Re: Big News -- WAAS GPS is Operational for IFR

[Lockheed employee]

More gibberish and sensless unfounded babble.



On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:22:38 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
>news:669da89399b1403eaf276544232ee932@TeraNews...
>> This is big news --- WAAS GPS is oficially operational for IFR use:
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-3-019x.html
>>
>>
>> However, it looks like the timeframe to get low IFR approach minimums will
>> be longer than originally anticipated. Also a prior post sugested it may
>> cost $1500 to update a Gamin 530, which means some people may choose not
>to
>> upgrade... soon when getting into a rental or club plane with a GPS, there
>> may be not only IFR vs. VFR installations but also WAAS IFR instalations
>to
>> complicate things further.
>
>"For the near future, the "gold standard" for approach guidance remains an
>instrument landing system (ILS). Ultimately though, in perhaps a decade's
>time, WAAS has the potential to offer ILS-quality information to pilots in a
>typical four-seat single-engine GA aircraft."
>
>That will be right around the time L5 becomes available and WAAS is
>obsolete.
>
>John P. Tarver, MS/PE
>
>
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >
> > "For the near future, the "gold standard" for approach guidance remains
an
> > instrument landing system (ILS). Ultimately though, in perhaps a
decade's
> > time, WAAS has the potential to offer ILS-quality information to pilots
in a
> > typical four-seat single-engine GA aircraft."
> >
> > That will be right around the time L5 becomes available and WAAS is
> > obsolete.

> If they use it to lower mins at ILS airports, perhaps. If they use it to
lower
> the typical 800 mins on nonprecision GPS approaches, thats a different
story.

I am pleased FAA finally made a drop, but it is doubtful WAAS was necessary
to the change. A 3dB inprovement in accuracy is not enough to justify the
cost.

> I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that if WAAS is a
boondoggle,
> so is LAAS. So that's gonna take longer, too.

WAAS is so much cheaper that you could have CAT IIIb everywhere for what has
alredy been spent on WAAS.

[Scott Moore]

Speaking for myself, if you are not going to argue with facts, then you are
wasting our time.

Lockheed employee wrote:
>
> More gibberish and sensless unfounded babble.
>
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:22:38 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
> >news:669da89399b1403eaf276544232ee932@TeraNews...
> >> This is big news --- WAAS GPS is oficially operational for IFR use:
> >>
> >> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-3-019x.html
> >>
> >>
> >> However, it looks like the timeframe to get low IFR approach minimums will
> >> be longer than originally anticipated. Also a prior post sugested it may
> >> cost $1500 to update a Gamin 530, which means some people may choose not
> >to
> >> upgrade... soon when getting into a rental or club plane with a GPS, there
> >> may be not only IFR vs. VFR installations but also WAAS IFR instalations
> >to
> >> complicate things further.
> >
> >"For the near future, the "gold standard" for approach guidance remains an
> >instrument landing system (ILS). Ultimately though, in perhaps a decade's
> >time, WAAS has the potential to offer ILS-quality information to pilots in a
> >typical four-seat single-engine GA aircraft."
> >
> >That will be right around the time L5 becomes available and WAAS is
> >obsolete.
> >
> >John P. Tarver, MS/PE
> >
> >
> >
> >

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
> Speaking for myself, if you are not going to argue with facts, then you
are
> wasting our time.

Just ignore the sock, Scott. At least this newsgroup can remain
professional.

Besides that, once we find out what "sole means" is in this version, we can
start all our GPS navigation discussions over, with other than a tuna
sandwich. I am very pleased that FAA made a WAAS drop.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[PlanetJ]

Good news but the FAA will not admit the big problem with SatNAV. WAAS
really doesn't address the RFI/Jamming problem. Intentional and
non-intentional RFI and jamming is still a concern. GPS is still very
vulnerable too interference and jamming. The new more powerful satellites
don't go up until 2008. Look for VOR/ILS/DME to hang around another 10 years
or so.

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:669da89399b1403eaf276544232ee932@TeraNews...
> This is big news --- WAAS GPS is oficially operational for IFR use:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-3-019x.html
>
>
> However, it looks like the timeframe to get low IFR approach minimums will
> be longer than originally anticipated. Also a prior post sugested it may
> cost $1500 to update a Gamin 530, which means some people may choose not
to
> upgrade... soon when getting into a rental or club plane with a GPS, there
> may be not only IFR vs. VFR installations but also WAAS IFR instalations
to
> complicate things further.
>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

[Scott Moore]

And yet another canard I find very tiring.....

PlanetJ wrote:
>
> Good news but the FAA will not admit the big problem with SatNAV. WAAS
> really doesn't address the RFI/Jamming problem. Intentional and
> non-intentional RFI and jamming is still a concern. GPS is still very
> vulnerable too interference and jamming. The new more powerful satellites
> don't go up until 2008. Look for VOR/ILS/DME to hang around another 10 years
> or so.
>
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
> news:669da89399b1403eaf276544232ee932@TeraNews...
> > This is big news --- WAAS GPS is oficially operational for IFR use:
> >
> > http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-3-019x.html
> >
> >
> > However, it looks like the timeframe to get low IFR approach minimums will
> > be longer than originally anticipated. Also a prior post sugested it may
> > cost $1500 to update a Gamin 530, which means some people may choose not
> to
> > upgrade... soon when getting into a rental or club plane with a GPS, there
> > may be not only IFR vs. VFR installations but also WAAS IFR instalations
> to
> > complicate things further.
> >
> > --
> > Richard Kaplan, CFII
> >
> > www.flyimc.com
> >
> >

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Scott Moore
> wrote:

> And yet another canard I find very tiring.....

you may find it tiring, but feel free to present some facts
backing up your apparent belief that GPS is immune to jamming.

Don't get me wrong, I know that GPS is very useful. But I'm not
blind to its weaknesses.



>
> PlanetJ wrote:
> >
> > Good news but the FAA will not admit the big problem with SatNAV. WAAS
> > really doesn't address the RFI/Jamming problem. Intentional and
> > non-intentional RFI and jamming is still a concern. GPS is still very
> > vulnerable too interference and jamming. The new more powerful
> > satellites
> > don't go up until 2008. Look for VOR/ILS/DME to hang around another 10
> > years
> > or so.

--
Bob Noel

[C J Campbell]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
| In article >, Scott Moore
| > wrote:
|
| > And yet another canard I find very tiring.....
|
| you may find it tiring, but feel free to present some facts
| backing up your apparent belief that GPS is immune to jamming.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I know that GPS is very useful. But I'm not
| blind to its weaknesses.
|

It would be interesting to see some data that show that GPS is frequently
compromised by unintentional jamming. If someone says that GPS jamming is a
problem, the burden of proof is on them to support that assertion.

Scott did not say that GPS is immune to jamming -- no radio navigational aid
is -- but only that the possibility seems way overemphasized. Face it: we
are not going back to 4-way radio ranges because some pilots still think
VORs are too unreliable.

[Scott Moore]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> In article >, Scott Moore
> > wrote:
>
> > And yet another canard I find very tiring.....
>
> you may find it tiring, but feel free to present some facts
> backing up your apparent belief that GPS is immune to jamming.

People here never seem to get tired of misrepresenting and distorting
my position on this (apparently it is too difficult to argue on a
factual basis).

I never claimed that GPS was immune to jamming. I have stated, and I stand
by it, that it is pointless to argue about GPS jamming if the other,
existing services can also be jammed.

But since nobody here has ever produced proof of either, this argument
is pointless, and I don't feel the need to start yet another mudslinging
contest yet again.

In the Iraq war, a GPS jammer was taken out with a GPS guided missile.
That speaks worlds about the GPS jamming issue.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Scott Moore
> wrote:

> I never claimed that GPS was immune to jamming. I have stated, and I stand
> by it, that it is pointless to argue about GPS jamming if the other,
> existing services can also be jammed.

Then we'll just have to disagree. I'll stand by the fact that
GPS jamming can be achieved with much lower transmitted power
than for any of the other existing radio navaids. This is the relevant
point.


> But since nobody here has ever produced proof of either

what? you've never seen any proof that GPS can jammed and
quite easily?

Why do you think that certain transmitted VHF frequencies
have to be checked during a GPS installation?

Is there anything on your aircraft that can jam any other existing
radio navaid?

--
Bob Noel

[Tarver Engineering]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Scott Moore
> > wrote:
>
> > I never claimed that GPS was immune to jamming. I have stated, and I
stand
> > by it, that it is pointless to argue about GPS jamming if the other,
> > existing services can also be jammed.
>
> Then we'll just have to disagree. I'll stand by the fact that
> GPS jamming can be achieved with much lower transmitted power
> than for any of the other existing radio navaids. This is the relevant
> point.

In what way is your point relevent, Bob? It seems to me that spoofing is
far more an issue in creating an intentional navigation hazard.

> > But since nobody here has ever produced proof of either
>
> what? you've never seen any proof that GPS can jammed and
> quite easily?
>
> Why do you think that certain transmitted VHF frequencies
> have to be checked during a GPS installation?

Harmonics from your Com radio.

> Is there anything on your aircraft that can jam any other existing
> radio navaid?

Sure.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[C J Campbell]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:12314a1ab0a0c5f1420eacc57b51be6d@TeraNews...
|
|
|
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
|
| > It would be interesting to see some data that show that GPS is
frequently
| > compromised by unintentional jamming. If someone says that GPS jamming
is
| a
| > problem, the burden of proof is on them to support that assertion.
|
| Intentional or not, there are frequent NOTAMs that GPS is unreliable in
| certain regions. Who knows if this is due to technical issues or military
| testing or whatever. No matter the cause, it is clear GPS can and will
| become inoperative at certain times in certain regions. It therefore
seems
| rational to expect that non-GPS backup nav system will need to remain in
| place indefinitely.


I might point out that VORs are also inoperative at certain time in certain
regions. The Mc Chord VOR has not worked in over a year, despite it being an
important airway intersection. So what are you suggesting we use for backup
navigation systems for the VOR?

[David Megginson]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> I might point out that VORs are also inoperative at certain time in
> certain regions. The Mc Chord VOR has not worked in over a year,
> despite it being an important airway intersection. So what are you
> suggesting we use for backup navigation systems for the VOR?

Redundancy. In the continental U.S., you have an extremely dense VOR
system, so that you will usually be in reception range of quite a
few other VORs and can easily navigate even without radar vectors; in
Canada, we have a parallel system of NDB airways to accomplish
basically the same thing.

If Galileo ever gets running, you can have that kind of redundancy for
satellite-based navigation as well.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Ray Andraka]

The difference is that a VOR outage affects only that VOR, so a workaround
exists using other VORs and the same equipment in the aircraft. A GPS outage
affects the system, at least within an area, so there are no alternative
stations to tune to for a work-around.

C J Campbell wrote:

> I might point out that VORs are also inoperative at certain time in certain
> regions. The Mc Chord VOR has not worked in over a year, despite it being an
> important airway intersection. So what are you suggesting we use for backup
> navigation systems for the VOR?

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Scott Moore]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> In article >, Scott Moore
> > wrote:
>
> > I never claimed that GPS was immune to jamming. I have stated, and I stand
> > by it, that it is pointless to argue about GPS jamming if the other,
> > existing services can also be jammed.
>
> Then we'll just have to disagree. I'll stand by the fact that
> GPS jamming can be achieved with much lower transmitted power
> than for any of the other existing radio navaids. This is the relevant
> point.

Well I sure feel safer knowing that Everready access stands in the way of the
terrorists !

>
> > But since nobody here has ever produced proof of either
>
> what? you've never seen any proof that GPS can jammed and
> quite easily?
>
> Why do you think that certain transmitted VHF frequencies
> have to be checked during a GPS installation?

What we have seen is lots of folks who like to make headlines, and very
little in the way of actual studies, including comparitive studies on
jamming GPS vs. jamming other services.

Again, again, and again as many times as you want to go around this
tree, if VOR can be jammed just as well as GPS, there is no reason
for chicken little to run around yelling about the vulnerability
of GPS. It makes no sense to claim that VOR is "better" based on
one sided distorted comparisions, which ignoring *any* ability to
jam VOR certainly is. I don't care if it costs $1000 to build a VOR
jammer vs. $100 for a GPS jammer. The fact that both can be jammed
is a relivant point, unless you are going to now argue that lack
of $900 can keep all these imagined terrorists ready to attack the
GPS system at bay.

>
> Is there anything on your aircraft that can jam any other existing
> radio navaid?

Whatever. We are back to mudslinging and lack of facts. I don't have
the ability to evaluate GPS jamming, nor VOR jamming, and you basically
have the ability to yell a lot. Neither is productive, but at least I am
honest about it.

>
> --
> Bob Noel

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Scott Moore]

David Megginson wrote:

> If Galileo ever gets running, you can have that kind of redundancy for
> satellite-based navigation as well.
>
> All the best,
>
> David

There are multiple GPS satellites making up the GPS system. That is the
exact same redundancy.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Scott Moore]

Ray Andraka wrote:
>
> The difference is that a VOR outage affects only that VOR, so a workaround
> exists using other VORs and the same equipment in the aircraft. A GPS outage
> affects the system, at least within an area, so there are no alternative
> stations to tune to for a work-around.
>
> C J Campbell wrote:

Bull****. GPS also works using multiple satellites and multiple frequencies.
If you are going to propose that the entire frequency band for GPS be jammed
or otherwise corrupted, then the same thing would work across the entire
VOR band as well.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Ron Natalie]

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message ...

> Bull****. GPS also works using multiple satellites and multiple frequencies.
> If you are going to propose that the entire frequency band for GPS be jammed
> or otherwise corrupted, then the same thing would work across the entire
> VOR band as well.
Umm, no. GPS, as far as aviation is currently concerned, operates on a single
frequency called L1 (1.57542 GHz). Even if you were to use L2 as well, they aren't redundant.
The reason for the second frequency (civil use) is to allow correction to the ionospheric
propagation delay.

In theory, the spread spectrum nature makes it difficult to jam effetively. Of course, that's
with an ideal reciever. You can knock out a lot of receivers by just throwing enough RF
at them.

[David Megginson]

Scott Moore > writes:

>> If Galileo ever gets running, you can have that kind of redundancy for
>> satellite-based navigation as well.
>
> There are multiple GPS satellites making up the GPS system. That is the
> exact same redundancy.

Not quite, or we would never get RAIM problems.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Ray Andraka]

Nope, GPS for aviation is essentially one frequency with code modulation. The
receiver picks out the different satellites by correlating the code sequence
against the received signal. The code sequences are orthagonal, which means they
are enough different that you only get a strong correlation peak for the one
satellite that matches the code you are correlating against. The long code
sequences provide a very high processing gain, so the signals can be buried in a
good deal of noise, however it is relatively easy to jam the entire system with a
strong transmittter on the carrier frequency. This is what RAIM is all about. It
doesn't even have to be an intentional jammer: intermodulation from TV transmitters
in close proximity has caused local outages, for example.

It would be much harder to jam the entire VOR band because the VOR signals are
transmitted at much higher power (3 orders of magnitude), and the VOR band covers a
wide frequency band relative to the frequency of the center of the band.

Scott Moore wrote:

> > C J Campbell wrote:
>
> Bull****. GPS also works using multiple satellites and multiple frequencies.
> If you are going to propose that the entire frequency band for GPS be jammed
> or otherwise corrupted, then the same thing would work across the entire
> VOR band as well.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Richard Kaplan]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

> I might point out that VORs are also inoperative at certain time in
certain
> regions. The Mc Chord VOR has not worked in over a year, despite it being
an
> important airway intersection. So what are you suggesting we use for
backup
> navigation systems for the VOR?

The back to VOR will remain GPS -- and maybe NDB as well. Maybe keep Loran
as well and build hybrid GPS-Loran boxes with built-in redundancy.


I think GPS is terrific and I particularly am looking forward to percision
GPS approaches. I just think it makes no sense to decommission he VOR/ILS
system, and I think in the end that is exactly the conclusion the FAA will
be forced to make.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...

> There are multiple GPS satellites making up the GPS system. That is the
> exact same redundancy.

And it is not sufficient redundancy... it can be jammed locally and leave
the pilot with no navigation alternative.

The very fact that we have RAIM alerts shows exactly why GPS cannot be the
only remaining navigation system -- if all we have is GPS, what do we do
when we get a RAIM alert?

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[C J Campbell]

Please do not mis-attribute others' remarks to me. I did not post the quoted
material.

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
| Nope, GPS for aviation is essentially one frequency with code modulation.
The
| receiver picks out the different satellites by correlating the code
sequence
| against the received signal. The code sequences are orthagonal, which
means they
| are enough different that you only get a strong correlation peak for the
one
| satellite that matches the code you are correlating against. The long
code
| sequences provide a very high processing gain, so the signals can be
buried in a
| good deal of noise, however it is relatively easy to jam the entire system
with a
| strong transmittter on the carrier frequency. This is what RAIM is all
about. It
| doesn't even have to be an intentional jammer: intermodulation from TV
transmitters
| in close proximity has caused local outages, for example.
|
| It would be much harder to jam the entire VOR band because the VOR
signals are
| transmitted at much higher power (3 orders of magnitude), and the VOR band
covers a
| wide frequency band relative to the frequency of the center of the band.
|
| Scott Moore wrote:
|
| > > C J Campbell wrote:
| >
| > Bull****. GPS also works using multiple satellites and multiple
frequencies.
| > If you are going to propose that the entire frequency band for GPS be
jammed
| > or otherwise corrupted, then the same thing would work across the entire
| > VOR band as well.
|
| --
| --Ray Andraka, P.E.
| President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
| 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
| email
| http://www.andraka.com
|
| "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
| temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
| -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
|
|

[C J Campbell]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
...
|
| The back to VOR will remain GPS -- and maybe NDB as well. Maybe keep
Loran
| as well and build hybrid GPS-Loran boxes with built-in redundancy.
|
|
| I think GPS is terrific and I particularly am looking forward to percision
| GPS approaches. I just think it makes no sense to decommission he
VOR/ILS
| system, and I think in the end that is exactly the conclusion the FAA
will
| be forced to make.

The FAA has said repeatedly that it plans to use radar to back up GPS. The
reason the FAA is so hot to decommission all the other radio navaids is that
they are far too expensive and the cost is spread across a very small user
base, whereas the cost of GPS is shared by all segments of society.

[Tarver Engineering]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | The back to VOR will remain GPS -- and maybe NDB as well. Maybe keep
> Loran
> | as well and build hybrid GPS-Loran boxes with built-in redundancy.
> |
> |
> | I think GPS is terrific and I particularly am looking forward to
percision
> | GPS approaches. I just think it makes no sense to decommission he
> VOR/ILS
> | system, and I think in the end that is exactly the conclusion the FAA
> will
> | be forced to make.
>
> The FAA has said repeatedly that it plans to use radar to back up GPS. The
> reason the FAA is so hot to decommission all the other radio navaids is
that
> they are far too expensive and the cost is spread across a very small user
> base, whereas the cost of GPS is shared by all segments of society.

Then there is the value all that VHF navigation bandwidth. Perhaps FAA
could use the cash for somehting useful.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Scott Moore]

Peter wrote:
>
> Scott Moore > wrote
>
> >I don't have
> >the ability to evaluate GPS jamming, nor VOR jamming,
>
> Then you should read up on the subject, and the Volpe report on GPS
> vulnerability is a good start. I did have a URL for it but the
> institute has moved it somewhere else. I have it archived (PDF) so if
> you email me I can give you a private URL for it or email you a copy.
> Or someone can post a new URL if they can find it; I am 100% sure it
> is online.
>

Fine, you have a study. What we need is an unbiased comparision of
the vulnerabilities of GPS to the vunerabilities of VOR. That is all
that really makes the decisions here, because (again) there is no point
claiming that GPS is more vulnerable than VOR without such a study.

> As others have explained, GPS can be jammed very easily, over a wide
> area (of the order of 500 miles radius) whereas jamming more than one
> VOR is a lot harder and the effect would be only localised; it would
> need large amounts of power and most probably separate transmitters to
> jam multiple VORs. This is just elementary electronics and signal
> processing.

GPS jamming is localized as well. A ground based transmitter has perhaps
30 miles of horizon to jam (derived from a tangent line from the earth
and math). More altitude can jam farther (hence the "jammer on a ballon"
theory), but lets save time here -- both services are line of sight, so
they are both going to have similar jamming profiles. Everyone agrees
that it would take more power to jam VOR, but all this really does is
make the "$100 radio shack ballon" jammer appear shocking. There is no
material barrier to making a VOR jammer.

>
> As I mention elsewhere, there are techniques to make a GPS receiver
> relatively immune to jamming - especially if one is working on the
> assumption that the jamming signal is just a crude carrier-wave
> transmitter and that the transmitter is ground (not space) based. For
> example, combining a GPS receiver with an INS (e.g. FOG based) enables
> the receiver to cope with a much poorer GPS signal. You can read about
> these in the above reference. These techniques are not AFAIK
> commercially available, presumably for the same reasons that all
> commercial GPS receivers are required to be limited to 60,000 feet
> altitude in their firmware.

And, as another poster pointed out, GPS antennas are pointed at the sky,
whereas VORs cannot be so directional.

Lets back up a step. The widest deployment of GPS is in light aircraft.
Airliners don't really use it yet, and even when they do, they have
INS redundancy. The bottom line is that the most attractive target for
terrorists, the airlines, is the most unlikely one to be affected by
any jammer, VOR or GPS.

It is that fundamental fact that I believe causes the "GPS haters" to
constantly flip back and forth between talking about terrorists and
talking about other types of interference. The terrorist idea makes good
(shocking) headlines, but would be a stunningly ineffective method
if actually put into use.

Nobody in this thread ever asked me if I am for shutting VORs down.
I am not. I have a 430, which has VOR built in, and another VOR besides
that, and I am perfectly happy with it as a backup method.

But what seems to happen here as regular as clockwork is that someone
reads a "shocking" headline about radio shack GPS jamming and runs
around ranting about GPS "insecurities". I am all for a *rational*
comparision about the reliability and risks of GPS vs. VOR or any
other service. I am all *against* the chicken-little rantathon
that is getting so much play in the press and here as well. If someone
comes running down here yelling about GPS jamming, be prepared to talk
about jamming of VOR or other services as well. Otherwise its just
a **** flinging contest.

>
> Peter.
> --
> Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
> E-mail replies to but remove the X and the Y.
> Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Richard Kaplan]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

> WAAS is offering approaches where there are none now, so the GPS is giving
> me an option where none existed before. A RAIM alert does not disable your


I think GPS and WAAS are both very desirable in the National Airspace
System -- no one is arguing otherwise.

The point is simply that we cannot realistically have an airspace system
with nothing but GPS for navigation.

There are ways for GPS to be jammed over a wide enough area to prevent
having a realistic alternate, either intentionally or otherwise.

There have also been GPS NOTAMs prohibiting enroute operations over various
regions.

All of aviation is predicated on having a "Plan B" - Dismantling the VOR/ILS
system will leave pilots with no Plan B except radar vectors and ASR
approaches, and that just does not seem realistic or desirable to me.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[C J Campbell]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Besides, all current proposed GPS approaches will have minimums higher
than
| standard 200 - 1/2 ILS minimums -- it is unclear if WAAS GPS will EVER be
| able to go down to 200 - 1/2 although it may come close, like perhaps
350 -
| 3/4. Do you really think current airports with ILS approaches will react
| calmly to decommissioning their ILS systems to they get higher minimums on
| their new GPS precision approaches?
|

The original announcement says that approach minimums will be as low as 250
if the airport can certify that it is clear of obstructions and has the
required approach lighting. An airport that already has an ILS should meet
those requirements. Ultimately, WAAS is supposed to give much lower minimums
than that.

I think it will take far less than 10-20 years to convince most of the
knee-jerk "Itcan'tbedone.Itwon'twork" crowd. The troglodytes usually come
crawling out of their caves when they find their anti-innovation attitude is
costing them business. Then again, a significant part of the population
still believes that we should not be flying in the first place.

[David Megginson]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> I think it will take far less than 10-20 years to convince most of
> the knee-jerk "Itcan'tbedone.Itwon'twork" crowd. The troglodytes
> usually come crawling out of their caves when they find their
> anti-innovation attitude is costing them business.

I don't remember any of that in this thread. People have suggested
that (a) GPS needs ground-based backup like VOR, NDB, or LORAN for
safety, (b) other countries have trouble relying exclusively on a
system controlled by the U.S. military, and (c) the transition will
take a while, but I don't remember any postings claiming that GPS
precision approaches cannot or will not work -- everyone seems to be
looking forward to them.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Scott Moore]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> Again, GPS and WAAS are great, but no way are other approach types going to
> all disappear.. we may lose a few enroute navaids but VOR and especially ILS
> are here to stay for a long, long time.
>

10 years is probally an accurate estimate. That will be enough time to place
higher power satellites in orbit, and for airlines and busjet outfits to work
out their backup procedures to their satisfaction with INS.

After that it will be GA pilots and the AOPA lobbying to keep VOR in use, and
AOPA's heart is not really in the fight (being a GPS/WAAS avocate all these years).
That leaves "us" with about the clout of a sparrow on bad berries. Oh, and I won't
be joining you, nor I suspect will many other pilots. Four course ranges didn't
survive as VOR backups, either.

I'll predict: massive decommissioning around 2010.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Roy Smith]

Richard Kaplan > wrote:
> I highly doubt GPS will ever be the only form of navigation available to
> pilots -- perhaps they will go with the AOPA plan which is to decommission
> only VORs unassociated with instrument approaches.

Are there any? I can't think of a VOR which isn't somehow part of an
instrument approach. Even if not the primary navaid, then some
essential fix along the approach.

> Even if the plan is to make GPS the only show in town, this would probably
> take 10 to 20 years to accomplish -- could you imagine requiring an IFR
> approach GPS in any plane flown IFR?

Yes, absolutely. It's just a single-frequency receiver with a
computer attached to it. Computers are cheap. Given what I can buy a
12-channel handheld GPS for at any camping or boating store, I would
guess the radio part is pretty cheap too. We already require COM
trancievers and transponders. From the point of view of fundamental
construction complexity, it seems likely an approach GPS should be
cheaper to build than either of those. Just a matter of amortizing
the design and certification cost over enough units sold :-)

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Scott Moore
> wrote:

> I'll predict: massive decommissioning around 2010.

probably the single most significant factor in this will be
desire for the frequencies occupied by VORs. The pressure
from aviation groups (even if it were combined) would not
be sufficient to prevent selling off of the bands. For example,
look at what happened with FM stations just below the ILS
frequencies.

--
Bob Noel

[Ron Natalie]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message news:ihatessppaamm- For example,
> look at what happened with FM stations just below the ILS
> frequencies.
>
They're still there. What are you referring to? As far as I know the FM broadcast band
has been intact for a long time. There are even some low power stuff that shows up down
below 88.1. One of the biggest stations in the area is still on 107.7.

-Ron (who had a station on 88.1 for a while).

[Stan Gosnell]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in
:

> I am not saying It can't be done or it won't work. It just cannot
> work as the only show in town. Having no redundancy flies in the face
> of the most basic principle of aviation. And no, ASR is not enough
> redundancy in the event of a GPS loss in low IMC requiring an ASR for
> every airplane in the sky.
>
>

There is no redundancy now. What happens if the weather is 200 ovc & the
localizer goes out? All it takes is one power failure, or one transmitter
to go south, & you're SOL. With GPS, there are multiple satellites, and
you aren't tied to one transmitter like you are with ILS.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Richard Kaplan]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...


> Are there any? I can't think of a VOR which isn't somehow part of an
> instrument approach. Even if not the primary navaid, then some
> essential fix along the approach.

Well I can tell you that Phil Boyer was walking around the AOPA Fly-in last
year in June 2002 basically asking how AOPA is doing and what we would like
AOPA to do in advocating for us so I had a discussion with him pretty
similar to this thread and he told me personally that this is AOPA's
position -- or at least it was AOPA's position at that time.


> Yes, absolutely. It's just a single-frequency receiver with a
> computer attached to it. Computers are cheap. Given what I can buy a

I can buy a digital or analog clock or watch for under $10 just about
anywhere in the U.S.

When I bought a new clock for my airplane last year, the cheapest I could
find was $78 for analog or $400 for digital.

There is probably nothing more ubiquitous or interchangeable in an airplane
than a clock.

Given this, I do not have high hopes for an installed approach-certified IFR
GPS at any price remotely near economic sanity for GA trainers. If we
really do get to a point where an IFR approach GPS is a requirement for IFR
flight, I think the cost of obtaining an instrument rating in a rental
airplane will unfortunately go up considerably and the utility of the rental
fleet will go down considerably because I suspect a lot of flight schools
will decide it is not worth putting an IFR approach GPS into their whole
fleet but instead will convert the lower-end of their fleet into VFR-only
airplanes. That would indeed be a shame.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...

> There is no redundancy now. What happens if the weather is 200 ovc & the
> localizer goes out? All it takes is one power failure, or one transmitter

You fly to your alternate where the weather is 600/2 and fly the VOR or NDB
or GPS approach.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Stan Gosnell]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in
:

> Given this, I do not have high hopes for an installed
> approach-certified IFR GPS at any price remotely near economic sanity
> for GA trainers.

And the price for a VOR receiver is sane? It's just a simple radio
receiver, but it costs a whole lot more than what you'll find at WalMart.
Face it, if it's for aviation, it's exhorbitantly expensive. GPS, VOR,
ADF, sunglasses, or flight bag, or anything else.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Stan Gosnell]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in
:

>
>
>
> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Fine, you have a study. What we need is an unbiased comparision of
>> the vulnerabilities of GPS to the vunerabilities of VOR. That is all
>
>
> No, we need an unbiased comparison of the vulnerabilities of a world
> with only GPS and ASR vs. a world with GPS, ASR, VOR, NDB, ILS, Loran,
> LOC, SDF, LDA, and DME.
>

It always comes down to money. Always. And keeping obsolete systems
working is hugely expensive, & it won't happen. End of story.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Roy Smith]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote:
> I don't care what the backup is -- NDB, Loran, Transponder Landing System,
> ILS -- there just has to be some backup available within reasonable range
> anywhere in the U.S. if the GPS system should go completely down.

Why does radar not meet that requirement? Is your goal to keep air
traffic moving, or just to get aircraft down on the ground at the
nearest usable airport? If the latter, my guess is radar would be
sufficient.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...

> So what's the difference? It's not possible to jam GPS worldwide, only
> locally. Fly somewhere else & land.

If GPS is jammed where you are now, how do you get "there"? Radar
vectors? Dead reckoning?

How do you know in which direction to go to find a usable GPS signal?

Presuming this failure affects every plane in the air except the lucky few
with INS, how do we maintain separation from other airplanes when we lose
GPS while flying in an area below radar coverage?


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...

> And the price for a VOR receiver is sane? It's just a simple radio

No doubt all avionics are expensive -- the problem is that a GPS-only world
would *force* people who have invested in an IFR-capable airplane to now
spend *even more* money on a new upgrade.

Actually, this would be even a worse hit because the value of existing
non-GPS navigation equipment would instantly depreciate to near-zero.

It would be even worse on top of that because of the need for ongoing GPS
database subscriptions.

Multiply this triple financial hit by however many airplanes are in a given
flight school and lots of those airplanes will just be converted to VFR use.
Not only that, but many pilots who own instrument airplanes flown only
occasionally IFR will decide it is just not worth the effort and expense and
will revert to being VFR-only pilots of VFR-only airplanes. IFR would
become notably less common in GA, and that would be a shame.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...


> Why does radar not meet that requirement? Is your goal to keep air
> traffic moving, or just to get aircraft down on the ground at the
> nearest usable airport? If the latter, my guess is radar would be
> sufficient.

What happens in areas of the country which have no radar coverage? Everyone
in the area of GPS failure climbs by dead reckoning to an altitude high
enough to achieve radar coverage and we hope there are no mid-airs in the
process and we hope there are no icing accidents in the process?

Then everyone gets vectored to the precious few airports with ASR approaches
and waits their turn to fly an ASR approach?

And while the lucky first few airplanes are being vectored for their ASR
approaches, ATC has to give every other airplane in the sky radar vectors
for each turn in each airplane's hold?

Do we really have the ATC personnel and radio frequency resources to
accomplish this?

If we really were to have a GPS failure on a low IMC day, I think it would
be very questionable to think we could get all the planes down without
either having midair collisions or planes running out of fuel.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...>

> It always comes down to money. Always. And keeping obsolete systems
> working is hugely expensive, & it won't happen. End of story.

A very reasonable and economically practical compromise would be to keep the
Loran system up and running and approve Loran for emergency IFR use in the
event of GPS outage. The cost of maintaining the Loran system is pocket
change compared wtih maintaining the GPS system.

An even better compromise would be to decommission some ground-based navaids
but leave at least enough VORs and ILSs functional so as to assure their
reasonable availability for an emergency approach anywhere in the country
should GPS go out of service.

GPS is a great idea, and we can indeed save money by decommissioning some
ground-based NAVAIDs... let us just not go overboard and decomission them
ALL.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...

> old-style push mower. But let's be serious; it's absurd to talk about
> Loran being a reasonable or economically practical anything.

Used Lorans are dirt cheap by aviation standards -- often under $300 for
used yellow-tagged equipment.

Adding a Loran at the time of a GPS installation and removal of VORs etc.
would not be a big deal.

Even better, Loran would be the ideal backup to be included in a hybrid
GPS-Loran box which would switch to Loran if/when GPS went out of service.

I mention Loran because for a very low price it could in an emergency
continue to provide navigation to every airport and airway -- none of the
alternate systems could do so at nearly the same cost.

But if selected VORs were instead retained as a backup because all IFR
planes now have a VOR receiver, then sure, that is fine too.. that point is
to have some backup, whatever that may be.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[David Megginson]

Stan Gosnell > writes:

> There is no redundancy now. What happens if the weather is 200 ovc & the
> localizer goes out? All it takes is one power failure, or one transmitter
> to go south, & you're SOL. With GPS, there are multiple satellites, and
> you aren't tied to one transmitter like you are with ILS.

You have already planned for a redundant destination -- the alternate
-- with its own transmitter (or possibly VMC), and you've ensured that
you have sufficient fuel on board to get there.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Ron
Natalie" > wrote:

> > look at what happened with FM stations just below the ILS
> > frequencies.
> >
> They're still there. What are you referring to? As far as I know the
> FM broadcast band
> has been intact for a long time. There are even some low power stuff
> that shows up down
> below 88.1. One of the biggest stations in the area is still on 107.7.

ok, I see where I wasn't clear. Countries have allowed FM stations
to increase their transmitted power. This has the effect of bleeding
into the lower ILS frequencies. As a result, some ILS receivers have
to be modified to protect the signal from interference.

If you are truly bored sometime, more information can be
found by searching on the phrase "protected ILS"

--
Bob Noel

[Mike Rapoport]

I'm not sure what you mean "Tying the GPS to your altimeter (as is possible
with the CNX-80)" Most GPSs will accept altimetry data to substitute for a
fourth satellite. I have a Shadin ADC 2000 providing this data to my
530/430 combo and I have never had a RAIM warning.since I had the 430 and
ADC 2000 installed in 1999.


Mike
MU-2


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> |
> | "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> | ...
> |
> | > There are multiple GPS satellites making up the GPS system. That is
the
> | > exact same redundancy.
> |
> | And it is not sufficient redundancy... it can be jammed locally and
leave
> | the pilot with no navigation alternative.
> |
> | The very fact that we have RAIM alerts shows exactly why GPS cannot be
the
> | only remaining navigation system -- if all we have is GPS, what do we do
> | when we get a RAIM alert?
>
>
> WAAS is offering approaches where there are none now, so the GPS is giving
> me an option where none existed before. A RAIM alert does not disable your
> GPS; it only means that you cannot fly an approach with it. It is still
good
> for terminal and en route operations. Unless you have a bad installation
you
> should not get RAIM alerts very often anyway -- at least no more often
than,
> say, having the localizer inoperative at an airport. In fact, I have never
> had a RAIM alert since I installed IFR GPS in my planes, but I have flown
to
> numerous airports where the localizer and/or glideslope was inop during
that
> time. Tying the GPS to your altimeter (as is possible with the CNX-80)
> reduces the required satellites for RAIM by one, making RAIM alerts even
> less frequent.
>
> If all you have is GPS and you get a RAIM alert, you do the same thing you
> would if you arrived at an airport and found the only navaid used for
> approaches there is out: you fly to an alternate.
>
>

[Scott Moore]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

>
> When I bought a new clock for my airplane last year, the cheapest I could
> find was $78 for analog or $400 for digital.

The extra money is to make it terrorist proof.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Scott Moore]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Fine, you have a study. What we need is an unbiased comparision of
> > the vulnerabilities of GPS to the vunerabilities of VOR. That is all
>
> No, we need an unbiased comparison of the vulnerabilities of a world with
> only GPS and ASR vs. a world with GPS, ASR, VOR, NDB, ILS, Loran, LOC, SDF,
> LDA, and DME.
>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com

I hear the terrorists are going to be placing a big magnet in the middle east
soon, and mess up everyones compass.

Say, lets bring four course ranges back, those were pretty terrorist proof.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Scott Moore]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > old-style push mower. But let's be serious; it's absurd to talk about
> > Loran being a reasonable or economically practical anything.
>
> Used Lorans are dirt cheap by aviation standards -- often under $300 for
> used yellow-tagged equipment.

More like free. Just look in the dumpster behind any avionics shop.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Richard Kaplan]

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...

> You continue to talk about GPS as if there were one GPS satellite up
there.
> There are not, and the system is backed up now by WAAS and soon LAAS. In
fact,

It is one frequency. More specifically, it takes one black box to jam all
GPS satellite reception in a given area. Then I am left with nothing.

If there is as much redundancy as you say, then why do we need RAIM?




--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...

> More like free. Just look in the dumpster behind any avionics shop.

Laugh all you want.

I would without a second thought take a panel today with a Garmin 530 / M1
Loran combo over a Garmin 530/530 combo... The GPS/Loran combo has more
redundancy.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Gig Giacona]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You continue to talk about GPS as if there were one GPS satellite up
> there.
> > There are not, and the system is backed up now by WAAS and soon LAAS. In
> fact,
>
> It is one frequency. More specifically, it takes one black box to jam all
> GPS satellite reception in a given area. Then I am left with nothing.
>
> If there is as much redundancy as you say, then why do we need RAIM?
>

And we saw how effective jammers were in Desert Storm II. The GPS guided
munitions seemed to have no problem destroying them.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Kaplan wrote:
> >
> > "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > That leaves "us" with about the clout of a sparrow on bad berries. Oh,
and
> > I won't
> > > be joining you, nor I suspect will many other pilots. Four course
ranges
> > didn't
> > > survive as VOR backups, either.
> >
> > That is because the NDB and ILS systems were around when the four course
> > ranges went out.
> >
> > I don't care what the backup is -- NDB, Loran, Transponder Landing
System,
> > ILS -- there just has to be some backup available within reasonable
range
> > anywhere in the U.S. if the GPS system should go completely down.
>
> Certainly possible !
>
> 1. Terrorists jam GPS from the moon. Entire side of earth placed out of
service,
> and impossible to take out jammer.
>
> 2. Terrorists get ahold of 24 (count em !) anti-statellite missles.
>
> 3. Terrorists launch massive numbers of balloon based jammers.
>
> 4. GE ships the "micromatic" oven that just happens to work on the GPS
> frequency. The goverment promptly declares GE to be a terrorist
organization,
> and invades it.
>
> Well, that was fun but --
>
> You continue to talk about GPS as if there were one GPS satellite up
there.
> There are not, and the system is backed up now by WAAS and soon LAAS. In
fact,
> it will probally make more sense economically to place backup ground based
> GPS "pseudo-satellites" than to maintain the klunky VOR system
indefiniately
> (which by the way is a pretty close description to what LAAS is).

At that point LAAS will be at CAT IIb, scheduled for 2004 comissioning.
Participation in LAAS may require a VDL radio.

> The government does not have to maintain every museum peice system out
there
> just to make old guys feel better. And history says they won't. Not for
long.

About 2010 cheap clocks, accurate enough to provide solution for any
satellite constellation time stream should become available; with the L5 GPS
signal comming on line in about 2012. (0.2 meter accuracy 2 D position)

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Tarver Engineering]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Gig Giacona"
> > wrote:
>
> > And we saw how effective jammers were in Desert Storm II. The GPS guided
> > munitions seemed to have no problem destroying them.
>
> are you saying that the civilian GPS receivers have the same
> capabilities as mil gps receivers?

There is already a study under way to make the JDAM style FOG available to
GA. At 7 years a regulatory cycle, these could be available by 2010, as
well. How long do you need to hold solution to get on the ground?

[Scott Moore]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > More like free. Just look in the dumpster behind any avionics shop.
>
> Laugh all you want.
>
> I would without a second thought take a panel today with a Garmin 530 / M1
> Loran combo over a Garmin 530/530 combo... The GPS/Loran combo has more
> redundancy.
>

I had a loran when I got the airplane. I found out they wanted full rate for
data, just to get lat and lon in nice glowing amber numbers.

Into the dumpster it went. Bet I am not the only one.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Richard Kaplan]

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...

> I had a loran when I got the airplane. I found out they wanted full rate
for
> data, just to get lat and lon in nice glowing amber numbers.

I am not sure I follow you here.

In any event, the reliability of Loran is certainly dependent on the
installation. Static wicks help out significantly among other installation
factors.

On my airplane, if I covered up the word "Loran" on my M1 and told you it
were an enroute GPS, you would not notice the difference between its
performance vs. that of a GPS. Again, I would any day choose a Garmin 530
/M1 Loran stack over a dual Gamin 530 stack. I think many pilots have bad
impressions of Loran either because they have used non-user-friendly Loran
systems which required maual entry of Lat/Lon data or else because they have
experienced a poorly installed and thus unreliable Loran system. I cannot
recall any pilot who has ever flown my plane and come away with a less than
positive impression of the M1 Loran.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Tarver Engineering]

"Barry" > wrote in message
...
> > At that point LAAS will be at CAT IIb, scheduled for 2004 comissioning.
>
> The current schedule for LAAS is to commission the first CAT I units in
late
> 2006, contingent on a decision late in 2004 to proceed with development
and
> production:
>
> http://www2.faa.gov/index.cfm/apa/1062?id=1737
>
> I don't think there's a schedule yet for CAT II/III.

I was working off an old schedule. Honeywell already has LAAS playing in
Oz.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
>
> >There is already a study under way to make the JDAM style FOG available
to
> >GA. At 7 years a regulatory cycle, these could be available by 2010, as
> >well. How long do you need to hold solution to get on the ground?
>
> It would be great but they are quite expensive, even on the scale of
> silly avionics pricing. And using INS only gives you a partial
> improvement; you've got to do some serious signal processing to really
> improve things, and that technology isn't going to make it out of the
> military sphere for as long as they can hang onto it.

The technology is alreadfy being offered by the military, just like the
military has offered civil aviation the GPS p-codes. The people saying "no"
are our own civil aviation regulators.

John P. Tarver, MS//PE

[Scott Moore]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I had a loran when I got the airplane. I found out they wanted full rate
> for
> > data, just to get lat and lon in nice glowing amber numbers.
>
> I am not sure I follow you here.

They wanted the full price for a data subscription for the Loran unit. A considerable
amount of the cost of ANY system is the data for it. To pay full rate for a data
subscription on a unit that is inaccurate, unreliable and only gives latitude and
longitude was and is insane.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Richard Kaplan]

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...

> amount of the cost of ANY system is the data for it. To pay full rate for
a data
> subscription on a unit that is inaccurate, unreliable and only gives
latitude and
> longitude was and is insane.

Have you ever flown a Loran containing an aviation database? If your
experience with Loran is limited to a device which "only gives latitude and
longitude" then I could understand your concern.

My Loran has a full database of airports, NDBs, VORs, and intersections.
Its output is in bearing, distance, and course deviation, just like a GPS.
It shows me bearing and distance to nearest airports or nearest navaids,
just like a GPS. Operation of the M1 Loran is basically identical to the
IFR-approved M3 GPS except that the Loran does not have a database of
approaches. While the accuracy of the GPS certainly is better than the
Loran, the difference in accuracy is not even perceptible to most pilots in
a practical sense, even comparing Loran and GPS output side by side. While
a GPS certainly is preferable overall to a Loran, I would rather have one of
each than 2 GPS boxes or 2 Loran boxes.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Stan Gosnell]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in
:

> My Loran has a full database of airports, NDBs, VORs, and
> intersections. Its output is in bearing, distance, and course
> deviation, just like a GPS. It shows me bearing and distance to
> nearest airports or nearest navaids, just like a GPS. Operation of
> the M1 Loran is basically identical to the IFR-approved M3 GPS except
> that the Loran does not have a database of approaches. While the
> accuracy of the GPS certainly is better than the Loran, the difference
> in accuracy is not even perceptible to most pilots in a practical
> sense, even comparing Loran and GPS output side by side. While a GPS
> certainly is preferable overall to a Loran, I would rather have one of
> each than 2 GPS boxes or 2 Loran boxes.

I flew offshore IFR with a LORAN, which had no database at all, & only room
for 9 waypoints at a time, which were identified only by the number - 1 -
9. It worked, & gave distance, bearing, groundspeed, etc, but anytime
there were thunderstorms within ~100 miles, it gave up the ghost, & quit.
Around Houston, TX, it died because of poor geometry. It gave position,
but it could be a couple of hundred miles off, you never knew. I once had
it telling me I was west of El Paso, westbound at mach 2+ & accelerating.
In a helicopter. I decided it was lying again. When I got within sight of
my destination, VFR, it found itself. LORAN is better than nothing, & more
modern units do a better job, but if I had my choice I'd take 2 GPS boxes
every time. It works, accurately, all the time. Where I mostly fly, there
are no VOR's to receive, anyway, but I still have to have 2 VOR's
operational in order to use my one GPS. If I had another, I could get rid
of the VOR's, but until precision GPS approaches arrive, I'll keep the
VOR's for use with the ILS at home. Don't worry, the FAA isn't going to
decommission all VOR's until there are adequate precision GPS approaches
available, if then. The sky isn't falling yet.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Richard Kaplan]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
> 9. It worked, & gave distance, bearing, groundspeed, etc, but anytime
> there were thunderstorms within ~100 miles, it gave up the ghost, & quit.

I think this was typical of early generation Lorans and also typical of
installations without static wicks or with other sources of interference.

In 6 years of IFR flying I lost the Loran signal a total of once -- that was
this past winter for about 60 seconds when flying in light snow.
Otherwise it has been rock solid -- not a bad track record and certainly a
nice backup to any other navigation system.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...

> The bottom line is that whatever theoretical arguments you can make for
> Loran being a good backup system, as an economic reality, it's somewhere
> between ADF and 4-course ranges.

I agree completely that economic forces will probably move toward alternate
GPS-type systems for the future.

But at least TODAY this all makes Loran an incredible value in an airplane.
Why spend $10,000+ on a second GPS moving map when for $300 you can get a
Loran as the second nav receiver or for the same $10,000 you can buy a
Sandel EHSI and connect the EHSI to both the GPS and the Loran? If/when
Loran finally is decommissioned, go ahead at that time and buy whatever is
state of the art then.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Andy Davis]

In article >,
says...
>
>All very good arguments in this thread. I just wonder how the
>requirements of the rest of the world will affect the FAA's decision,
>given that their primary "customer", the airlines, fly worldwide.
>

Two modest clarifications to the interesting arguments on the thread...

1. In my experience, the back-up navigation input to many/most airline FMS's
is actually DME/DME position sensing, not Intertial Nav. There are many FMS
equipped aircraft still flying that ONLY have DME/DME (and sometimes DME/VOR)
position inputs, and don't have GPS. AFAIK most airliners in short-haul
service don't have Inertial systems, contrary to the comments here. Hence most
discussions I've seen of keeping conventional navaids as back-up include
keeping DME.

2. And a follow-on from that - most airlines, especially US airlines, don't
fly worldwide. Most airliners never leave domestic airspace, which is why the
airlines don't spend the money on long-range nav equipment - see answer 1 above
:-)

Andy Davis

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, "Richard Kaplan"
> writes:

>On my airplane, if I covered up the word "Loran" on my M1 and told you it
>were an enroute GPS, you would not notice the difference between its
>performance vs. that of a GPS. Again, I would any day choose a Garmin 530
>/M1 Loran stack over a dual Gamin 530 stack.

Richard,
I wish you would include the GNS 430 in your posts since I have a 430/M1 stack
in my Archer. <G> Seriously, I agree 100%. The Northstar M1 came with the
plane 7 years ago and I added the 430. The Garmin and the Northstar make a
good combination since the "data in" comes from such different paths. Hope
they keep LORAN active for us "belt and suspenders" people.

Chuck
Chuck

[Scott Moore]

Roy Smith wrote:
>
> Scott Moore > wrote:
> > No moving map. I'll save time here. I am a computer engineer. There is no
> > way it can be too high tech for me. I like moving maps. I don't want to go
> > back. Plus, I don't see the point. Loran was good for nothing but enroute,
> > so it would have had to use VOR/ILS for the terminal phase anyhow, so whereas
> > VOR makes some sense for a backup, Loran makes no sense to me whatever.
> >
> > VOR has a built in mapping system. You know where the VOR is, its somewhere
> > you want to go (an airport), and it even identifies itself. LAT/LON without
> > airport data is useless, and getting pseudo-vor to an airport for $30 a month
> > with no moving map does not excite me in the least. Considering that the
> > Apollo Loran data subscription would probally have cost near as much as
> > my 430 GPS data, I would say the 430 was the more cost effective solution.
>
> Much as I've been arguing that Loran is a dead technology, I feel the
> need to correct a few of Scott's assertions.
>

What "correction". You say Loran would be capabile of moving map, but no
units do that, and the peice of junk I discarded didn't, nor are any makers
likely to make a new unit just because some GPS worriers want to have a
"backup".

Again, I would apprecate your not saying you are "correcting" me here, there
was no "correction" in your comments.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Scott Moore]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > The bottom line is that whatever theoretical arguments you can make for
> > Loran being a good backup system, as an economic reality, it's somewhere
> > between ADF and 4-course ranges.
>
> I agree completely that economic forces will probably move toward alternate
> GPS-type systems for the future.
>
> But at least TODAY this all makes Loran an incredible value in an airplane.
> Why spend $10,000+ on a second GPS moving map when for $300 you can get a
> Loran as the second nav receiver or for the same $10,000 you can buy a

By your flawed logic you could probally get the Loran free. Simply find a friend
who is yanking theirs out.

You are completely dismissing installation and database subscription costs.
Plus, Loran is in no way, shape or form a moving map or even a marginally
modern user interface technology.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Ray Andraka]

Most later Loran units (Northstar M1 for example) work just fine with a moving map
such as a Sandel HSI or an Argus. Same map units that provide a moving map for a GPS
that doesn't have one built in. There are more GPS's without moving maps out there
than there are with moving maps.

Scott Moore wrote:

>
> What "correction". You say Loran would be capabile of moving map, but no
> units do that, and the peice of junk I discarded didn't, nor are any makers
> likely to make a new unit just because some GPS worriers want to have a
> "backup".

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Doug Carter]

Scott Moore wrote:

> ...You say Loran would be capable of moving map, but no
> units do that, and the piece of junk I discarded didn't, nor are any makers
> likely to make a new unit just because some GPS worriers want to have a
> "backup"...


The KLN-88 and ARNAV FMS-5000 Lorans have moving maps. Other Loran units
can plug into external moving map displays.

Not that a moving map seems critical for a backup unit, but if it is,
good luck in driving that moving map from your typical VOR receiver.


Loran is on back burner now, but if we want a backup for GPS (not a bad
idea) then it seems a lot more practical to add one or two Loran
stations (if they are actually needed) for CONUS operation than to
maintain the hundreds of VOR's required for the enroute structure.

If the terrorists get their balloon up to 30,000 feet with a broadband
GPS jammer then use Loran (with or without a moving map) to stagger to
the nearest ILS and call it a day.

The ARNAV FMS-5000 in my Decathlon seemed to work fine unless I was
inverted.

[Richard Kaplan]

Scott Moore > wrote in message >...

> You are completely dismissing installation and database subscription costs.

The difference in installation for a GPS/GPS system vs. a GPS/Loran
system would be negligible. A GPS/Loran/Sandel or GPS/Loran/MFD
system would probably cost more to install but not all that much more
if it were all done at the same time.

Database subscriptions could be paid for out of the reduction in
capital cost, as I mentioned. Either way the cost is noise compared
with what a dual GPS installation costs.

> Plus, Loran is in no way, shape or form a moving map or even a marginally
> modern user interface technology.

Why is Loran not a moving map if you can connect it to an MFD or to a
Sandel EHSI? What "modern" features does Loran lack?

One last time... I am not saying Loran should be a FIRST box. I am
saying it it better as a SECOND box intead of a second GPS.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Doug Carter]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

>I am not saying Loran should be a FIRST box. I am
> saying it it better as a SECOND box intead of a second GPS.

or perhaps part of a better box:


"GPS Safety Net GPS - Loran Prototype Processor"

May 1, 2003
By: Linn Roth, Jim Doty, Patrick Hwang
GPS World

"...Concurrently, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implemented
an active Loran assessment program. The department seeks to determine
Loran's ability to meet nonprecision approach standards using new
required navigation performance (RNP) guidelines of 0.3 nautical miles
(NM) as well as more-stringent requirements for availability, integrity,
and continuity. FAA's plans to transition to an area navigation (RNAV)
system based on GPS has accelerated evaluation of a modern Loran system
because Loran also provides RNAV capabilities.

Under the leadership of Mitchell Narins, FAA program manager, a team of
academic, government, and industry personnel has been tapped to carry
out this task. Rockwell Collins and Locus, Inc. participated in the
effort and have worked together to build an integrated GPS-Loran
prototype system for FAA flight tests..."

Describing some 2002 test results:

" Figures 3 and 4 show example results from a May 2002 test series in
Madison, Wisconsin. These tests demonstrated that an all-in-view Loran
receiver could provide accuracies that meet FAA requirements. Using the
Dane County Regional Airport as a base, the plane flew various routes
around the area and conducted 10 fly-over, ILS-guided approaches at the
main runway..."

And then concludes:

"...Rockwell Collins is scheduled to have delivered an integrated
GPS-Loran system to the FAATC by May 1, and flight tests will be
performed this summer and fall..."

Article at:
http://www.gpsworld.com/gpsworld/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=57972

[Scott Moore]

Doug Carter wrote:

> Loran is on back burner now, but if we want a backup for GPS (not a bad
> idea) then it seems a lot more practical to add one or two Loran
> stations (if they are actually needed) for CONUS operation than to
> maintain the hundreds of VOR's required for the enroute structure.

Since Loran can currently be jammed by a bad storm, there is likely to be
plenty of ways to jam it, including over wide areas with a balloon or
whatever terrorist fantasy you have in mind for GPS. This is technological
avocation on par with ouja boards and tarot cards.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Thomas Pappano]

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
> Doug Carter wrote:
>
> > Loran is on back burner now, but if we want a backup for GPS (not a bad
> > idea) then it seems a lot more practical to add one or two Loran
> > stations (if they are actually needed) for CONUS operation than to
> > maintain the hundreds of VOR's required for the enroute structure.
>
> Since Loran can currently be jammed by a bad storm, there is likely to be
> plenty of ways to jam it, including over wide areas with a balloon or
> whatever terrorist fantasy you have in mind for GPS. This is technological
> avocation on par with ouja boards and tarot cards.
>
> --
> For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
> Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
> Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

Loran uses relatively high powered ground based transmitters on low
frequencies.
It would not be a trivial project to jam it. Using demodulation techniques
such
as signal correlation, a lot of natural and man made interference can be
reduced in the receiver. I fly a lot with old Lorans and have not yet had
any signal problems that lasted more than 30 seconds, and usually only
0 or 1 per flight. Perhaps it is time to give Loran a sprucing up rather
than phase it out.

Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA

[gross_arrow]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message news:<7b63917e3624a7aef5446d67fd3bed12@TeraNews>...
> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > No moving map. I'll save time here. I am a computer engineer. There is no
> > way it can be too high tech for me. I like moving maps. I don't want to go
>
> An M1 Loran can easily be hooked up to most moving map multi-function
> displays.
>

[snip]

my loran solution is the external loran receiver to the
apollo nms2001 gps. although it uses the 2001 u/i and
database, i at least have redundant 'sensors' if the whole
gps constellation goes t.u. it's legal for enroute nav,
also, but of course for an approach i'd have to fall back
on the ol' kx-155 if gps is out.

that's one reason i haven't 'upgraded' to one of the new
boxes -- the 2001 is 'previous generation' stuff, but it
does the job, and has the loran for backup.

g_a

[Jon Parmet]

"Thomas Pappano" > wrote in message >...
> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Doug Carter wrote:
> >
> > > Loran is on back burner now, but if we want a backup for GPS (not a bad
> > > idea) then it seems a lot more practical to add one or two Loran
> > > stations (if they are actually needed) for CONUS operation than to
> > > maintain the hundreds of VOR's required for the enroute structure.
> >
> > Since Loran can currently be jammed by a bad storm, there is likely to be
> > plenty of ways to jam it, including over wide areas with a balloon or
> > whatever terrorist fantasy you have in mind for GPS. This is technological
> > avocation on par with ouja boards and tarot cards.
> >
> > --
> > For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
> > Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
> > Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....
>
> Loran uses relatively high powered ground based transmitters on low
> frequencies.
> It would not be a trivial project to jam it. Using demodulation techniques
> such
> as signal correlation, a lot of natural and man made interference can be
> reduced in the receiver. I fly a lot with old Lorans and have not yet had
> any signal problems that lasted more than 30 seconds, and usually only
> 0 or 1 per flight. Perhaps it is time to give Loran a sprucing up rather
> than phase it out.
>
> Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA

I saw a talk given at ION last year where they (IIRC, Stanford, The
Tech Center, FAA, couple others) were doing some flight trials for
WAAS up in Alaska. The tests were performed to compare against the
WAAS GEO (Pacific Ocean Region, in this case). Loran transmitters were
set up to broadcast the WAAS corrections/integrity information

During a significant enough turn, the plane lost lock on the GEO -
which i suspect isn't too hard up at those latitudes given the GEO's
location. Continuity was maintained with the Loran signal, however.


As another datapoint, "Sole Means" is no longer part of the FAA's
vocabulary. Primary means, sure. Every pilot I've ever talked/flown
to/with echoes the age old proverb "A good navigator never depends on
just one navaid."


Regards,
Jon

[Richard Kaplan]

Scott Moore > wrote in message >...

> Since Loran can currently be jammed by a bad storm, there is likely to be
> plenty of ways to jam it, including over wide areas with a balloon or
> whatever terrorist fantasy you have in mind for GPS. This is technological
> avocation on par with ouja boards and tarot cards.

Once again (as I mentioned in the GPS NOTAM thread yesterday)... I am
not talking about terrorists as the cause of a navaid outage. I am
talking about either unforeseen technical issues or military testing,
just like the current GPS NOTAM.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

Scott Moore > wrote in message >...

> Since Loran can currently be jammed by a bad storm, there is likely to be
> plenty of ways to jam it, including over wide areas with a balloon or
> whatever terrorist fantasy you have in mind for GPS. This is technological
> avocation on par with ouja boards and tarot cards.

Once again (as I mentioned in the GPS NOTAM thread yesterday)... I am
not talking about terrorists as the cause of a navaid outage. I am
talking about either unforeseen technical issues or military testing,
just like the current GPS NOTAM.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jon Parmet" > wrote in message
m...

<snip>

> As another datapoint, "Sole Means" is no longer part of the FAA's
> vocabulary.

No, Blakey's press release was quite explicit, in the use of the term, "sole
means".

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Ray Andraka]

Not to beat a dead horse, but this article on avweb echoes Rich Kaplan's
concerns:

http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/182754-1.html

It basically talks about the vulnerability of GPS to jammers (intentional and
non-intentional), poor geometry (I've had that happen), government testing and
system shutdowns etc.



Richard Kaplan wrote:

> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > No moving map. I'll save time here. I am a computer engineer. There is no
> > way it can be too high tech for me. I like moving maps. I don't want to go
>
> An M1 Loran can easily be hooked up to most moving map multi-function
> displays.
>
> If you want a really "high tech" panel, then instead of a Garmin 530/530
> combo, take the money for the second 530 and instead buy an M1 Loran and
> hook both the GPS and the Loran to a Sandel electronic HSI. This setup will
> be more "high tech" than a dual-GPS panel, it will be more redundant, and it
> will also cost less!
>
> > back. Plus, I don't see the point. Loran was good for nothing but enroute,
>
> If we are talking about re-designing the airspace system, then we can also
> consider what is reasonable to be approved for what purposes. Loran got a
> bad rap early on due to poor installations. When a Loran is installed
> properly, there is no reason at all why it could not be reliable enough for
> non-precsion approaches. In fact, in a genuine emergency where I had
> limited electrical power and had to get in on the first approach, I would
> without a second thought use my VFR Loran today over my IFR VOR/DME KNS-80.
>
> Also, if we start decommissioning VORs then certainly there will be areas of
> the country where there is no VOR coverage at all at low altitudes and
> therefore there will be no effective backup to GPS in those areas. If you
> keep the Loran system, then there will be a GPS backup EVERYWHERE at all
> altitudes.
>
> If nothing else, Loran would work just fine to let pilots navigate to VMC
> conditions if there should be a GPS outage at some point.
>
> In addition to all this, since Loran is basically just another form of
> digital RNAV, it would be a great component of a new generation of hybrid
> GPS-Loran receivers which automatically switch from one source to another as
> necessary.
>
> > VOR has a built in mapping system. You know where the VOR is, its
> somewhere
> > you want to go (an airport), and it even identifies itself. LAT/LON
> without
>
> I do not understand this at all. VOR has a built-in mapping system? Maybe
> in a Garmin 530 because the Garmin 530 is basically a multi-function
> display, but then a Loran can be connected to just about any MFD as well.
>
> > airport data is useless, and getting pseudo-vor to an airport for $30 a
> month
> > with no moving map does not excite me in the least. Considering that the
>
> There is no requirement to update either Loran or GPS databases monthly for
> enroute purposes.
>
> > Apollo Loran data subscription would probally have cost near as much as
> > my 430 GPS data, I would say the 430 was the more cost effective solution.
>
> A Garmin 430 may have lots of advantages over Loran, but cost effectiveness
> is certainly not one of them.
>
> If a Garmin 430 costs $10,000 more to install than a Loran, then at a 5%
> cost of capital the Loran user will save $500 per year in interest costs,
> more than enough to pay for Loran updates forever and still hold onto the
> original capital!
>
> But really I am not doubting that GPS is useful and I also do not doubt that
> GPS is more useful than Loran... my point is not what someone's FIRST box
> should be but rather what their SECOND box should be... in that regard, I
> think a GPS/Loran panel (or GPS/Loran/Sandel EHSI panel) is less expensive
> and more redundant than a GPS/GPS panel... it is not often in aviation that
> less money leads to more function as in this case.
>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Tarver Engineering]

"Barry" > wrote in message
...
> > No, Blakey's press release was quite explicit, in the use of the term,
> > "sole means".
>
> Which press release are you referring to?

The one that began this thread.

> The recent one on WAAS
> (http://www2.faa.gov/index.cfm/apa/1062?id=1756) reads, in part:
>
> "Once avionics are certified to receive the system's full capability,
> WAAS will allow precision instrument approaches at thousands
> of runways at airports and airstrips that have little or no
> ground-based landing capability," said FAA Administrator
> Marion C. Blakey."

Perhaps.

> but doesn't contain the term "sole means". The people I know in FAA
Flight
> Standards avoid using the term because its meaning isn't clear (though the
> FAA doesn't seem to mind ambiguity in many other cases).

Yes Berry, "sole means" was not going to happen, but now it did.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Jon Parmet]

"Barry" > wrote in message >...
>
> Which press release are you referring to? The recent one on WAAS
> (http://www2.faa.gov/index.cfm/apa/1062?id=1756) reads, in part:
>
> "Once avionics are certified to receive the system's full capability,
> WAAS will allow precision instrument approaches at thousands
> of runways at airports and airstrips that have little or no
> ground-based landing capability," said FAA Administrator
> Marion C. Blakey."
>
> but doesn't contain the term "sole means". The people I know in FAA Flight
> Standards avoid using the term because its meaning isn't clear (though the
> FAA doesn't seem to mind ambiguity in many other cases).
>
> Barry

GPS will not be certified for 'sole means.'

Period.

[Barry]

> GPS will not be certified for 'sole means.'
>
> Period.

It depends on what "sole means" means. GPS and its augmentations will
probably never be the only navigation system provided. However, it appears
that the FAA will permit non-commercial operators to fly IFR with only WAAS
and GPS - see the current NOTAM:

http://www1.faa.gov/NTAP/NTAP03JUL10/GEN03003.HTM

Note in particular the last paragraph:

"Unlike TSO-C129 avionics, which were certified as a supplement to other
means of navigation, WAAS avionics are evaluated without reliance on other
navigation systems. As such, installation of WAAS avionics does not require
the aircraft to have other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown."

Barry

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jon Parmet" > wrote in message
om...
> "Barry" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > Which press release are you referring to? The recent one on WAAS
> > (http://www2.faa.gov/index.cfm/apa/1062?id=1756) reads, in part:
> >
> > "Once avionics are certified to receive the system's full capability,
> > WAAS will allow precision instrument approaches at thousands
> > of runways at airports and airstrips that have little or no
> > ground-based landing capability," said FAA Administrator
> > Marion C. Blakey."
> >
> > but doesn't contain the term "sole means". The people I know in FAA
Flight
> > Standards avoid using the term because its meaning isn't clear (though
the
> > FAA doesn't seem to mind ambiguity in many other cases).
> >
> > Barry
>
> GPS will not be certified for 'sole means.'

Did and done, Parmet. The VORs are going away.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Craig Davidson]

Peter wrote in message >...
>
>Doug Carter > wrote
>
>>Keep in mind that GPS is a broad band spread spectrum waveform, not a
>>narrow band FDM channel like a VOR uses.
>
>GPS is a narrow band signal.
>
>>One implication (and the
>>principal reason military customers like spread spectrum system) is the
>>difficulty in jamming. Depending on the coding gain and distance it
>>takes a lot of transmitter power. However, power amplifiers (even at L
>>band) are commercially available so it can be done.
>
>1 watt at 30,000 feet (e.g. hanging under a very low cost baloon) will
>jam GPS over a radius of about 500 miles.
>
>Reference already discussed in this thread.
>
>
>Peter.
>--

http://www.mayflowercom.com/testresults.htm

>a recent Lincoln Laboratory study (Gilmore and Delaney [2]) indicated that
a modest 1 W in-band interference source >may deny C/A code receiver
operation up to a range of about 85 km.

I get 53 miles.

These guys say you are off by a factor of ten.

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:11:13 GMT, "Craig Davidson"
> wrote:

>
>
>Peter wrote in message >...
>>
>>Doug Carter > wrote
>>
>>>Keep in mind that GPS is a broad band spread spectrum waveform, not a
>>>narrow band FDM channel like a VOR uses.
>>
>>GPS is a narrow band signal.
>>
>>>One implication (and the
>>>principal reason military customers like spread spectrum system) is the
>>>difficulty in jamming. Depending on the coding gain and distance it
>>>takes a lot of transmitter power. However, power amplifiers (even at L
>>>band) are commercially available so it can be done.
>>
>>1 watt at 30,000 feet (e.g. hanging under a very low cost baloon) will
>>jam GPS over a radius of about 500 miles.
>>
>>Reference already discussed in this thread.
>>
>>
>>Peter.
>>--
>
>http://www.mayflowercom.com/testresults.htm
>
>>a recent Lincoln Laboratory study (Gilmore and Delaney [2]) indicated that
>a modest 1 W in-band interference source >may deny C/A code receiver
>operation up to a range of about 85 km.
>
>I get 53 miles.
>
>These guys say you are off by a factor of ten.

Isn't 53 miles pretty close to 85 km?

Roger
>
>
>

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

[Roger Halstead]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:59:47 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Barry" > wrote in message
...
>> > No, Blakey's press release was quite explicit, in the use of the term,
>> > "sole means".
>>
>> Which press release are you referring to?
>
>The one that began this thread.

Hi post began this thread and there was no link to the AOPA article.

However I think you are referring to the "other thread" about WAAS
being turned on and that has a link to the AOPA article
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-3-019x.html
It does refer to the equipment from two companies being "sole source"
capable, I didn't read it to mean they were already certified as such,
but I didn't read they weren't either.

OTOH the last I knew the FAA had backed off, mainly due to military
concerns, on making GPS the only source of navigation and were
planning on keeping some form of ground based navigation as a backup.

So...Although we may see a reduction in VORs and NDBs, I seriously
doubt we will see the VORs go away anytime in the near future, or even
our lifetimes.

Even with the decommissioning of NDBs, they are still installing new
ones..

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>> The recent one on WAAS
>> (http://www2.faa.gov/index.cfm/apa/1062?id=1756) reads, in part:
>>
>> "Once avionics are certified to receive the system's full capability,
>> WAAS will allow precision instrument approaches at thousands
>> of runways at airports and airstrips that have little or no
>> ground-based landing capability," said FAA Administrator
>> Marion C. Blakey."
>
>Perhaps.
>
>> but doesn't contain the term "sole means". The people I know in FAA
>Flight
>> Standards avoid using the term because its meaning isn't clear (though the
>> FAA doesn't seem to mind ambiguity in many other cases).
>
>Yes Berry, "sole means" was not going to happen, but now it did.
>
>John P. Tarver, MS/PE
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:59:47 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Barry" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > No, Blakey's press release was quite explicit, in the use of the
term,
> >> > "sole means".
> >>
> >> Which press release are you referring to?
> >
> >The one that began this thread.
>
> Hi post began this thread and there was no link to the AOPA article.
>
> However I think you are referring to the "other thread" about WAAS
> being turned on and that has a link to the AOPA article
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-3-019x.html
> It does refer to the equipment from two companies being "sole source"
> capable, I didn't read it to mean they were already certified as such,
> but I didn't read they weren't either.

The use of the term "sole means" is the most signifigant statement in the
entire press release. I thank you for the correction, Roger.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE