bit of a
balancing act to do to get back to "legacy" navigation. If you're in the
middle of the Great Plains that's no issue, but if you're shooting an approach
to White Plains it may be.

My point is we were on the way toward an integrated RNAV system until GPS came
along and we decided we have to hurry and trash everything else. What we need,
I believe, is an RNAV system which allows us to seamlessly maintain random
route navigation in the event of a primary source failure (GPS). eLoran would
be one possible answer, but so would existing ground-based (VOR-DME) systems,
if your box is programmed for this.

The "all-or-nothing" approach to GPS (I know this is an exaggeration - but
only a slight one) is contrary to everything we learn and practice in aviation
- where we're supposed to have an answer, and hopefully a good answer, to
every eventuality.

I love GPS, and I see no problem in being highly reliant on it, because it is
intrinsically reliable - however I believe it would be practical and desirable
to build a system that maintains full RNAV capability in the event of a loss
in GPS integrity.

G Faris

john smith wrote:

> > Knowing EXACTLY where I am at all times and being able to direct to
> > pretty much everywhere (just the prohibited and restricted airspaces,
> > oh and TFR's to go around), save time, money and fuel.
>
> And you cannot do that with a map and compass?

A *real* pilot doesn't need a map or compass -- that kind of technology
just makes you too lazy to fly low and read highway signs.


All the best,


David

G Farris wrote:

> I disagree. I think there is a more important problem. If you're flying direct
> routes and RNAV with GPS as primary(and only random route) source of
> navigation, in the event of a GPS signal degradation, you have a bit of a
> balancing act to do to get back to "legacy" navigation. If you're in the
> middle of the Great Plains that's no issue, but if you're shooting an approach
> to White Plains it may be.

Wouldn't you be in the same situation if you were shooting an ILS
approach and the localizer went U/S?


All the best,


David

"Doug" > wrote:
> Also, it makes flight planning a breeze. No legs to figure. Just click
> in your route, check for restricted/prohibited airspace and TFR's and
> go direct!

It helps to take a glance at the terrain too. I've got a flight planning
exercise I give to people to plan a trip to a destination on the other side
of what passes for a mountain range around here (the Catskills). I'll give
them a weather forecast with ceilings just about at the mountain tops.
It's amazing how many come back to me with "GPS direct" and seem to be
totally clueless that they've just planed a trip into cumulogranite.

G Farris > wrote:
> I love GPS, and I see no problem in being highly reliant on it, because
> it is intrinsically reliable - however I believe it would be practical
> and desirable to build a system that maintains full RNAV capability in
> the event of a loss in GPS integrity.

The big boys have it, it's called Inertial Nav. Whether that will ever
become an affordable reality for GA is anybody's guess, but stranger things
have happened. With the current crop of GPS gear on the market, there are
already spam cans equipped with better nav systems than some jets.

Here is something you have with a GPS that you don't have with most
other Nav -- GROUNDSPEED. (Yes you can get it if you have DME and are
flying to/from the station). How does that help? Helps with fuel
planning and time. Will you be flying at night or will you make it
before nightfall?

I once used GPS for deciding if I should attempt flying ridge lift. I
was heavily loaded in my Amphib. I can climb to 13000' I need to get
over Corona, but its not easy. Usually there is a west wind causing
ridgelift as you fly west to east. As I climbed, it was apparent that I
wasn't going to make it without circling. But...that west wind..IF I
was SURE it existed. So I turned into the wind (my destination was
east) to make sure and checked my GS with my airspeed. Sure enough it
was there. I went close to the ridge (so close you didn't want to be
there if there were downdrafts), and the wind just lifted me right up
and over the pass. WAY COOL!

Ron Lee wrote:
> Bob Noel > wrote:
>
>
>>In article <xl0kf.62898$qw.59268@fed1read07>, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
>>>the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.
>>
>>DME, and probably MLS, will be around for a while longer.
>
>
> Don't count on it...elimination of all ground-based navaids. Even the
> FAA has reconsidered this flawed from the beginning concept.
>
> Ron Lee

Which FAA? ;-)

As the budget crunch deepens, and it will, the pressure to do away with
most ground facilities other than ILS will be irresistable.

One variation is to shut down the VORs but leave "geometrically
desirable" DME facilites going until the legacy air carrer LNAV
platforms retire. That would be a whole lot less expensive than
maintaining aging VOR facilities.

The bean counters want to do away with primary radars, too. But, so
far, the security-minded have stopped that planning.

G Farris wrote:


>
> I love GPS, and I see no problem in being highly reliant on it, because it is
> intrinsically reliable - however I believe it would be practical and desirable
> to build a system that maintains full RNAV capability in the event of a loss
> in GPS integrity.
>
You're thinking in light aircraft terms. All modern air carrier jets and
biz jets have IRUs, which will provide a decent RNAV platform for a
reasonable length of time in the terminal area and for a very long time
en route.

wrote:
> The bean counters want to do away with primary radars, too. But, so
> far, the security-minded have stopped that planning.

What does it mean to "do away with primary radar"? The antennae are
co-located and the systems are already built. What money would be saved by
turning the primary part of the system off? It's not even like they rotate
on different shafts so you can save a little on lubricating the bearings or
powering down the motor that makes it go round and round.

Anyway, if we turn off the primary radar, we'll only be able to see things
that want to be seen. The libertarian in me likes that idea, but I'm
enough of a realist to understand that the people intent on blowing things
up are probably smart enough to turn their transponders off.

We will be going to a GPS based system. Alaska has tried this system
under the Capstone name. Basically you will broadcast to ATC your
position and ATC will use that information just as they use the radar
information today.



Roy Smith wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>The bean counters want to do away with primary radars, too. But, so
>>far, the security-minded have stopped that planning.
>
>
> What does it mean to "do away with primary radar"? The antennae are
> co-located and the systems are already built. What money would be saved by
> turning the primary part of the system off? It's not even like they rotate
> on different shafts so you can save a little on lubricating the bearings or
> powering down the motor that makes it go round and round.
>
> Anyway, if we turn off the primary radar, we'll only be able to see things
> that want to be seen. The libertarian in me likes that idea, but I'm
> enough of a realist to understand that the people intent on blowing things
> up are probably smart enough to turn their transponders off.

> Also, it makes flight planning a breeze. No legs to figure. Just click
> in your route, check for restricted/prohibited airspace and TFR's and
> go direct!

Go to AvWeb and read Don Brown's columns about filing and flying direct.
If you use his advice, it makes the trip much more enjoyable and
contains potentially less surprises for everyone.

LASER ring gyros are certainly small enough, I don't know how much they
cost. If the US military can put them in artillery shells, they should
be available for light GA inertial nav systems.

> We will be going to a GPS based system. Alaska has tried this system
> under the Capstone name. Basically you will broadcast to ATC your
> position and ATC will use that information just as they use the radar
> information today.

Does LSA require and electrical system?
I have yet to see a handheld transponder for GA.

In article >,
john smith > wrote:

> LASER ring gyros are certainly small enough, I don't know how much they
> cost. If the US military can put them in artillery shells, they should
> be available for light GA inertial nav systems.

Googling for LRG prices surprisingly came up with mostly a blank, but I did
come up with one doc
(http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=140)
that hints at a "6 figure price" for them. That same doc, however, talks
about commercially available Fiber Optic Gyros (which I don't know much
about) in the $1500-$2500 price range. There is an old adage, "Sooner or
later, anything made from silicon will cost $5", so I can only assume that
the days of affordable solid state gyros for GA are not too far off.

What do things like the Garmin G-1000 use?

john smith wrote:
>>We will be going to a GPS based system. Alaska has tried this system
>>under the Capstone name. Basically you will broadcast to ATC your
>>position and ATC will use that information just as they use the radar
>>information today.
>
>
> Does LSA require and electrical system?

No.


> I have yet to see a handheld transponder for GA.


And you won't. The new system eliminates transponders.

Newps > wrote:

>We will be going to a GPS based system. Alaska has tried this system
>under the Capstone name. Basically you will broadcast to ATC your
>position and ATC will use that information just as they use the radar
>information today.
>
Newps, are you going to pay for the cost to acquire and install this
system in my plane? If not, don't expect anywhere close to 100%
voluntary compliance.

Ron Lee

In article >,
Roy Smith > wrote:

> wrote:
> > The bean counters want to do away with primary radars, too. But, so
> > far, the security-minded have stopped that planning.
>
> What does it mean to "do away with primary radar"?

Most of the cost is related to maintaining the system. Once they
stop maintaining the long range primary radars, they might as well
just shut them off.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

Roy Smith wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>The bean counters want to do away with primary radars, too. But, so
>>far, the security-minded have stopped that planning.
>
>
> What does it mean to "do away with primary radar"? The antennae are
> co-located and the systems are already built. What money would be saved by
> turning the primary part of the system off? It's not even like they rotate
> on different shafts so you can save a little on lubricating the bearings or
> powering down the motor that makes it go round and round.

The antenna is a small part of the expense of maintaining a radar
system. Secondary radar is basically an antenna and some interagators.

The future thinkers want to do away with even the scondary and go do ADS-B.
>
> Anyway, if we turn off the primary radar, we'll only be able to see things
> that want to be seen. The libertarian in me likes that idea, but I'm
> enough of a realist to understand that the people intent on blowing things
> up are probably smart enough to turn their transponders off.

That is exactly the argument the security folks make, thus the primary
system is not going away for a long time.

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >,
> john smith > wrote:
>
>
>>LASER ring gyros are certainly small enough, I don't know how much they
>>cost. If the US military can put them in artillery shells, they should
>>be available for light GA inertial nav systems.
>
>
> Googling for LRG prices surprisingly came up with mostly a blank, but I did
> come up with one doc
> (http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=140)
> that hints at a "6 figure price" for them. That same doc, however, talks
> about commercially available Fiber Optic Gyros (which I don't know much
> about) in the $1500-$2500 price range. There is an old adage, "Sooner or
> later, anything made from silicon will cost $5", so I can only assume that
> the days of affordable solid state gyros for GA are not too far off.
>
> What do things like the Garmin G-1000 use?

Integrated solid-state Attitude and Heading Reference Systems (AHRS)

AHRS replaces gyros but doesn't have an inertial capability; at least
not yet.

> > Does LSA require and electrical system?

> No.

> > I have yet to see a handheld transponder for GA.

> And you won't. The new system eliminates transponders.

There has to be a transmitter of some type installed to broadcast.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> We will be going to a GPS based system. Alaska has tried this system
> under the Capstone name. Basically you will broadcast to ATC your
> position and ATC will use that information just as they use the radar
> information today.
>

It looks like Capstone was a aircraft via satellite to ATC position
reporting system.

http://www.faa.gov/news/news_story.cfm?type=press_release&region=alaskan&year=2002&date=040102

Its not clear if Capstone is intended to also let other aircraft in your
vacinity receive your position reports and use that information for
collision avoidance.

The beauty of a broadcast location reporting system is that you are telling
everyone where you are not just ATC and the equipment needed for every other
pilot to recieve your broadcast and display your position on his GPS
display is cheap. Soon the Aviation GPS devices will be able show other
aircraft near your airspace on your moving map in addition to showing your
own location.

The maritime communications industry is developing the Universal Shipborne
Automatic Identification System to do the same job for ships at sea.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/ais.htm

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> > Does LSA require and electrical system?
>
>> No.
>
>> > I have yet to see a handheld transponder for GA.
>
>> And you won't. The new system eliminates transponders.
>
> There has to be a transmitter of some type installed to broadcast.

From: http://www.gisdevelopment.net/technology/gps/ma04082c.htm


4.1 Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS)
In this, the aircraft automatically transmits, via data links, its
identification and 3-D position to the ATC unit. It allows controllers to
observe on a pseudo-radar display, the position of aircraft and possible
deviations from the assigned flight paths. The design of the ADS should
allow the implementation without disrupting ATS. It should also be
sufficiently flexible to adaptability to local requirement and ATS special
requirements, expandability, integration with new technology, provide
sufficient safety and switch over to other forms of ATS in case of failure
or degradation. It should also have the capability to provide a minimum
service to all duly equipped aircraft and become finally part of ATS
infrastructure that derives full advantage of the ADS.

4.1.a Automatic Dependent Surveillance ADS-A (Addressed)
This system operates only in the air-ground mode and at the request of the
ATC unit. It is the controller who determines which reports are necessary
for controlling each aircraft. The basic principle is given as:
Communication contracts must first be established between airborne equipment
and ground systems before being able to receive any ADS report. The
controller determines which report is necessary to control each aircraft in
the flight segments under the control of a given ATC unit. The issuance of
basic ADS report at periodic intervals is defined by the ground system with
one or more blocks of additional data containing specific information. ADS
report may contain geographically defined points, such as waypoints and
intermediate points, in addition to reports triggered by specific
occurrence. Certain types of airborne equipments have the capability to
maintain contracts with four or five ATC unit simultaneously. These aircraft
will also send automatic position reports, in keeping with ADS contracts
made by ground system. At given time or distance before reaching the
boundaries of the FIR, which can vary depending on the ground system. The
latter will immediately prepare and transmit ADS reports addressed to the
grounds system in keeping with the pre-established contracts. In some
system, the controller has the capability to replace the ADS contracts if
necessary. The ground system will issue the appropriate message to start the
modification of exiting contracts.

Automated ground systems can use the ADS position reports and other data
groups from the ADS message to provide automated flight tracking in
accordance with flight plan. Most automated ground system compares the
aircraft position reported by the ADS with the position foreseen by the
ground system, taken from the flight plan. The ground system will prepare
and show the controller the appropriate message in the event that the ADS
report does not match the position foresee by the ground system. This
monitoring capability makes it possible to verify whether the flight is
proceeding according to flight plan. Further more, aircrafts are equipped
with FAN-1A capable of doing their own monitoring and of making an automatic
report in case of significant flight variations, when so required by an
appropriate occurrence contract. The ground system will include, together
with the request for an ADS occurrence contract, the value that triggered
these reports.

4.1.b Automatic Dependent Surveillance Contracts ( ADS-C) :
There are three types of contract, each of them operating independently of
the others. They are periodic contract, occurrence contracts & demand
contracts. A request for a periodic contract defines the contract
requirements to be included in the reports and reporting frequency. Through
an uplink, an ATS unit initiates the periodic report request. This request
allows an ATS unit to include the optional data groups in the basic ADS
reports, also specifying the frequency of inclusion. The controller can
modify the periodic reporting average up and down in order to accommodate
special situations, such as traffic density. Information about the minimum
reporting averages recommended for each type of aircraft can be obtained
from the manufacturer's manual. Only one periodic contract can be
established. if another is to be established , then the previous contract
will be replaced . This periodic contract will remain in force until
modified or cancelled.

The occurrence contract specify a report request to be sent by the aircraft
if certain occurrence takes place e.g. variation in ascent or decent regime,
lateral deviation in flight path, change in altitude, change in reporting
point. Only one occurrence contract may be established each time between the
aircraft and the ground system even so, the contract may contemplate
different type of the occurrence. The demand contracts request is a single
request from the ground system for the airborne equipment to send an ADS
report containing the data specified in the request. A demand contact may be
requested by the ground system at any time. A request for such contract will
not affect any other that exists.

The emergency mode is activated or cancelled by the pilot only. Once
activated, the emergency mode connects the aircraft with all ground systems
that have established periodic or occurrence contracts with it. When pilot
cancels the emergency mode, the on board equipment will send a cancellation
message to each ground station that received this message.

4.2 Automatic Dependence Surveillance- Broadcast (ADS-B)
ADS-B is a new aeronautical surveillance concept by virtue of which the
aircraft transmits its position through data link. The position information
is received by near-by aircraft, which enables all users to be informed
about their own position and the position of all other nearby traffic. The
position information may be displayed in the cockpit of aircraft thus
equipped to allow for new possibility of detecting traffic. Ground vehicle
and facilities can also be equipped to receive and transmit position data,
making it possible to monitor all types of traffic through two-way data
links. In addition to position data, other data like aircraft identification
and speed (obtained from GNSS receiver) may be also transmitted. ADS-B will
play important role in the cockpit environment, and it will keep the pilot
informed about all the traffic vicinity of the airports. The cockpit display
is used to show the position and intentions of all aircrafts within a 200-NM
radius. This equipment is called cockpit display of traffic position (CDTI)
or traffic situation display (TSD).

However ADS-B allows keeping a visual display of all surrounding traffic. On
the ground, the ADS-B will offer ATC new surveillance capabilities at a
fraction of the cost of a conventional SSR. An ADS-B ground station is a
transmitter / receiver station without the complex and costly rotary antenna
radar systems. An ADS-B ground station does not need to make high-precision
measurements of the aircraft position, thus reducing the cost of the ground
equipment considerably. The ADS-B concept is independent of the type of link
used for data transmission. The information can be relayed by VHF or
satellites or SSR mode-S. Therefore ADS-B will be an advanced and relatively
low cost-system that will provide high quality flight surveillance
information, Low cost, flexibility in surveillance reporting, more precise
data capability to support new application,, identical surveillance
information to the all users, surveillance available for all phases of
flight. The ADS-B will also send a message to ground control unit within a
radius of 95 NM around the transmitting aircraft.

ADS messages contain the data like position, time, track, ground speed ,
vertical situation, magnetic heading, Mac number ( speed of the aircraft),
next route reporting point, estimated altitude at next reporting point,
second to the next reporting point, upper wind direction, upper wind
velocity and temperature. Moreover ATC using ADS information must have the
capability to automate the function like flight data validation, automatic
tracking, and direction of potential conflict, conflict resolution and
display of relevant processed data.

The Creative Real Estate Buying and Creative Real Estate Financing.
Senior Consultant Paul RunningHorse Vigil . FREE Telephone
Consultation. 303-284-0636 fax 303-284-0974
* Refer-A-Friend http://www.capitalvigilfundingdept.com
Wealth Formula FOR SALE: A One Page Summary on How to build Wealth
without the use of your money. This Formula is a Proven Concept used by
few and it can be used on any product (s) or service (s) very basic and
easy to understand formula. How to build Wealth without the use of your
money is easier than one may think it has created wealth for those that
put the formula into action. Send certified check or money order in the
amount of $100 dollars Payable to Paul Runninghorse Vigil The mailing
address is Post Office Box 1481 Westminster, Colorado 80036-1481 Please
Include your Name, Your Telephone number include your area code, Your
Mailing Address. I will mail it to you ASP or if you request, I could
fax it to you. The One Page Summary on How to build Wealth without the
use of your money.Visit my web site:
http://www.capitalvigilfundingdept.com My Office Phone# 1-303-284-0636
Westminister Colorado 24hr Fax #1-303-284-0974 Investors are invited to
join us in Acquisition projects, Great Returns

> >> > Does LSA require and electrical system?

> >> No.

> >> > I have yet to see a handheld transponder for GA.

> >> And you won't. The new system eliminates transponders.

> > There has to be a transmitter of some type installed to broadcast.

> From: http://www.gisdevelopment.net/technology/gps/ma04082c.htm

You still will not see it available as a handheld system.
It will have to be installed and certified in an aircraft with an
approved electrical system.

In article . com>,
says...
>
>
>G Farris wrote:
>
>> I disagree. I think there is a more important problem. If you're flying
direct
>> routes and RNAV with GPS as primary(and only random route) source of
>> navigation, in the event of a GPS signal degradation, you have a bit of a
>> balancing act to do to get back to "legacy" navigation. If you're in the
>> middle of the Great Plains that's no issue, but if you're shooting an
approach
>> to White Plains it may be.
>
>Wouldn't you be in the same situation if you were shooting an ILS
>approach and the localizer went U/S?
>

Not at all. The missed approach is part of the procedure, and if you've done
good you have it all dialled-in, briefed and ready to fly. No transitioning to
do.

GF
>
>
>David
>

G Farris wrote:

> I am aware of that, and I'm certainly not pretending to be "inventing"
> something here. Just seems to me that before we went whole-hog GPS we were
> seeing smart loran and RNAV boxes that could integrate a number of source
> signals. Then we threw it all away to go GPS. I think we could develop a smart
> interim solution using a mix of GPS, eLoran (which has come a ong way since we
> all turned our backs on it) and traditional graound-based nav aids.
>
> Get rid of the VOR's? Sure. Do it hastily and without forethought? That would
> be foolish, in my opinion.
>
> GF
>

You should forward your views to AOPA. Presently, they are in accord
with the concept being work by the FAA and industry to move to a
performance-based RNAV system where RNP is a requirement. AOPA is also
a proponend of WAAAS to enhance the vertical guidance on RNAV appoaches
since, presently, most light aircraft can't afford the heavy lifting
required for IFR-capable Baro VNAV.

LORAN and Rho-Theta RNAV simply won't provide the accuracy required for
terminal and approach phase RNP.

john smith wrote:
>>>>>Does LSA require and electrical system?
>
>
>>>>No.
>
>
>>>>>I have yet to see a handheld transponder for GA.
>
>
>>>>And you won't. The new system eliminates transponders.
>
>
>>>There has to be a transmitter of some type installed to broadcast.
>
>
>>From: http://www.gisdevelopment.net/technology/gps/ma04082c.htm
>
>
> You still will not see it available as a handheld system.
> It will have to be installed and certified in an aircraft with an
> approved electrical system.

No, ADS-B will be available as a handheld device.

> The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
> the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.
>

Uhm, not quite. The JAA is all hot about DME-DME area navigation. They
thing GPS is not reliable enough. Go figure...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

John,

> And you cannot do that with a map and compass?
>

Yes, you can. You can also ride into town on a horse. Do you?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Roy,

> but I'm
> enough of a realist to understand that the people intent on blowing things
> up are probably smart enough to turn their transponders off.
>

And radar sites manned by the FAA can do exactly WHAT about that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article >,
says...
>
>
>> The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
>> the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.
>>
>
>Uhm, not quite. The JAA is all hot about DME-DME area navigation. They
>thing GPS is not reliable enough. Go figure...
>

The Europeans are ready to use every available argument (the threat of the US
unilaterally invoking Selective Availability being their favorite) to
denigrate GPS, so as to pave the way for their competing system, Galileo.
They see a huge market potential in a pay-per-use system, designed to
generate windfall profits for the usual group of sweetheart companies, but
they are threatened by the free availability of GPS. They have to denigrate
it to get funding for their system, then find regulatory means to make GPS
receivers illegal.

GF

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > but I'm
> > enough of a realist to understand that the people intent on blowing things
> > up are probably smart enough to turn their transponders off.
>
> And radar sites manned by the FAA can do exactly WHAT about that?

primary radars are not reliant on cooperative targets.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

G,

> The Europeans are ready to use every available argument (the threat of the US
> unilaterally invoking Selective Availability being their favorite) to
> denigrate GPS, so as to pave the way for their competing system, Galileo.
> They see a huge market potential in a pay-per-use system, designed to
> generate windfall profits for the usual group of sweetheart companies, but
> they are threatened by the free availability of GPS. They have to denigrate
> it to get funding for their system, then find regulatory means to make GPS
> receivers illegal.
>

Exactly. Sadly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

G Farris > wrote:

> The Europeans are ready to use every available argument (the threat of the US
> unilaterally invoking Selective Availability being their favorite) to
> denigrate GPS, so as to pave the way for their competing system, Galileo.

I can't blame them. If I lived outside the US, I would be pretty wary
about depending on a navigation system which I had no control over. It's
the same battle that happening now with control of the Internet.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
>>the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.
>>
>
>
> Uhm, not quite. The JAA is all hot about DME-DME area navigation. They
> thing GPS is not reliable enough. Go figure...
>
The JAA agenda is politically-driven. They simply don't want to use
those Dammn Yankee's GPS system. Also, in most of the JAA airspace,
there is a DME-rich environment, which is great for en route. But, the
model often collaspes on approach as the DMEs drop out and the remaining
two, or so, provide unacceptable geometry. If it is an RNP platform,
the alerts will become sufficiently dire to force a missed approach.

I am involved in the recent RNAV RNP programs. The JAA just quietly
looks the other way when some of its member states begin their journey
into performance-based RNAV (RNP) procedures that require GPS and IRUs
blended with advanced FMS platforms. DME/DME is simply not in that picure.

Go figure.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> John,
>
>> And you cannot do that with a map and compass?
>>
>
> Yes, you can. You can also ride into town on a horse. Do you?

Some people do ride horses. For fun. The map and compass will eventually
reach the same point.

But let's discuss why this will be (or perhaps already is) so. Someone
spoke of accuracy, which is a good point. The more precisely I know my
location, the more accurately I can follow an approach. And that,
typically, means that the approach is usable in lower weather.

Another major factor is time. The advantage of sophisticated RNAV (be it
the old fashioned kind or the kind silly enough to use only one input: GPS)
is that it leaves more time available to the pilot for other tasks. It
makes it easier to avoid issues like icing or CBs because it leaves more
time for "weather management", for example.

RNAV is one more tool for staying ahead of the airplane.

- Andrew

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
>>the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.
>>
>
>
> Uhm, not quite. The JAA is all hot about DME-DME area navigation. They
> thing GPS is not reliable enough. Go figure...
>

Thia the pertinent note on the LOWI RNAV (RNP) IAP:

1. GPS and IRS required (DME/DME, LLZ and VOR/DME updating not authorized).

In article >, says...
>

>
>I can't blame them. If I lived outside the US, I would be pretty wary
>about depending on a navigation system which I had no control over.

Half of me agrees with that, and finds it a reasonable position. If only it
weren't always the same companies gravitating around these projects. Just
today, the official announcement was made of Toulouse as the hub city for the
Galileo project (AirbusVille). So guess who - EADS, Alcatel, Thomson etc will
all be receiving strong subsidies to get set up there, and to "soften the blow"
of getting the project going, until they're ready to start raking in the big
cash when they start licensing.

Just a couple of weeks ago, the BEA (French NTSB) published a "white paper"
about GPS, stating it is a dangerous device, that "causes" pilots to be
inattentive and lose track of their situational awareness. I'll bet the
Brooklyn Bridge that when Galileo is ready to go on line the same agency will
hail it as a revolutionary invention, enhancing pilots' situational awareness.

By that time, Garmin will be up to G-3000 boxes, but if they try to make them
"Galileo Compliant" they will surely find that their boxes lack some code
required to be certified in JAA airspace.

GF

Roy Smith wrote On 12/02/05 19:41,:
> In article <Qn8kf.10512$_k3.3263@dukeread01>,
> JPH > wrote:
>
>
>>john smith wrote:
>>
>>>>Knowing EXACTLY where I am at all times and being able to direct to
>>>>pretty much everywhere (just the prohibited and restricted airspaces,
>>>>oh and TFR's to go around), save time, money and fuel.
>>>
>>>
>>>And you cannot do that with a map and compass?
>>
>>What's a compass?
>>
>>John
>
>
> It's the funny-looking thing above the dashboard that you hang the fuzzy
> dice from.

I have found my refrigerator magnets stick there quite well.

Bob Noel wrote On 12/02/05 15:50,:
> In article <xl0kf.62898$qw.59268@fed1read07>, wrote:
>
>
>>The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
>>the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.
>
>
> DME, and probably MLS, will be around for a while longer.
>

I suspect that having more than 3 levels of backup is counterproductive.
I.e., GPS backed up by Loran backed up by VOR backed up by ADF, etc.
That represents a lot of onboard equipment to go wrong, forget how to
use, etc.

The obvious candidates to go are ADF, marker beacons, and DME.

DME isn't going away soon because the airlines use it. If the airlines
wanted toliets on ballons in the sky, they'ed get them.

Roy Smith wrote On 12/03/05 08:27,:
> wrote:
>
>>The bean counters want to do away with primary radars, too. But, so
>>far, the security-minded have stopped that planning.
>
>
> What does it mean to "do away with primary radar"? The antennae are
> co-located and the systems are already built. What money would be saved by
> turning the primary part of the system off? It's not even like they rotate
> on different shafts so you can save a little on lubricating the bearings or
> powering down the motor that makes it go round and round.
>

That disregards maintenence and replacement costs.

> Anyway, if we turn off the primary radar, we'll only be able to see things
> that want to be seen. The libertarian in me likes that idea, but I'm
> enough of a realist to understand that the people intent on blowing things
> up are probably smart enough to turn their transponders off.

In the long run, it means turning off the primary radar (or failing to replace
it when it dies), on interior US radar stations, especially that cover
uninteresting, open country radar areas. The ones that would stay are the
ADIZ radars (which are military anyways), and city radar. That leaves a lot
of radar that can be removed.

Don't expect anyone to fight for the idea that Montana needs radar to keep
terrorists from attacking their cow sheds.

john smith wrote On 12/03/05 11:52,:
> LASER ring gyros are certainly small enough, I don't know how much they
> cost. If the US military can put them in artillery shells, they should
> be available for light GA inertial nav systems.

Try looking up the price of a 3 axis FOG (Fibre Optic Gyro, the cheapest type
of laser gyro). Hint: the US military has a lot of money.

Roy Smith wrote On 12/03/05 12:09,:
> In article >,
> john smith > wrote:
>
>
>>LASER ring gyros are certainly small enough, I don't know how much they
>>cost. If the US military can put them in artillery shells, they should
>>be available for light GA inertial nav systems.
>
>
> Googling for LRG prices surprisingly came up with mostly a blank, but I did
> come up with one doc
> (http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=140)
> that hints at a "6 figure price" for them. That same doc, however, talks
> about commercially available Fiber Optic Gyros (which I don't know much
> about) in the $1500-$2500 price range. There is an old adage, "Sooner or
> later, anything made from silicon will cost $5", so I can only assume that
> the days of affordable solid state gyros for GA are not too far off.
>
> What do things like the Garmin G-1000 use?

Those are non-TSO FOGS. The current crop of "gyros" used on the electronic
displays aren't actually gyros at all. They are rate of turn accellerometers.
Turns out accellerometers are dirt cheap, that IS a product that can be
made (literally) on a silicon chip. They are not as accurate, but some
genius figgured out how to tie them to GPS position to correct their
long term drift. So, in roundabout answer to this roundabout thread, they
rely on GPS, and so negate the original idea of this thread about inertial
NAV as a backup to GPS.

By the way. Don't expect FOGs to be cheap, or small anytime soon. These are
precision wound spools of optical fibre connected to lasers. Turns out there
is a minimum "bend radius" for the spool that works out to 3" or so in
diameter, which means don't expect to see it show up in a 3" instrument
package anytime soon.

As for traditional ring gyros, you are now talking precision mirrors set up
on a rigid mechanical frame with accuracy that would do a space mission
proud. I.e., forgedda 'bout it.

wrote On 12/03/05 15:31,:

> The future thinkers want to do away with even the scondary and go do ADS-B.
>

Exactly. We are talking having a cheap box with a standard VHF antenna supplanting
radar. That's big. We are talking about having "radar" displays at every small
airport.

G Farris wrote On 12/04/05 02:32,:

> I am aware of that, and I'm certainly not pretending to be "inventing"
> something here. Just seems to me that before we went whole-hog GPS we were
> seeing smart loran and RNAV boxes that could integrate a number of source
> signals. Then we threw it all away to go GPS. I think we could develop a smart
> interim solution using a mix of GPS, eLoran (which has come a ong way since we
> all turned our backs on it) and traditional graound-based nav aids.
>
> Get rid of the VOR's? Sure. Do it hastily and without forethought? That would
> be foolish, in my opinion.
>
> GF
>

Because you are talking about using a single, much less reliable ground based
signal to back up a system that uses dozens of redundant, much more reliable
signals (higher frequency, line of sight that cannot be obscured by mountains).

It amazes me that intelligent pilots can regard GPS as if it were one single
station on one single frequency. This VOR = GPS thing is all in your mind.
Its like saying that one walkie talky equals the entire cell phone system.

Newps wrote On 12/04/05 08:48,:
>
> john smith wrote:
>
>>>>>>Does LSA require and electrical system?
>>
>>
>>>>>No.
>>
>>
>>>>>>I have yet to see a handheld transponder for GA.
>>
>>
>>>>>And you won't. The new system eliminates transponders.
>>
>>
>>>>There has to be a transmitter of some type installed to broadcast.
>>
>>
>>>From: http://www.gisdevelopment.net/technology/gps/ma04082c.htm
>>
>>
>>You still will not see it available as a handheld system.
>>It will have to be installed and certified in an aircraft with an
>>approved electrical system.
>
>
> No, ADS-B will be available as a handheld device.
>

I peversely agree. The FAA won't like it, but reality will make it
come true, because eventually having one with you while flying an
ultralight is going to be a good idea.

Hell, someday they are going to put ADS-B transmitters ontop of
radio towers. It will happen.

Thomas Borchert wrote On 12/05/05 04:45,:
> G,
>
>
>>The Europeans are ready to use every available argument (the threat of the US
>>unilaterally invoking Selective Availability being their favorite) to
>>denigrate GPS, so as to pave the way for their competing system, Galileo.
>>They see a huge market potential in a pay-per-use system, designed to
>>generate windfall profits for the usual group of sweetheart companies, but
>>they are threatened by the free availability of GPS. They have to denigrate
>>it to get funding for their system, then find regulatory means to make GPS
>>receivers illegal.
>>
>
>
> Exactly. Sadly.
>

I'm sure the next step is to get the USA to fund it :-)

Roy Smith wrote On 12/05/05 07:01,:
> G Farris > wrote:
>
>
>>The Europeans are ready to use every available argument (the threat of the US
>>unilaterally invoking Selective Availability being their favorite) to
>>denigrate GPS, so as to pave the way for their competing system, Galileo.
>
>
> I can't blame them. If I lived outside the US, I would be pretty wary
> about depending on a navigation system which I had no control over. It's
> the same battle that happening now with control of the Internet.

The "battle for control of the Internet" is far more about China wanting to
censor it than any freedom issue.

G Farris wrote:

> >> I disagree. I think there is a more important problem. If you're flying
> direct
> >> routes and RNAV with GPS as primary(and only random route) source of
> >> navigation, in the event of a GPS signal degradation, you have a bit of a
> >> balancing act to do to get back to "legacy" navigation. If you're in the
> >> middle of the Great Plains that's no issue, but if you're shooting an
> approach
> >> to White Plains it may be.
> >
> >Wouldn't you be in the same situation if you were shooting an ILS
> >approach and the localizer went U/S?
>
> Not at all. The missed approach is part of the procedure, and if you've done
> good you have it all dialled-in, briefed and ready to fly. No transitioning to
> do.

The the missed for a GPS overlay approach uses a ground-based navaid,
then you still have it dialed in and ready to go; if the missed for a
ground-based-navaid approach uses the same navaid, then you still have
a problem.


All the best,


David

I can't find the link right now, but there is an all electronic (no
spinning gyro) attitude instrument available for experimental aircraft
in the $1200 range. Essentially replaces an AI or TC. Has a yaw
indicator and lots of other functionality. It is square but fits in a
round hole (no one makes round led screeens). Non - TSO of course. Not
sure of the exact technology behind it, but it works and is not any
more expensive than a traditional all electric AI.

Scott Moore wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote On 12/05/05 07:01,:
>
>>G Farris > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The Europeans are ready to use every available argument (the threat of the US
>>>unilaterally invoking Selective Availability being their favorite) to
>>>denigrate GPS, so as to pave the way for their competing system, Galileo.
>>
>>
>>I can't blame them. If I lived outside the US, I would be pretty wary
>>about depending on a navigation system which I had no control over. It's
>>the same battle that happening now with control of the Internet.
>
>
> The "battle for control of the Internet" is far more about China wanting to
> censor it than any freedom issue.
>
Maybe. I know in 1991 there was a large effort to build a "Chinese
internet" that would use ONLY Chinese. There was a company (StepTech,
IIRC) that was building "Chinese UNIX" for use in the large program. I
think it is a bit strange: the want an "internet" so they can be a world
player, but they want the world to switch to Chinese to talk to them. I
haven't heard from those guys in quite a while.

Scott Moore wrote:
> john smith wrote On 12/03/05 11:52,:
>
>>LASER ring gyros are certainly small enough, I don't know how much they
>>cost. If the US military can put them in artillery shells, they should
>>be available for light GA inertial nav systems.
>
>
> Try looking up the price of a 3 axis FOG (Fibre Optic Gyro, the cheapest type
> of laser gyro). Hint: the US military has a lot of money.
>
Funny. I remember a lot of talk about fiber optic gyros back in the
mid-1960. They still haven't made in roads as predicted.

Roy Smith wrote:

> G Farris > wrote:
>
>
>>The Europeans are ready to use every available argument (the threat of the US
>>unilaterally invoking Selective Availability being their favorite) to
>>denigrate GPS, so as to pave the way for their competing system, Galileo.
>
>
> I can't blame them. If I lived outside the US, I would be pretty wary
> about depending on a navigation system which I had no control over. It's
> the same battle that happening now with control of the Internet.

Yes, we definitely need to find a way to charge users who aren't
taxpaying US citizens!


Matt

Doug wrote:
> I can't find the link right now, but there is an all electronic (no
> spinning gyro) attitude instrument available for experimental aircraft
> in the $1200 range. Essentially replaces an AI or TC. Has a yaw
> indicator and lots of other functionality. It is square but fits in a
> round hole (no one makes round led screeens). Non - TSO of course. Not
> sure of the exact technology behind it, but it works and is not any
> more expensive than a traditional all electric AI.

I think this is the one you're referring to.
http://www.pcflightsystems.com

More features (and $$).
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com

> DME/DME is simply not in that picure.
>

You give me hope! I hate this JAA politics BS...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

MC wrote On 12/05/05 15:46,:
> Doug wrote:
>
>>I can't find the link right now, but there is an all electronic (no
>>spinning gyro) attitude instrument available for experimental aircraft
>>in the $1200 range. Essentially replaces an AI or TC. Has a yaw
>>indicator and lots of other functionality. It is square but fits in a
>>round hole (no one makes round led screeens). Non - TSO of course. Not
>>sure of the exact technology behind it, but it works and is not any
>>more expensive than a traditional all electric AI.
>
>
> I think this is the one you're referring to.
> http://www.pcflightsystems.com
>
> More features (and $$).
> http://www.bluemountainavionics.com

Both rate of turn accelerometer based.

G Farris wrote:

> The missed approach is part of the procedure, and if you've done
> good you have it all dialled-in, briefed and ready to fly.

LOC22 at KCDW requires the localizer for the missed. The NDB-A (which has a
GPS overlay now) also uses the same NDB in the missed approach procedure.

Not all approaches provide a decent transition to a missed approach in the
case of a failure of the primary NAVAID. I find that astonishing.

- Andrew

> I disagree. I think there is a more important problem. If you're flying direct
> routes and RNAV with GPS as primary(and only random route) source of
> navigation, in the event of a GPS signal degradation, you have a bit of a
> balancing act to do to get back to "legacy" navigation.

Maybe you do. I don't. I have a LORAN in the panel. Entirely
adequate backup for anything short of a GPS approach - and non-GPS
approaches are generally single-navaid dependent and not backed up, so
no step backward here. In general, when I'm going direct to a
waypoint, my LORAN and GPS both point to it. Either one can fail and
it's no skin off my nose.

I am not a fan of the whole intergrated-system concept. I like the
idea of separate boxes, different software, and different signals.

The perfect redundant RNAV solution is already here. It's an M3 IFR
GPS and an M1 LORAN. Same UI, same form factor, great redundancy. I
believe you can buy all the parts for less than $3000. Add a VOR/LOC
receiver with GS, and you really don't need anything else for effective
navigation and redundancy.

Michael

> >Not all approaches provide a decent transition

> Do you mean a "decent" or "descent" transition?

What would you consider an "indecent" transition?

john smith wrote:

>> >Not all approaches provide a decent transition
>
>> Do you mean a "decent" or "descent" transition?
>
> What would you consider an "indecent" transition?

<Grin>

What I suppose I could have written in place of "decent" would be "any".
But, in fact, the area has good RADAR coverage. So there is at least that
as a backup in the case of a NAVAID failure.

- Andrew

"Stan Gosnell" wrote:

> It's relatively cheap, and looks like a great system.

Uh-oh. Sounds like a couple dozen more OTS NOTAMs to read for every
trip.

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> >Not all approaches provide a decent transition
>
>> Do you mean a "decent" or "descent" transition?
>
> What would you consider an "indecent" transition?

Asking "How about it?" without buying dinner first.

--
Dan

"The future has actually been here for a while, it's just not readily
available to everyone."
- some guy at MIT

> can be installed at any tower, wire crossing, or other obstacle, and
> receives transponder transmissions, determines if an aircraft is likely to
> hit the obstacle, and transmits a warning on all VHF frequencies.

That sounds like a stupid system. Just what we want! (add sarcasm) A bunch
of warnings that go off on all our comm's so often that we are both annoyed
by them and desensitized by them.

Buy a GPS with terrain and obstacle warning. Then someone's buzzing, low
approach, landing, corridor flying or stupidity won't annoy everyone in a
ten mile radius.

Kobra

Stan Gosnell wrote:

> Scott Moore > wrote in news:dn293r$i4k$2
> @news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM:
>
>
>>Hell, someday they are going to put ADS-B transmitters ontop of
>>radio towers. It will happen.
>
>
> There is already a system in existence that does a good job, and the FAA
> has, or maybe still is, evaluated it. It was designed in Sweden, IIRC, and
> can be installed at any tower, wire crossing, or other obstacle, and
> receives transponder transmissions, determines if an aircraft is likely to
> hit the obstacle, and transmits a warning on all VHF frequencies. All that
> is required in the aircraft is a transponder and a VHF radio turned on. It
> operates on solar cells and batteries, as well as AC if available. It's
> relatively cheap, and looks like a great system.
>

ADS-B is going to be the ATC separation system. The movement is
probably irreversible. Austrialia (spelling?) is already a big player.

Avoidance of passive obstacle in airspace not suitable for IFR
navigation will become more and more a cockpit responsibility as
technology advances. My Garmin 296 already does an awesome job, at
least in the U.S., where all the NACO-recorded obstacles are in the
database.

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> G Farris wrote:
>
>
>> The missed approach is part of the procedure, and if you've done
>>good you have it all dialled-in, briefed and ready to fly.
>
>
> LOC22 at KCDW requires the localizer for the missed. The NDB-A (which has a
> GPS overlay now) also uses the same NDB in the missed approach procedure.
>
> Not all approaches provide a decent transition to a missed approach in the
> case of a failure of the primary NAVAID. I find that astonishing.
>
> - Andrew
>

There is so much protected airspace for these procedures that a primary
nav failure will not probably create a safety issue. And, if the
aircraft has a GPS moving map that provides a redundant positive course
guidance alternative/backup.

In the case of the new RNAV (RNP) SAAAR procedures, GPS is presumed to
fail during the approach. If the missed approach can be serviced with a
Level 1 TERPs missed approach area (criteria that have been used for
RNAV (GPS) missed approach design for about three years now, the pilot
is presumed to be able to do short term dead recogning for extraction in
the event of loss of GPS. If, howver, the missed approach requires
smaller RNP values than provided by a Level 1 missed approach, then the
aircraft must have IRU positioning to fall back on with loss of GPS.

Stan Gosnell wrote:
> wrote in news:b0Ulf.50$z21.27@fed1read04:
>
>
>>ADS-B is going to be the ATC separation system. The movement is
>>probably irreversible. Austrialia (spelling?) is already a big
>>player.
>>
>>Avoidance of passive obstacle in airspace not suitable for IFR
>>navigation will become more and more a cockpit responsibility as
>>technology advances. My Garmin 296 already does an awesome job, at
>>least in the U.S., where all the NACO-recorded obstacles are in the
>>database.
>
>
> I don't have a 296, and neither do most pilots. My employer isn't likely
> to put them in the hundreds of aircraft we fly, either. I do have a radio,
> as do most aircraft.
>
The flip side is that the few thousand airliners all have EGPWS (TAWS).
So, the 900-pound ape is already taken care of.

A small point for the airlines flying IFR: the EGPWS platform doesn't
have recorded towers and buildings unless a modification call peaks and
obstacles has been added. I believe the pricy IFR-certified Garmin
system has all that stuff.

Since the 900-pound gorilla is using EGPWS/TAWS, no one is going to
spend for the system you mention.

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Moore > wrote in news:dn293r$i4k$2
> @news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM:
>
>> Hell, someday they are going to put ADS-B transmitters ontop of
>> radio towers. It will happen.
>
> There is already a system in existence that does a good job, and the FAA
> has, or maybe still is, evaluated it. It was designed in Sweden, IIRC,
> and
> can be installed at any tower, wire crossing, or other obstacle, and
> receives transponder transmissions, determines if an aircraft is likely to
> hit the obstacle, and transmits a warning on all VHF frequencies. All
> that
> is required in the aircraft is a transponder and a VHF radio turned on.

Think about what will have to the airwaves when such a broadcast is made.

Better to have detection of the signal active an alarm in the subject
aircraft rather than broadcasting it to EVERYONE in the area.

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
>
> The radio is very low-power, and thus short-range.

Imagine what even a low power transmitter would do it operating on a tower
right near an airport.

> I don't have such a
> GPS, and my company isn't likely to buy a few hundred of them in my
> lifetime.

That's a non-reason for such a system.

Matt Barrow wrote On 12/08/05 22:06,:
> "Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Scott Moore > wrote in news:dn293r$i4k$2
:
>>
>>
>>>Hell, someday they are going to put ADS-B transmitters ontop of
>>>radio towers. It will happen.
>>
>>There is already a system in existence that does a good job, and the FAA
>>has, or maybe still is, evaluated it. It was designed in Sweden, IIRC,
>>and
>>can be installed at any tower, wire crossing, or other obstacle, and
>>receives transponder transmissions, determines if an aircraft is likely to
>>hit the obstacle, and transmits a warning on all VHF frequencies. All
>>that
>>is required in the aircraft is a transponder and a VHF radio turned on.
>
>
> Think about what will have to the airwaves when such a broadcast is made.
>
> Better to have detection of the signal active an alarm in the subject
> aircraft rather than broadcasting it to EVERYONE in the area.
>
>
>

Kinda like ADS-B. Hey, didn't we start there ?

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote On 12/08/05 22:06,:
>> "Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Scott Moore > wrote in news:dn293r$i4k$2
:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hell, someday they are going to put ADS-B transmitters ontop of
>>>>radio towers. It will happen.
>>>
>>>There is already a system in existence that does a good job, and the FAA
>>>has, or maybe still is, evaluated it. It was designed in Sweden, IIRC,
>>>and
>>>can be installed at any tower, wire crossing, or other obstacle, and
>>>receives transponder transmissions, determines if an aircraft is likely
>>>to
>>>hit the obstacle, and transmits a warning on all VHF frequencies. All
>>>that
>>>is required in the aircraft is a transponder and a VHF radio turned on.
>>
>>
>> Think about what will have to the airwaves when such a broadcast is made.
>>
>> Better to have detection of the signal active an alarm in the subject
>> aircraft rather than broadcasting it to EVERYONE in the area.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Kinda like ADS-B. Hey, didn't we start there ?

Not on voice channels that EVERYONE heard the warning (and then had to
decide if THEY were the one being warned.

> The transmitter is such low power that it only transmits for a mile or
> so. It doesn't overpower everything over a wide area.

So if you're travelling at 120 knots you get thirty seconds max between
the beginning of audibility and passing the obstacle. Depending on what
the radio is trying to tell you, and how long it takes to go through the
cycle, that may not really be much time.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> The radio just says "Wires!" or whatever the obstacle is. Better than
> nothing, no?

No. It has unintended effects (such as, on the ground it obliterates
all aviation communication for a few square miles, of interest to
aviators who live there). Many things can be justified under the "if it
only saves one life..." banner, but I'm not convinced that if I'm flying
in the scud, hearing "wires" in my radio while I'm trying to listen to
an ATIS is all that helpful.

"Wires??? Where? WHERE??? I CAN'T SEE ANY WIRES...O MY GOD I'M GONNA
DIE.... oh, six hundred feet below and half a mile to the right. Never
mind." :)

Now, was that three two zero at one five, or three one five at two zero...

SPROING... (as the other wires catch the wheels.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Did you even bother to look at the document I linked to?

No. I should have. But then, this is usenet. :)

I was assuming it was a continuous broadcast, involving little more than
a low power transmitter. According to the article..

> An early focus on continuous, low-power radio warnings from hazard sites "turned out not to be a good idea,"

The system they are now considering involves...

> low-power radar that would detect aircraft on a collision course with a hazard, then trigger high-intensity lights on the hazard and broadcast an aural VHF warning. That turned out better.

This addresses two of my concerns. Maybe I'm just too old fashioned.
It might actually be a good idea.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.