Don't sell your loran

[Bob Gardner]

At the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference, one-time FAA
Administrator Langhorn Bond told me that loran is coming back as a backup to
GPS. He obviously sits on a lot of committees, work groups, etc
internationally, and has a lot of good info. He pointed out that on two
occasions sunspots have essentially shut down GPS, and he believes that
sole-source GPS may never happen. He was particularly disturbed by a GPS
NOTAM saying, in essence, that if you have WAAS you don't need anything
else.

Controllers as a group are unhappy with approach designers, who do not work
with ATC facilities when designing GPS approaches. Angel Fire, NM, was given
as an example...one IAF 15 miles from the centerpost fix on a basic-T TAA,
with the missed approach waypoint 20 miles from the airport. A 172 on the
GPS approach can shut down thousands of square miles of airspace, overlying
several airports and some Nellis AFB IR routes, for 45 minutes to an hour if
they execute the miss to the missed approach hold. The controllers would
prefer that pilots ask for alternative miss procedures that would keep them
in closer before they initiate the approach.

Bob Gardner

[Ben Jackson]

Actually, the reason I wasn't going to sell my LORAN was that last time
I looked on eBay someone had one up for $9 which got no bids...

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Bob Gardner]

Honestly, I'm not at all sure that the existing boxes will fill the bill
when this all comes to pass. I can see a combo GPS/Loran box in the
future...the distant future.

Bob

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:zLYhc.4691$0u6.982801@attbi_s03...
> Actually, the reason I wasn't going to sell my LORAN was that last time
> I looked on eBay someone had one up for $9 which got no bids...
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:zLYhc.4691$0u6.982801@attbi_s03...
> Actually, the reason I wasn't going to sell my LORAN was that last time
> I looked on eBay someone had one up for $9 which got no bids...
>
Put it in your car by the sun visor; that way criminals will steal it rather
than your radar detector.

[David Reinhart]

I find it hard to believe that sunspots bad enough to shut down the GPS
frequencies won't play havoc with the LF frequencies used by LORAN. In terms of
frequency, the best alternative to GPS is probably ground-based VHF/UHF
(VOR/DME) navigation.

Dave Reinhart


Bob Gardner wrote:

> At the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference, one-time FAA
> Administrator Langhorn Bond told me that loran is coming back as a backup to
> GPS. He obviously sits on a lot of committees, work groups, etc
> internationally, and has a lot of good info. He pointed out that on two
> occasions sunspots have essentially shut down GPS, and he believes that
> sole-source GPS may never happen. He was particularly disturbed by a GPS
> NOTAM saying, in essence, that if you have WAAS you don't need anything
> else.
>
> Controllers as a group are unhappy with approach designers, who do not work
> with ATC facilities when designing GPS approaches. Angel Fire, NM, was given
> as an example...one IAF 15 miles from the centerpost fix on a basic-T TAA,
> with the missed approach waypoint 20 miles from the airport. A 172 on the
> GPS approach can shut down thousands of square miles of airspace, overlying
> several airports and some Nellis AFB IR routes, for 45 minutes to an hour if
> they execute the miss to the missed approach hold. The controllers would
> prefer that pilots ask for alternative miss procedures that would keep them
> in closer before they initiate the approach.
>
> Bob Gardner

[Bob Noel]

In article <xxYhc.4538$cF6.228992@attbi_s04>, "Bob Gardner"
> wrote:

> At the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference, one-time FAA
> Administrator Langhorn Bond told me that loran is coming back as a backup
> to
> GPS.

otoh - keeping LORAN working properly with precip static is not
easy...

--
Bob Noel

[Newps]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:xxYhc.4538$cF6.228992@attbi_s04...


> Controllers as a group are unhappy with approach designers, who do not
work
> with ATC facilities when designing GPS approaches.

The designs aren't so bad, it's the godawful names of the fixes they come up
with.

The controllers would
> prefer that pilots ask for alternative miss procedures that would keep
them
> in closer before they initiate the approach.

Pilots don't have to ask for it, controllers can assign them. Controllers
can deny the use of a published missed. For example do you think at any
major terminal you will do a published missed?

[Bob Gardner]

Were you at the conference? I would have bought you a beer. All I can do is
report what went on at the conference...I am neither a controller nor an FAA
bigwig.

Bob Gardner

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> news:xxYhc.4538$cF6.228992@attbi_s04...
>
>
> > Controllers as a group are unhappy with approach designers, who do not
> work
> > with ATC facilities when designing GPS approaches.
>
> The designs aren't so bad, it's the godawful names of the fixes they come
up
> with.
>
> The controllers would
> > prefer that pilots ask for alternative miss procedures that would keep
> them
> > in closer before they initiate the approach.
>
> Pilots don't have to ask for it, controllers can assign them. Controllers
> can deny the use of a published missed. For example do you think at any
> major terminal you will do a published missed?
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

Off the top of my head, I don't think that sunspots in and of themselves
will be a problem much of the time. However, some kind of backup is needed.
Having spent a portion of my life on the transmitter end of loran, I
understand its limitations...but I have to wonder...how often will solar
activity and precip static coincide when I am flying? The odds are pretty
good in my favor.

Bob Gardner

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <xxYhc.4538$cF6.228992@attbi_s04>, "Bob Gardner"
> > wrote:
>
> > At the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference, one-time FAA
> > Administrator Langhorn Bond told me that loran is coming back as a
backup
> > to
> > GPS.
>
> otoh - keeping LORAN working properly with precip static is not
> easy...
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[[email protected]]

I would prefer to have one of those boxes (I forget what they're called
- they're from before my time 8^) ) that creates virtual waypoints using
VORs and DME. I would think that would be the ideal alternative to GPS,
seeing as the VOR/DME signals are less susceptible to environmentally
caused signal degradation.

I've never used a LORAN either, so I don't have any personal experience
with how they behave overall. But if they can be compared to NDB/ADF
behavior in any way, count me out.

Dave Blevins

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:27:25 GMT, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>At the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference, one-time FAA
>Administrator Langhorn Bond told me that loran is coming back as a backup to
>GPS. He obviously sits on a lot of committees, work groups, etc
>internationally, and has a lot of good info. He pointed out that on two
>occasions sunspots have essentially shut down GPS, and he believes that
>sole-source GPS may never happen. He was particularly disturbed by a GPS
>NOTAM saying, in essence, that if you have WAAS you don't need anything
>else.
>
>Controllers as a group are unhappy with approach designers, who do not work
>with ATC facilities when designing GPS approaches. Angel Fire, NM, was given
>as an example...one IAF 15 miles from the centerpost fix on a basic-T TAA,
>with the missed approach waypoint 20 miles from the airport. A 172 on the
>GPS approach can shut down thousands of square miles of airspace, overlying
>several airports and some Nellis AFB IR routes, for 45 minutes to an hour if
>they execute the miss to the missed approach hold. The controllers would
>prefer that pilots ask for alternative miss procedures that would keep them
>in closer before they initiate the approach.
>
>Bob Gardner
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article <fU%hc.5538$YP5.537273@attbi_s02>, "Bob Gardner"
> wrote:

> Off the top of my head, I don't think that sunspots in and of themselves
> will be a problem much of the time. However, some kind of backup is
> needed.
> Having spent a portion of my life on the transmitter end of loran, I
> understand its limitations...but I have to wonder...how often will solar
> activity and precip static coincide when I am flying? The odds are pretty
> good in my favor.

the problem with Lorans and precip static is that you get
precip static in the clouds pretty easily with Loran and IMC
is exactly when you need Loran to work.

--
Bob Noel

[Nathan Young]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 02:22:11 GMT, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article <xxYhc.4538$cF6.228992@attbi_s04>, "Bob Gardner"
> wrote:
>
>> At the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference, one-time FAA
>> Administrator Langhorn Bond told me that loran is coming back as a backup
>> to
>> GPS.
>
>otoh - keeping LORAN working properly with precip static is not
>easy...

The LORAN receivers that many of us have in our GA planes are based on
15-20 year old technology. Newer LORAN receivers utilize magnetic
field antennas and advanced DSP processing to greatly improve
reception and immunity to airborne static issues.

In my opinion, the leader in the LORAN industry is LOCUS in Madison
Wisconsin. Take a look at their website, they have many interesting
whitepapers on LORAN as a backup/compliment to GPS.

http://www.locusinc.com/articles.html

-Nathan

[Michael]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote
> Honestly, I'm not at all sure that the existing boxes will fill the bill
> when this all comes to pass. I can see a combo GPS/Loran box in the
> future...the distant future.

You mean like the Northstar M2?

Michael

[Michael]

wrote
> I would prefer to have one of those boxes (I forget what they're called
> - they're from before my time 8^) ) that creates virtual waypoints using
> VORs and DME. I would think that would be the ideal alternative to GPS,
> seeing as the VOR/DME signals are less susceptible to environmentally
> caused signal degradation.

They're caller rho-theta RNAV (also VOR-DME RNAV). The KNS-80 was
probably the most popular, and it works well, but there are quirks.
Most importantly, it won't usbstitute for the underlying navaid on an
approach, the way GPS and LORAN will - get low and you lose the VOR
and/or DME signal.

> I've never used a LORAN either, so I don't have any personal experience
> with how they behave overall. But if they can be compared to NDB/ADF
> behavior in any way, count me out.

They can't. Actually, I use LORAN all the time. IMO the hot setup is
LORAN and GPS in separate boxes with separate power sources.

Michael

[gatt]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:zLYhc.4691$0u6.982801@attbi_s03...
> Actually, the reason I wasn't going to sell my LORAN was that last time
> I looked on eBay someone had one up for $9 which got no bids...

Heck, might be a good time to pick up a used LORAN!

-c

[Andrew Gideon]

Michael wrote:

> wrote
>> I would prefer to have one of those boxes (I forget what they're called
>> - they're from before my time 8^) ) that creates virtual waypoints using
>> VORs and DME. I would think that would be the ideal alternative to GPS,
>> seeing as the VOR/DME signals are less susceptible to environmentally
>> caused signal degradation.
>
> They're caller rho-theta RNAV (also VOR-DME RNAV). The KNS-80 was
> probably the most popular, and it works well, but there are quirks.
> Most importantly, it won't usbstitute for the underlying navaid on an
> approach, the way GPS and LORAN will - get low and you lose the VOR
> and/or DME signal.

[...]

> They can't. Actually, I use LORAN all the time. IMO the hot setup is
> LORAN and GPS in separate boxes with separate power sources.

I like the idea of two separate units[1], but why not have both be "combo"
units like (I think) one you mentioned earlier on this thread. In fact,
why not have that "combo" unit also exploit VOR/DME input? There's really
no reason why the current GPS UIs couldn't be put on a box that uses any
(reasonably accurate {8^) means of navigation.

The fact that some signals disappear under certain conditions (satellite
view, sunspots, descending below VOR coverage, etc.) must become part of
the procedure for using the box...but this is already the case, just on
separate devices.

Ultimately, I hope, adding a new navigation sensor (ie. GA-cheap inertial
navigation {8^) will make no real difference in the procedures through
which we use our navigation devices.

- Andrew

[1] I just flew a GPS approach today that had a GPS-only
missed. As I fly with only a single IFR-certified GPS,
these make me somewhat uncomfortable.

[G.R. Patterson III]

gatt wrote:
>
> Heck, might be a good time to pick up a used LORAN!

Do your research first. Check to make sure the database is still supported. If it is
still supported, check to make sure they still load all the airports.

George Patterson
If you don't lie, you never have to remember what you said.

[[email protected]]

We have an old Loran (Airnav) in our 172 as a backup to our
new Airmap 1000..

One of the batts is dead (the one that stores last known
position) so we have to initialize it at each startup (about a 10
second procedure) untill we get the batt replaced...

Testing it alongside the Airmap, it is deadly .. accuracy is
very good, and it is east to use despite no "moving map"....

..........but I have retained my loran on my boat as well..
works good, reliable, and a positioning device comes under the heading
of "one is good, two is better" category..

As long as it works, it has a home in my panel...

Dave

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:01:54 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Michael wrote:
>
>> wrote
>>> I would prefer to have one of those boxes (I forget what they're called
>>> - they're from before my time 8^) ) that creates virtual waypoints using
>>> VORs and DME. I would think that would be the ideal alternative to GPS,
>>> seeing as the VOR/DME signals are less susceptible to environmentally
>>> caused signal degradation.
>>
>> They're caller rho-theta RNAV (also VOR-DME RNAV). The KNS-80 was
>> probably the most popular, and it works well, but there are quirks.
>> Most importantly, it won't usbstitute for the underlying navaid on an
>> approach, the way GPS and LORAN will - get low and you lose the VOR
>> and/or DME signal.
>
>[...]
>
>> They can't. Actually, I use LORAN all the time. IMO the hot setup is
>> LORAN and GPS in separate boxes with separate power sources.
>
>I like the idea of two separate units[1], but why not have both be "combo"
>units like (I think) one you mentioned earlier on this thread. In fact,
>why not have that "combo" unit also exploit VOR/DME input? There's really
>no reason why the current GPS UIs couldn't be put on a box that uses any
>(reasonably accurate {8^) means of navigation.
>
>The fact that some signals disappear under certain conditions (satellite
>view, sunspots, descending below VOR coverage, etc.) must become part of
>the procedure for using the box...but this is already the case, just on
>separate devices.
>
>Ultimately, I hope, adding a new navigation sensor (ie. GA-cheap inertial
>navigation {8^) will make no real difference in the procedures through
>which we use our navigation devices.
>
> - Andrew
>
>[1] I just flew a GPS approach today that had a GPS-only
> missed. As I fly with only a single IFR-certified GPS,
> these make me somewhat uncomfortable.

[JFLEISC]

Speaking of which; I have an Apollo 618C Loran. I would like to get updated
data base chips but can't find out where (if they are still available). I see
Garmin bought them out but can't find anything on their web site.

Jim

[Joe Young]

"JFLEISC" > wrote in message
...
> Speaking of which; I have an Apollo 618C Loran. I would like to get
updated
> data base chips but can't find out where (if they are still available). I
see
> Garmin bought them out but can't find anything on their web site.
>
> Jim

One possibility is to replace your 618 with a Flybuddy 800 (slide in
replacement) unit and get an updated Flybrary card from Garmin AT or Jepp.
I assume the Flybrary cards are still being updated since they were used on
some of the newer Apollo equipment. Two Flybuddy lorans recently sold on
eBay for less than $100 each.

Joe

[Jeff Saylor]

Michael wrote:

> wrote
> > I would prefer to have one of those boxes (I forget what they're called
> > - they're from before my time 8^) ) that creates virtual waypoints using
> > VORs and DME. I would think that would be the ideal alternative to GPS,
> > seeing as the VOR/DME signals are less susceptible to environmentally
> > caused signal degradation.
>
> They're caller rho-theta RNAV (also VOR-DME RNAV). The KNS-80 was
> probably the most popular, and it works well, but there are quirks.
> Most importantly, it won't usbstitute for the underlying navaid on an
> approach, the way GPS and LORAN will - get low and you lose the VOR
> and/or DME signal.

The KNS-80 is a very nice box. Calculates time and distance to any waypoint
defined by a radial and distance from a VOR. Enroute and Approach modes.
Includes 4 waypoints with non-volatile memory. Easy to have an autopilot
slaved to it. Best of all, no damned database to update every 56 days (or any
time) to keep it current for IFR. It's successor (KNS-82 or KNS-88?) box had
additional waypoint memory.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that Bendix-King/Allied-Signal/Honeywell has
manufactured the KNS-80 and related boxes in years. LORAN and then GPS really
killed the market for that box, as everyone preferred the more sophisticated
boxes. It's still a nice thing to have though.

[Michael]

Jeff Saylor > wrote
> Unfortunately, I don't believe that Bendix-King/Allied-Signal/Honeywell has
> manufactured the KNS-80 and related boxes in years.

No, but they're avaiable on the used market dirt cheap. I've got a
friend who will happily sell his for $300.

Michael

[Richard Kaplan]

> wrote in message
...

> I've never used a LORAN either, so I don't have any personal experience
> with how they behave overall. But if they can be compared to NDB/ADF
> behavior in any way, count me out.

I have GPS, Loran, NDB, and also KNS-80 VOR/DME RNAV in my airplane.

If the chips go down, the Loran is much more reliable/accurate than the
VOR/DME RNAV.

VOR/DME RNAV relies on the accuracy of the VOR receiver and how well you
dial in a radial; it can easily be a mile or so off on a waypont.

Loran is much more reliable and accurate then VOR/DME RNAV. Loran got a bad
name simply because its signal tends to degrade in active precipitation,
especially snow... this can be reduced considerably however by placing
static wicks on the airplane.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
> Loran got a bad
> name simply because its signal tends to degrade in active precipitation,
> especially snow...

Actually, I think most of the blame can be laid to the state of the art in computers
when the LORANs were developed. Mine takes several minutes to adjust to a change in
course, and I have seen it report a steady decrease in distance to an airport for
quite some time after one has turned directly away. It would not be useful for
maintaining distance from a controlled field.

Maybe with a faster CPU, LORAN would get more respect.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Mine takes several minutes to adjust to a change in
> course, and I have seen it report a steady decrease in distance to an
airport for
> quite some time after one has turned directly away. It would not be useful
for
> maintaining distance from a controlled field.

\What LORAN receiver do you have? My Northstar M1 LORAN exhibits neither of
those problems.

What it *does* do is suffer significant errors in position on occasion,
which I haven't gotten a good explanation for. The errors are up to 20
miles off at times, and I have only noticed them when flying near home (but
of course, this is where I do most of my flying, so that may not indicate
anything). I do notice that when I fly long cross-country flights, I don't
have to go very far (50-100 miles) before the LORAN wants to change from one
GRI (or is that just my LORAN's way of saying "grid"? I can't remember) to
another. Maybe I'm right on the edge of reception for the one that the
LORAN unit wants to use (or on the edge of multiples, for all I know).

I doubt that this issue is a programming problem though. More likely a
fundamental limitation of the ground-based radio chain.

Pete

[Richard Kaplan]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...>

> when the LORANs were developed. Mine takes several minutes to adjust to a
change in
> course, and I have seen it report a steady decrease in distance to an
airport for
> quite some time after one has turned directly away. It would not be useful
for
> maintaining distance from a controlled field.

If you didn't look at the name of my unit, you would be hard-pressed to tell
based on performance if I have a Northstar M1 Loran or a Northstar M3 GPS.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> What LORAN receiver do you have? My Northstar M1 LORAN exhibits neither of
> those problems.

I have the Foster LRN-501.

> What it *does* do is suffer significant errors in position on occasion,
> which I haven't gotten a good explanation for. The errors are up to 20
> miles off at times, and I have only noticed them when flying near home (but
> of course, this is where I do most of my flying, so that may not indicate
> anything).

From the Foster manual. There are 6 LORAN chains in the U.S. (4 in the lower 48) and
more outside, and each is made up of a "master" transmitter and two or three "slave"
transmitters. These are synchronized and transmit timing info as part of the signals.
The receiver figures out where you are by calculating the difference between the
three transmitters and triangulating. Significant position errors can result when the
master and either of the slave stations are in line with your aircraft (you're
between them or they are both off to one side).

> I do notice that when I fly long cross-country flights, I don't
> have to go very far (50-100 miles) before the LORAN wants to change from one
> GRI (or is that just my LORAN's way of saying "grid"? I can't remember) to
> another.

GRI is "Group Repetition Interval', but basically it's saying it wants to change
chains.

> Maybe I'm right on the edge of reception for the one that the
> LORAN unit wants to use (or on the edge of multiples, for all I know).

Yep. Mine wants to change chains about the North Carolina/South Carolina border.
Reception sucks sometimes in Knoxville, and that's on a border as well. IIRC, you're
in Washington State? If so, you're at the boundary of the U.S and Canadian West Coast
chains. To make matters worse, the slave in your area (located in the middle of the
State) is shared by both chains.

> I doubt that this issue is a programming problem though. More likely a
> fundamental limitation of the ground-based radio chain.

Yep again. Programming would never enter into the situation. A faster CPU would,
however, result in the unit refreshing its idea of your position more rapidly after a
change of course (or your speed after leveling off, etc.).

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Significant position errors can result when the
> master and either of the slave stations are in line with your aircraft
(you're
> between them or they are both off to one side).

Interesting. My position errors always occur in the same geographical
location (just east of the Olympic Mountains)...I wonder if that location
happens to be in line with a master and a slave.

> Yep. Mine wants to change chains about the North Carolina/South Carolina
border.
> Reception sucks sometimes in Knoxville, and that's on a border as well.
IIRC, you're
> in Washington State? If so, you're at the boundary of the U.S and Canadian
West Coast
> chains. To make matters worse, the slave in your area (located in the
middle of the
> State) is shared by both chains.

You recall correctly. Based out of Paine Field, just north of Seattle. The
"zone of confusion" lies about 15-25 miles roughly southwest of Paine. I
have noticed that the receiver is marginally better when using the US West
Coast chain, but for whatever reason it always wants to use the Canadian
West Coast chain in the Puget Sound region. That's certainly a programming
issue: no way to override the chain in use. I can switch it manually, but
the LORAN unit immediately starts bugging me to switch back.

Back to the previous question of position errors... I found the locations
of the various LORAN chains, with the master and slaves. It doesn't appear
that the general area where I get the errors is in line with the master (in
Williams Lake, BC) and the slave (in George, WA). In fact, I'd have to be
over on the other side of the Cascades for that to happen.

However, I *am* flying near the Olympic Mountains, which might cause signal
reflections. I have seen some bizarre effects flying NDB approaches near
shorelines, where the ADF shows me right on course, but visually I can see
I'm well to the side (over a mile off in some cases). I wonder if similar
variations affect LORAN. The calculations must assume straight-line signal
propagation, so I suppose anything that caused the signal to not follow a
straight line would cause errors.

Though, now that I think about it, a reflection would make it appear I was
farther from the station, and the errors I'm getting are putting me closer
to it.

Ahh well...the mystery continues. Anyway, just wanted to mention that not
all units are afflicted with the same delay in position calculations your
unit appears to be. :)

Pete