GNS430 on the Airway

[[email protected]]

Hello,

I was on the ground at an uncontrolled field. I got a clearance to
"On departure fly runway heading Radar Vectors xyz VOR Victor xxx abc
VOR"

Before leaving, I programmed the entire route into the GNS430. Since
it doesn't have airways, I "synthesized" them by just putting in the
VORs and intersections.

On departure, ATC gave me kind instructions to skip the xyz VOR.
Instead, they
vectored me directly onto Victor xxx.

The 430 kept the leg "airport to xyz VOR" active, and did not give
me any guidance
except for the moving map to show when I was established on the airway.

So I waited until the little airplane was over the white line, then
went to the flight plan page and said "Direct-to" the next point on the
plan. I also had the second VOR receiver
tuned and twisted.

The '430 gave me guidance from exactly where I was - when I pushed
the Direct-to and hit Enter. Was I on the airway? Maybe a bit off,
hard to tell. The VOR receiver and
ATC were both happy.

Is there a way to change the active leg in the flight plan, so it
gives guidance "from the waypoint that you skipped to the next
waypoint" rather than "from where you were when you pressed the button
to the next waypoint"?

- Jerry Kaidor ( )

[[email protected]]

Whups, looks like I answered my own question with the PC simulator.
You just choose the leg end that you want on the FPL
screen, hit "Menu" and it asks if you want to activate that leg.
Duhhh.....

- Jerry Kaidor

[James Pu]

> Is there a way to change the active leg in the flight plan, so it
>gives guidance "from the waypoint that you skipped to the next
>waypoint" rather than "from where you were when you pressed the button
>to the next waypoint"?

Yes, of course. Here is how:
1. Hit [FPL] and turn on the cursor.
2. Rotate the big knob and move the cursor to the ending point of the
leg you want to intersect. (say Vxxx is defined by WayPt1, VORX, you
move the cursor to VORX)
3. Hit [Direct] TWICE (here is the trick, hit twice instead of once)
4. Hit [Enter]

Now the entire leg (Vxxx) become active. GNS430 will give you heading
to intersect the leg and advise your turn inbound VORX when you about
to intersect the Victor airway.

Some good GNS430 trick can be found at
http://flyimc.mywowbb.com/

[Roy Smith]

" > wrote:
> Is there a way to change the active leg in the flight plan, so it
> gives guidance "from the waypoint that you skipped to the next
> waypoint" rather than "from where you were when you pressed the button
> to the next waypoint"?

On the 480, that feature is called "Fly Leg" (found on the -D-> menu). I
can only guess that the 430 has something similar.

[john smith]

> On the 480, that feature is called "Fly Leg" (found on the -D-> menu). I
> can only guess that the 430 has something similar.

I don't think so.
UPSAV/IIMorrow employed a totally different logic than Garmin.

[Robert M. Gary]

That's one major limitation of the Garmin products. Not having airways
is very, very irritating especially to those of us that fly in high
traffic areas (such as L.A.). When an approach controller machine guns
you with a new 6 airway route without giving you any intersections it
leaves you jumping for your chart. When I had my king unit, I would
just put the pink airplane line on top of the blue airway line and I
was done. I hope Garmin addresses this someday.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> That's one major limitation of the Garmin products. Not having airways
> is very, very irritating especially to those of us that fly in high
> traffic areas (such as L.A.). When an approach controller machine guns
> you with a new 6 airway route without giving you any intersections it
> leaves you jumping for your chart. When I had my king unit, I would
> just put the pink airplane line on top of the blue airway line and I
> was done. I hope Garmin addresses this someday.
>
> -Robert
>
The present 400/500s don't have enough memory. The so-called WAAS mod
will provide a whole lot horsepower. I suspect then they could provide
an airway database, but they sure ain't talking.

Also, their 31 leg flight plan limitation if far too restrictive. My
Garmin 296 does a lot better than that!

[Robert M. Gary]

> The present 400/500s don't have enough memory. The so-called WAAS mod
> will provide a whole lot horsepower. I suspect then they could provide
> an airway database, but they sure ain't talking.

That is what Garmin said. Its interesting to consider that my ancient
King SkymapIIIc color moving map handheld has airways as does the
little PocketFMS program I keep on the PDA in my pocket. So when will
the Garmin be able to handle the amount of data that takes up 1/100th
of the SD card in my pocket is already handling?? Personally, I think
they underestimated the importance of it because the guys back east
don't have mountains and therefor don't often fly airways when GPS
equipped. Out here, the airways is what threads you through the pass.

-Robert

[Peter R.]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> Personally, I think
> they underestimated the importance of it because the guys back east
> don't have mountains and therefor don't often fly airways when GPS
> equipped. Out here, the airways is what threads you through the pass.

With regards to airways and the northeast US, your statement is not true.
Traffic volume and ATC flow result in all IFR traffic being routed over
victor airways. Direct between most of the major airports is only given
after midnight and before 6:00am.


--
Peter

[nooneimportant]

But the workaround is very easy... if V123 goes throug the abc bca and cab
VOR's then you creat the flight plan wiht waypoints at each vor or
intersection on the route. If you are off airway and choose to fly TO the
airway, simply go to the FPL screen, select teh NEXT fix on the plan and
activate the leg. Your CDI will be in relation to that leg, not a direct
line to the fix.

Tho i do wish you could simply put AIRPORTA D-> abcVOR-V123-cabVORD D->
AIRPORTB. But it only saves a few entries on most flights. And in reality
I've NEVER gotten what i was cleared for IFR wise when i filed /G.... I
MIGHT get to the second fix, then its "Proceed Direct AIRPORTB" or something
similar that cuts off about 20 minutes of flying time.




"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> That's one major limitation of the Garmin products. Not having airways
> is very, very irritating especially to those of us that fly in high
> traffic areas (such as L.A.). When an approach controller machine guns
> you with a new 6 airway route without giving you any intersections it
> leaves you jumping for your chart. When I had my king unit, I would
> just put the pink airplane line on top of the blue airway line and I
> was done. I hope Garmin addresses this someday.
>
> -Robert
>
>

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:10:13 GMT, wrote:

>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> That's one major limitation of the Garmin products. Not having airways
>> is very, very irritating especially to those of us that fly in high
>> traffic areas (such as L.A.). When an approach controller machine guns
>> you with a new 6 airway route without giving you any intersections it
>> leaves you jumping for your chart. When I had my king unit, I would
>> just put the pink airplane line on top of the blue airway line and I
>> was done. I hope Garmin addresses this someday.
>>
>> -Robert
>>
>The present 400/500s don't have enough memory. The so-called WAAS mod
>will provide a whole lot horsepower. I suspect then they could provide
>an airway database, but they sure ain't talking.

Garmin doesn't care about airways and thinks they're obsolete in the
GPS direct world. They don't even have them in the G1000 system and
have said they aren't planning on adding it, and that box likely has
as much if not more power than the WAAS upgrades will have. It really
is unfortunate, it shouldn't be that hard to have flight plan routing
a-la Honeywell FMS systems (waypoint, airway, waypoint, have the box
fill in the intermediate points) in these boxes, especially when the
design is done from the ground up and could include that functionality
with apparently not much additional work.

[Roy Smith]

Peter Clark > wrote:
> Garmin doesn't care about airways and thinks they're obsolete in the
> GPS direct world. They don't even have them in the G1000 system and
> have said they aren't planning on adding it

Wow, that really blows my mind. They've got it in the 480 (via the
Apollo/UPSAT acquisition), and it's one of the best features of that box.
It's staggering that they left it out of the G1000.

Garmin may thing airways are obsolete, but nobody's told ATC about that
yet, at least not around where I fly.

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think
>> they underestimated the importance of it because the guys back east
>> don't have mountains and therefor don't often fly airways when GPS
>> equipped. Out here, the airways is what threads you through the pass.
>
> With regards to airways and the northeast US, your statement is not true.
> Traffic volume and ATC flow result in all IFR traffic being routed over
> victor airways. Direct between most of the major airports is only given
> after midnight and before 6:00am.
>
Hmmm...how are they going to route traffic when all the VOR's are
decommissioned in the next few years?

Matt Barrow

[Peter R.]

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> Hmmm...how are they going to route traffic when all the VOR's are
> decommissioned in the next few years

Next few years? Where did you get this timeframe?

--
Peter

[Marco Leon]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> > Hmmm...how are they going to route traffic when all the VOR's are
> > decommissioned in the next few years
>
> Next few years? Where did you get this timeframe?

He's making it up. Even if he substituted "years" for "decades," it still
would probably be too soon.

Marco



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Robert M. Gary]

> But the workaround is very easy... if V123 goes throug the abc bca and cab
> VOR's then you creat the flight plan wiht waypoints at each vor or
> intersection on the route.

That struggle is reasonable as you sit at the runup writing down your
clearance. However, when you are in flight, in very busy airspace, and
have controllers that enjoy updating routing airway assignments by the
dozen things start to break down. Just the fact that you are suggesting
to grab your enroute chart to figure out the waypoints shows how old
this technology feels.
My other problem with the solution you and others have pointed out is
that it has the potential to be very dangerous. Many airways have
multiple turns, some slight when flying in mountain areas. Having to
figure out all the bends on the enroute chart and then program each
turn into the GPS is as modern as dead rec. My 1990's King handheld did
better than that, as does the $80 GPS that plugs into my PDA and does
airway routing.


-Robert

[Marco Leon]

So how far off an airway is an aircraft when they are following a GPS flight
plan with every intersection and VOR? Is there an article or study somewhere
that includes metrics to back it up? For example, "a non-WAAS GPS-derived
line direct btween two intersection xx miles away will differ from the
airway between those same two intersections by x.x statute miles." How do
the error allowances play into this?

Marco

"nooneimportant" > wrote in message
news:gPgGf.57025$V.55301@fed1read04...
> But the workaround is very easy... if V123 goes throug the abc bca and cab
> VOR's then you creat the flight plan wiht waypoints at each vor or
> intersection on the route. If you are off airway and choose to fly TO the
> airway, simply go to the FPL screen, select teh NEXT fix on the plan and
> activate the leg. Your CDI will be in relation to that leg, not a direct
> line to the fix.
>
> Tho i do wish you could simply put AIRPORTA D-> abcVOR-V123-cabVORD D->
> AIRPORTB. But it only saves a few entries on most flights. And in reality
> I've NEVER gotten what i was cleared for IFR wise when i filed /G.... I
> MIGHT get to the second fix, then its "Proceed Direct AIRPORTB" or
something
> similar that cuts off about 20 minutes of flying time.
>
>
>
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > That's one major limitation of the Garmin products. Not having airways
> > is very, very irritating especially to those of us that fly in high
> > traffic areas (such as L.A.). When an approach controller machine guns
> > you with a new 6 airway route without giving you any intersections it
> > leaves you jumping for your chart. When I had my king unit, I would
> > just put the pink airplane line on top of the blue airway line and I
> > was done. I hope Garmin addresses this someday.
> >
> > -Robert
> >
> >
>
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Robert M. Gary]

> So how far off an airway is an aircraft when they are following a GPS flight
> plan with every intersection and VOR?

If you miss entering one of the bends in the airway it could be 20 or
30 miles off. The point is that you are now back to the 1970's,
grabbing your enroute chart and trying to figure out all the airway
bends when you could have a 1990's handheld GPS (King Skymap IIIC) and
it would do it all for you.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> in these boxes, especially when the
> design is done from the ground up and could include that functionality
> with apparently not much additional work. '

The nav function of the G1000 is certainly the ground up though. Its
100% a GNS 430. If you look on the right side of the panel there is a
group of buttons that control the nav functions. These buttons are the
same as the buttons on the bottom of the 430 (OBS, Proc, etc). In fact,
the only difference I can find between the G1000 and the GNS 430 is
that when you do a course reversal on approach, you must 'unsuspend'
the 430 to begin the inbound leg, where the G1000 automatically does
this.

-Robert

[Peter R.]

Marco Leon <mmleonyahoo.com> wrote:

> He's making it up. Even if he substituted "years" for "decades," it still
> would probably be too soon.

After reading Matt's posts for a year or more and giving this comment some
extra thought, I now think he was being sarcastic. :)

--
Peter

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...

>
> Hmmm...how are they going to route traffic when all the VOR's are
> decommissioned in the next few years?

Who told you that?

[Ted]

> wrote...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm...how are they going to route traffic when all the VOR's are
>> decommissioned in the next few years?
>
> Who told you that?

http://www.faa.gov/asd/gpstrans.pdf

http://avnwww.jccbi.gov/icasc/PDF/frp1999.pdf

http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/docs/Statewide%20v1.1H.pdf

[Ted]

"Ted" > wrote in message
et...
>
> > wrote...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmmm...how are they going to route traffic when all the VOR's are
>>> decommissioned in the next few years?
>>
>> Who told you that?
>
> http://www.faa.gov/asd/gpstrans.pdf
>
> http://avnwww.jccbi.gov/icasc/PDF/frp1999.pdf
>
> http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/docs/Statewide%20v1.1H.pdf
>

also see:

http://gps.faa.gov/

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/cgsic/meetings/summaryrpts/33rdmeeting/Presentations/Hanlon.ppt

[Ron Lee]

"Ted" > wrote:

>
> wrote...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmmm...how are they going to route traffic when all the VOR's are
>>> decommissioned in the next few years?
>>
>> Who told you that?
>
>http://www.faa.gov/asd/gpstrans.pdf
>
>http://avnwww.jccbi.gov/icasc/PDF/frp1999.pdf
>
>http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/docs/Statewide%20v1.1H.pdf

Don't use outdated FRPs. The FAAs OLD thought of getting rid of all
ground-based navaids in favor of SATNAV was flawed from the beginning.
It was further reduced to outdated after 9/11.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

>So how far off an airway is an aircraft when they are following a GPS flight
>plan with every intersection and VOR? Is there an article or study somewhere
>that includes metrics to back it up? For example, "a non-WAAS GPS-derived
>line direct btween two intersection xx miles away will differ from the
>airway between those same two intersections by x.x statute miles." How do
>the error allowances play into this?


Since unaugmented GPS (not using WAAS) is accurate to 10 meters or so
(plus/minus) and an airway is plus/minus four MILES (or is is two?)
the navigation source (GPS) is not a major error source.

Ron Lee

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/09/06 08:09, Ron Lee wrote:
> "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>So how far off an airway is an aircraft when they are following a GPS flight
>>plan with every intersection and VOR? Is there an article or study somewhere
>>that includes metrics to back it up? For example, "a non-WAAS GPS-derived
>>line direct btween two intersection xx miles away will differ from the
>>airway between those same two intersections by x.x statute miles." How do
>>the error allowances play into this?
>
>
> Since unaugmented GPS (not using WAAS) is accurate to 10 meters or so
> (plus/minus) and an airway is plus/minus four MILES (or is is two?)
> the navigation source (GPS) is not a major error source.

An airway is 8 miles wide (4 miles on either side of the centerline).

One of the problems is that GPS accounts for magnetic variations differently
than the VORs do. Also I don't think GPS accounts for the fact that the
VOR radial are not exactly aligned with magnetic north (what is this called?
variance? I can't remember - it's documented in the A/FD).

GPS position errors would be on top of all this.

>
> Ron Lee


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Dave Butler]

Mark Hansen wrote:

>
> One of the problems is that GPS accounts for magnetic variations
> differently
> than the VORs do. Also I don't think GPS accounts for the fact that the
> VOR radial are not exactly aligned with magnetic north (what is this
> called?
> variance? I can't remember - it's documented in the A/FD).

This would have an effect only if the procedure has you tracking a defined VOR
radial. There might be some such procedures, but I can't think of any at the moment.

All the airway segments (that's what we're talking about, right?) that I know of
have a defined point at each end of the segment. There is one and only one great
circle route between those two points. It's the same great circle whether you
follow it with a GPS or a VOR receiver.

Dave

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Ted" > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote...
>>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm...how are they going to route traffic when all the VOR's are
>>>> decommissioned in the next few years?
>>>
>>> Who told you that?
>>
>>http://www.faa.gov/asd/gpstrans.pdf
>>
>>http://avnwww.jccbi.gov/icasc/PDF/frp1999.pdf
>>
>>http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/docs/Statewide%20v1.1H.pdf
>
> Don't use outdated FRPs.

Do you have a newer version?

> The FAAs OLD thought of getting rid of all
> ground-based navaids in favor of SATNAV was flawed from the beginning.
> It was further reduced to outdated after 9/11.

How so?

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
>> Hmmm...how are they going to route traffic when all the VOR's are
>> decommissioned in the next few years
>
> Next few years? Where did you get this timeframe?
>
See Ted's posts further down the thread.

[[email protected]]

Ted wrote:
> "Ted" > wrote in message
> et...
>
> wrote...
>>
>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hmmm...how are they going to route traffic when all the VOR's are
>>>>decommissioned in the next few years?
>>>
>>>Who told you that?
>>
>>http://www.faa.gov/asd/gpstrans.pdf
>>
>>http://avnwww.jccbi.gov/icasc/PDF/frp1999.pdf
>>
>>http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/docs/Statewide%20v1.1H.pdf
>>
>
>
> also see:
>
> http://gps.faa.gov/
>
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/cgsic/meetings/summaryrpts/33rdmeeting/Presentations/Hanlon.ppt
>
>
>

The WAAS implementation in that first PDF (10 years old) is terribly out
of date. WAAS, although supporting LPV, is not performing as well as
they hoped when that was published.

There is still no sole-means en route in sight, except for Alaska, which
is an exception to the usual ICAO requirements.

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Ted" > wrote:
>>
>>
> wrote...
>>>
>>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hmmm...how are they going to route traffic when all the VOR's are
>>>>>decommissioned in the next few years?
>>>>
>>>>Who told you that?
>>>
>>>http://www.faa.gov/asd/gpstrans.pdf
>>>
>>>http://avnwww.jccbi.gov/icasc/PDF/frp1999.pdf
>>>
>>>http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/docs/Statewide%20v1.1H.pdf
>>
>>Don't use outdated FRPs.
>
>
> Do you have a newer version?
>
>
>>The FAAs OLD thought of getting rid of all
>>ground-based navaids in favor of SATNAV was flawed from the beginning.
>>It was further reduced to outdated after 9/11.
>
>
> How so?
>
>
>

There isn't a newer version because the FAA does not like to admit when
they do incorrect planning.

If those old documents were valid some VORs would already be shutdown.

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

> Peter Clark > wrote:
>
>>Garmin doesn't care about airways and thinks they're obsolete in the
>>GPS direct world. They don't even have them in the G1000 system and
>>have said they aren't planning on adding it
>
>
> Wow, that really blows my mind. They've got it in the 480 (via the
> Apollo/UPSAT acquisition), and it's one of the best features of that box.
> It's staggering that they left it out of the G1000.
>
> Garmin may thing airways are obsolete, but nobody's told ATC about that
> yet, at least not around where I fly.

The guy who runs the 400/500/1000 program has always been hard-over
against an airway database.

[[email protected]]

Ron Lee wrote:

> "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So how far off an airway is an aircraft when they are following a GPS flight
>>plan with every intersection and VOR? Is there an article or study somewhere
>>that includes metrics to back it up? For example, "a non-WAAS GPS-derived
>>line direct btween two intersection xx miles away will differ from the
>>airway between those same two intersections by x.x statute miles." How do
>>the error allowances play into this?
>
>
>
> Since unaugmented GPS (not using WAAS) is accurate to 10 meters or so
> (plus/minus) and an airway is plus/minus four MILES (or is is two?)
> the navigation source (GPS) is not a major error source.
>
> Ron Lee

VOR airway's primary is plus/minues 4 to 51 miles, where it expands at
4.5 degrees. The secondary is an additional 2 miles, which expands at
6.7 degrees at 51 miles.

[[email protected]]

The issues with mag var and declination are easily absorbed by the huge
widths of the victor airway. The problem is airway course changes
between facilities. An autoload of the airway not only solves that
issue, it keeps everything "spot on" and has all the non-compulsory
reporting points loaded and ready, if needed.

[[email protected]]

Dave Butler wrote:

> Mark Hansen wrote:

>
> All the airway segments (that's what we're talking about, right?) that I
> know of have a defined point at each end of the segment. There is one
> and only one great circle route between those two points. It's the same
> great circle whether you follow it with a GPS or a VOR receiver.

The charted airway mag bearing is the issue. It was developed from one
source and Garmin, et al, may or may not use the same source.

But, you're right, it's no big deal, unless the airway has an
intersection course change of some magnitude.

[Roy Smith]

> wrote:
> The guy who runs the 400/500/1000 program has always been hard-over
> against an airway database.

Does he say why?

[ted]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ted" > wrote:
>>
>>>
> wrote...
>>>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm...how are they going to route traffic when all the VOR's are
>>>>> decommissioned in the next few years?
>>>>
>>>> Who told you that?
>>>
>>>http://www.faa.gov/asd/gpstrans.pdf
>>>
>>>http://avnwww.jccbi.gov/icasc/PDF/frp1999.pdf
>>>
>>>http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/docs/Statewide%20v1.1H.pdf
>>
>> Don't use outdated FRPs.
>
> Do you have a newer version?
>
>> The FAAs OLD thought of getting rid of all
>> ground-based navaids in favor of SATNAV was flawed from the beginning.
>> It was further reduced to outdated after 9/11.
>
> How so?

The only issue (or flaw) that has come to my attention is the risk of radio
interference on the GPS civilian frequency. The replacement GPS satellites
are being designed with a second civilian frequency to address this problem.

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/1998/dot5598.htm

http://www.aero.org/news/newsitems/gpsdecision-041398.html

http://geodesy.geology.ohio-state.edu/course/gs609/gpsfre.html

http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsmail/1996/msg00316.html

http://clinton6.nara.gov/1998/03/1998-03-30-vp-announces-second-civilian-signal.html

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>>The guy who runs the 400/500/1000 program has always been hard-over
>>against an airway database.
>
>
> Does he say why?
>
>

Never had an opportunity to press him on the issue. But, I think Garmin
is innovative but also concerned about liability issues. Just today
ZDC issued the following NOTAM:


KZDC WASHINGTON (ARTCC), DC.

02/064 - PILOTS UTILIZING JEPPESEN NAVIGATION DATABASE SYSTEMS FILED
ON J79 SOUTHBOUND TO CHS ARE ADVISED THAT PROCESSING IS NOT CORRECT AND
MAY CAUSE THEM TO NAVIGATE ON A ROUTE DIFFERENT OTHER THAN J79,
PRIMARILY STARTING AT THE KATZN INTERSECTION. PILOT DEVIATIONS ARE
POSSIBLE DUE TO THE ROUTING ERRORS WIE UNTIL 16 MAR 23:59

[[email protected]]

ted wrote:


>
> The only issue (or flaw) that has come to my attention is the risk of radio
> interference on the GPS civilian frequency. The replacement GPS satellites
> are being designed with a second civilian frequency to address this problem.
>
How long will that take to populate the entire constellation?

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message news:Z_4Hf.33790$JT.747@fed1read06...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>> How so?
>>
>>
>>
>
> There isn't a newer version because the FAA does not like to admit when
> they do incorrect planning.
>
> If those old documents were valid some VORs would already be shutdown.

Though VORs have some use in the near term, I can't see them being viable
beyond a "few" years.

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > wrote in message news:DDbHf.33957$JT.26162@fed1read06...
>
>>ted wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The only issue (or flaw) that has come to my attention is the risk of
>>>radio interference on the GPS civilian frequency. The replacement GPS
>>>satellites are being designed with a second civilian frequency to address
>>>this problem.
>>>
>>
>>How long will that take to populate the entire constellation?
>
>
> If necessary to facilitate commercial avaition, not nearly as long as you
> think.
>
>
>
I guess to make that work we'll need to know how long I think it will be
and then the percentage reduction you think will be applied to what I
think.

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> > wrote in message news:Z_4Hf.33790$JT.747@fed1read06...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>>How so?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>There isn't a newer version because the FAA does not like to admit when
>>they do incorrect planning.
>>
>>If those old documents were valid some VORs would already be shutdown.
>
>
> Though VORs have some use in the near term, I can't see them being viable
> beyond a "few" years.
>
>
>
No matter how old or crummy VORs are compared to GPS, GPS still has a
continuity and integrity issue for sole-means en route navigation in a
non-radar domestic airspace environment. Until the FAA, with some
agreement from the other ICAO members, hammer that one out, VOR will
continue to be the primary en route nav aid for domestic airspace.

The FAA criteria worked out by an FAA/Industry rulemaking group for the
new performance-based RNAV (RNP) IAPs just went into effect last June
and has as one of its fundamental premises the failure of GPS during the
performance-based RNAV (RNP) IAP and requires conventional nav aids for
the missed approach or, where terrain requires continued RNP for the
missed approach, then the aircraft must have at least one IRU to sustain
acceptable RNP levels during the critical phase of the missed approach.

Note the new KPSP RNAV (RNP) IAPs do not require RNP for the missed
approach; they track to TRM VOR using Level 1 RNAV missed approach
criteria until reaching TRM (Level 1 is the same criteria used for
plain-old RNAV (GPS) IAPs). Note the KSUN RNAV (RNP) IAP requires RNP
because of terrain and the lack of VOR.

[Ron Lee]

"ted" > wrote:
>
>The only issue (or flaw) that has come to my attention is the risk of radio
>interference on the GPS civilian frequency. The replacement GPS satellites
>are being designed with a second civilian frequency to address this problem.
>
>http://www.dot.gov/affairs/1998/dot5598.htm
>
>http://www.aero.org/news/newsitems/gpsdecision-041398.html
>
>http://geodesy.geology.ohio-state.edu/course/gs609/gpsfre.html
>
>http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsmail/1996/msg00316.html
>
>http://clinton6.nara.gov/1998/03/1998-03-30-vp-announces-second-civilian-signal.html

Ted, the second civil frequency on the Block IIRM satellites (known as
L2C) is not operational. I have no idea when it will be operational.
Look at the phase-out date for VORs in the 1999 FRP. I don't recall
the date but I would guess that we are close to it now.

Plus L2C is not in an approved protected frequency band for aviation
(ARNS) so the FAA will not allow it for aviation.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message news:DDbHf.33957$JT.26162@fed1read06...
>> ted wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The only issue (or flaw) that has come to my attention is the risk of
>>> radio interference on the GPS civilian frequency. The replacement GPS
>>> satellites are being designed with a second civilian frequency to address
>>> this problem.
>>>
>> How long will that take to populate the entire constellation?
>
>If necessary to facilitate commercial avaition, not nearly as long as you
>think.

If you launch three satellites per year then about 24/3 = 8 years.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

>> Don't use outdated FRPs.
>
>Do you have a newer version?

The 2005 version is here:

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/Default.htm

I have not read it yet.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

From the 2005 FRP

A reduction in the VOR population (only) is expected to begin in 2010.
The proposed reduction will transition from today’s VOR services to a
minimum operational network (MON). The MON will support IFR operations
at the busiest airports and serve as an independent civilian backup
navigation source to GPS and GPS/WAAS in the NAS. Section 3.2
discusses the transition in more detail.

The FAA plans to sustain existing DME service to support en route
navigation, and to install additional low-power DMEs to support
Instrument Landing System precision approaches as recommended by the
Commercial Aviation Safety Team. The FAA may also need to expand the
DME network to provide a redundant RNAV capability for terminal area
operations at major airports and to provide continuous coverage for
RNAV operations at en route altitudes."


Conclusion: The "phase OUT" is no longer the plan. Some undefined
and certainly changeable "phase DOWN" is the current plan.

Ron Lee

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "ted" > wrote:
>>
>>The only issue (or flaw) that has come to my attention is the risk of
>>radio
>>interference on the GPS civilian frequency. The replacement GPS
>>satellites
>>are being designed with a second civilian frequency to address this
>>problem.
>>
>>http://www.dot.gov/affairs/1998/dot5598.htm
>>
>>http://www.aero.org/news/newsitems/gpsdecision-041398.html
>>
>>http://geodesy.geology.ohio-state.edu/course/gs609/gpsfre.html
>>
>>http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsmail/1996/msg00316.html
>>
>>http://clinton6.nara.gov/1998/03/1998-03-30-vp-announces-second-civilian-signal.html
>
> Ted, the second civil frequency on the Block IIRM satellites (known as
> L2C) is not operational. I have no idea when it will be operational.
> Look at the phase-out date for VORs in the 1999 FRP. I don't recall
> the date but I would guess that we are close to it now.

I suggest there was never any doubt that VORs would NOT be totally
eliminated. That NDBs will completely disappear is fairly certain, but not
likewise for VORs. Already SatNav approaches are the majority (I suspect).

Perhaps the biggest factor to making GPS the primary navagation method is
how badly channeling all traffic over a VOR, along airways, in cluttered
space such as along the Atlantic coastal area (NY,Philly, DC...). The lack
of precision for VOR navigation is a another factor.

In the 1999 paper, the baseline for shutting down VORs was 2005, and now
it's 2010. In any case, VORs make a good backup, but only that
(comparatively speaking). I'd originally mentioned their being phased
out/dpwn over a "few" years. Depending on ones definition of "few", and mine
is 10-20, I suspect that being unable to perform WAAS grade approaches will
be akin to the inability to do much IFR nav NORDO.

In sum, it's not a matter of IF, but of WHEN. There are liekly going to be
more stumbles and pratfalls along the way, but eventually the technical
solutions will become "primary".

[ted]

> wrote in message news:%_hHf.33984$JT.6861@fed1read06...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message news:Z_4Hf.33790$JT.747@fed1read06...
>>
>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>>How so?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>There isn't a newer version because the FAA does not like to admit when
>>>they do incorrect planning.
>>>
>>>If those old documents were valid some VORs would already be shutdown.
>>
>>
>> Though VORs have some use in the near term, I can't see them being viable
>> beyond a "few" years.
>>
>>
>>
> No matter how old or crummy VORs are compared to GPS, GPS still has a
> continuity and integrity issue for sole-means en route navigation in a
> non-radar domestic airspace environment.

WAAS solves the integrity issue. I'm not sure what you mean by "continuity
issue"

[[email protected]]

ted wrote:
> > wrote in message news:%_hHf.33984$JT.6861@fed1read06...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
> wrote in message news:Z_4Hf.33790$JT.747@fed1read06...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>How so?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There isn't a newer version because the FAA does not like to admit when
>>>>they do incorrect planning.
>>>>
>>>>If those old documents were valid some VORs would already be shutdown.
>>>
>>>
>>>Though VORs have some use in the near term, I can't see them being viable
>>>beyond a "few" years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No matter how old or crummy VORs are compared to GPS, GPS still has a
>>continuity and integrity issue for sole-means en route navigation in a
>>non-radar domestic airspace environment.
>
>
> WAAS solves the integrity issue. I'm not sure what you mean by "continuity
> issue"
>
>
>
Continuity means the reliability of the primary GPS sats themselves.
They can have a sat failure or, more likely, jamming.

[Jim Carter]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ]
> Posted At: Sunday, February 12, 2006 5:53 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: GNS430 on the Airway
> Subject: Re: GNS430 on the Airway
>
> ted wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> news:%_hHf.33984$JT.6861@fed1read06...
....clipped for brevity...
[Jim Carter]
> Continuity means the reliability of the primary GPS sats themselves.
> They can have a sat failure or, more likely, jamming.

[Jim Carter]
Unless control of the satellite management system can be achieved, and
the entire constellation interrupted, wouldn't jamming be a localized
event based on the radiation pattern and power of the jamming
transmitter? And to continue jamming wouldn't the transmitter have to
stay active, making it a pretty easy target for any of several modern
weapons systems that don't rely on GPS for navigation?

[ted]

> wrote in message news:3kFHf.38391$JT.30351@fed1read06...
> ted wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> news:%_hHf.33984$JT.6861@fed1read06...
>>
>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>
> wrote in message
>>>>news:Z_4Hf.33790$JT.747@fed1read06...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>How so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There isn't a newer version because the FAA does not like to admit when
>>>>>they do incorrect planning.
>>>>>
>>>>>If those old documents were valid some VORs would already be shutdown.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Though VORs have some use in the near term, I can't see them being
>>>>viable beyond a "few" years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>No matter how old or crummy VORs are compared to GPS, GPS still has a
>>>continuity and integrity issue for sole-means en route navigation in a
>>>non-radar domestic airspace environment.
>>
>>
>> WAAS solves the integrity issue. I'm not sure what you mean by
>> "continuity issue"
>>
>>
>>
> Continuity means the reliability of the primary GPS sats themselves. They
> can have a sat failure or, more likely, jamming.

Ground based navaids can fail, can experience jamming (both intentional and
unintentional) and are much more vulnerable to terrain obscuration than
navaids in the sky. I'm not aware of any significant continuity issue for
GPS that are a bigger problem than what is experienced with ground based
navaids.

[ted]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ]
>> Posted At: Sunday, February 12, 2006 5:53 AM
>> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
>> Conversation: GNS430 on the Airway
>> Subject: Re: GNS430 on the Airway
>>
>> ted wrote:
>> > > wrote in message
>> news:%_hHf.33984$JT.6861@fed1read06...
> ...clipped for brevity...
> [Jim Carter]
>> Continuity means the reliability of the primary GPS sats themselves.
>> They can have a sat failure or, more likely, jamming.
>
> [Jim Carter]
> Unless control of the satellite management system can be achieved, and
> the entire constellation interrupted, wouldn't jamming be a localized
> event based on the radiation pattern and power of the jamming
> transmitter? And to continue jamming wouldn't the transmitter have to
> stay active, making it a pretty easy target for any of several modern
> weapons systems that don't rely on GPS for navigation?
>

I hope you are only referring to intentional jmmers. :-)

[[email protected]]

Jim Carter wrote:
>

> [Jim Carter]
> Unless control of the satellite management system can be achieved, and
> the entire constellation interrupted, wouldn't jamming be a localized
> event based on the radiation pattern and power of the jamming
> transmitter? And to continue jamming wouldn't the transmitter have to
> stay active, making it a pretty easy target for any of several modern
> weapons systems that don't rely on GPS for navigation?
>

Jamming is indeed localized, but it can cover a fairly large area for
aircraft operating at high altitude. The jamming that occurs in this
country thus far is "friendly fire."

If hostile forces chose to jam within this country using a mobile
platform, they would be tough to find and destroy. That is why there is
so much jamming today as certain folks try to figure out how to defeat
enemy jamming.

[[email protected]]

ted wrote:


> Ground based navaids can fail, can experience jamming (both intentional and
> unintentional) and are much more vulnerable to terrain obscuration than
> navaids in the sky. I'm not aware of any significant continuity issue for
> GPS that are a bigger problem than what is experienced with ground based
> navaids.
>
>
Those involved in planning see it differently. That is why the new RNAV
(RNP) criteria presumes a failure of GPS during a terrain-critical phase
of flight.

A long history of FAA ground-based nav aids has shown very, very little
problem with the ground components of the system. And, where it occurs
there is usually an alternate nav aid or aids available.

Terrain obscuration is irrelavant for IFR procedures because of design
and flight inspection confirmation.

[Ted]

> wrote
> ted wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
> wrote in message
>>>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>How so?
>>>>>
>>>>>There isn't a newer version because the FAA does not like to admit when
>>>>>they do incorrect planning.
>>>>>
>>>>>If those old documents were valid some VORs would already be shutdown.
>>>>
>>>>Though VORs have some use in the near term, I can't see them being
>>>>viable beyond a "few" years.
>>>
>>>No matter how old or crummy VORs are compared to GPS, GPS still has a
>>>continuity and integrity issue for sole-means en route navigation in a
>>>non-radar domestic airspace environment.
>>
>> WAAS solves the integrity issue. I'm not sure what you mean by
>> "continuity issue"
>>
> Continuity means the reliability of the primary GPS sats themselves. They
> can have a sat failure or, more likely, jamming.

Ground based navaids can fail, can experience jamming (both intentional and
unintentional) and are much more vulnerable to terrain obscuration than
navaids in the sky. I'm not aware of any significant continuity issue for
GPS that are a bigger problem than what is experienced with ground based
navaids.

> wrote in message...

> Those involved in planning see it differently. That is why the new RNAV
> (RNP) criteria presumes a failure of GPS during a terrain-critical phase
> of flight.

Is that because of the physics and architecture of the GPS/WAAS system or is
it because the system is still new and not yet proven through enough testing
and actual flight experience?

>
> A long history of FAA ground-based nav aids has shown very, very little
> problem with the ground components of the system. And, where it occurs
> there is usually an alternate nav aid or aids available.

It seems you missed the point. The original point was that the chance of a
failure of GPS is not a rationale for preferring ground based navaids
because ground based navaids can fail as well. No one said or implied that
ground based navaids have a high probability of failure.

>
> Terrain obscuration is irrelavant for IFR procedures because of design and
> flight inspection confirmation.

I hope you meant to say that terrain obscuration is irrelevant to the USE of
IFR procedures but it is indeed very relevant to the DESIGN of IFR
procedures. Perhaps we should say "nominal use of IFR procedures" because
there is an inherent assumption that the pilot is following those
procedures properly. Are there any cases of a pilot being off course or
below the proper elevation and thus lost the signal to a navaid due to
terrain obscuration causing additional cockpit confusion that eventually led
to an accident? How many times has an aircraft needed to abort the landing
because another aircraft on the ground blocked the glide slope or localizer
signal from the ground based antenna near the runway? GPS with much greater
coverage from the sky provides more service in more places for those "off
nominal" flight situations.

[Ted]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ]
>> Posted At: Sunday, February 12, 2006 5:53 AM
>> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
>> Conversation: GNS430 on the Airway
>> Subject: Re: GNS430 on the Airway
>>
>> ted wrote:
>> > > wrote in message
>> news:%_hHf.33984$JT.6861@fed1read06...
> ...clipped for brevity...
> [Jim Carter]
>> Continuity means the reliability of the primary GPS sats themselves.
>> They can have a sat failure or, more likely, jamming.
>
> [Jim Carter]
> Unless control of the satellite management system can be achieved, and
> the entire constellation interrupted, wouldn't jamming be a localized
> event based on the radiation pattern and power of the jamming
> transmitter? And to continue jamming wouldn't the transmitter have to
> stay active, making it a pretty easy target for any of several modern
> weapons systems that don't rely on GPS for navigation?
>

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-88.htm

http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb8.html

HARM Block 3a and 5 software updates have completed testing and were
incorporated as a software only engineering change starting in August 1999.
The software improves missile performance against several threat
countermeasures...

The Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) project is adding to the
Block VI capability by demonstrating technology for RF homing integration
with an active millimeter wave terminal seeker to provide a counter-shutdown
capability. Fielding this capability could be in the 2005 timeframe.

http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=685

http://www.chips.navy.mil/archives/02_spring/index2_files/GPS.htm

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news001/gpsnews001.htm

http://www.afa.org/magazine/May2003/0503road.asp
Threat to GPS Fizzled

The Great GPS Scare turned out to be a false alarm.

In the run-up to the war, some had expressed concern that Iraqi forces could
employ inexpensive jammers to disrupt the relatively weak signal emitted by
Global Positioning System satellites circling the Earth. Disruption of this
nature would have put a severe kink in USAF's ability to use GPS-guided
weapons and navigate in the desert.

However, the problem proved to be largely unfounded, as coalition forces
used GPS-guided weapons with impunity. DOD data shows that coalition forces
by April 5 had dropped more than 3,000 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, just
one type of GPS-guided weapon.

Early in the conflict, there were reports that Iraq had obtained several GPS
jammers, possibly from a Russian supplier. Maj. Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr.,
Central Command operations director, announced March 25 that coalition
forces had identified six of these jammers and had destroyed all six.

[[email protected]]

Ted wrote:

>
>>Those involved in planning see it differently. That is why the new RNAV
>>(RNP) criteria presumes a failure of GPS during a terrain-critical phase
>>of flight.
>
>
> Is that because of the physics and architecture of the GPS/WAAS system or is
> it because the system is still new and not yet proven through enough testing
> and actual flight experience?

It's because the known failure rate is considerably higher than with
either VOR or ILS.
>
>
>>A long history of FAA ground-based nav aids has shown very, very little
>>problem with the ground components of the system. And, where it occurs
>>there is usually an alternate nav aid or aids available.
>
>
> It seems you missed the point. The original point was that the chance of a
> failure of GPS is not a rationale for preferring ground based navaids
> because ground based navaids can fail as well. No one said or implied that
> ground based navaids have a high probability of failure.

If I missed the point then you didn't do a very good job of making that
point. I in no way stated a preference for VOR over GPS. All high end
users are using GPS instead of VOR, but most of them have an RNAV backup
to GPS (IRUs) and they are still equipped to revert to VOR/DME because
they are required to be so equipped by the FAA.
>
>
>>Terrain obscuration is irrelavant for IFR procedures because of design and
>>flight inspection confirmation.
>
>
> I hope you meant to say that terrain obscuration is irrelevant to the USE of
> IFR procedures but it is indeed very relevant to the DESIGN of IFR
> procedures.

Note the "because of..." in my previous statement.



>Perhaps we should say "nominal use of IFR procedures" because
> there is an inherent assumption that the pilot is following those
> procedures properly. Are there any cases of a pilot being off course or
> below the proper elevation and thus lost the signal to a navaid due to
> terrain obscuration causing additional cockpit confusion that eventually led
> to an accident?

No doubt there have been accidents because of errant blunders. Same
goes for GPS. You can lead a horse to water but.....

How many times has an aircraft needed to abort the landing
> because another aircraft on the ground blocked the glide slope or localizer
> signal from the ground based antenna near the runway? GPS with much greater
> coverage from the sky provides more service in more places for those "off
> nominal" flight situations.

At Class D airports the blockage of ILS during adverse weather
conditions is very unusual. At non-tower airports it does occur, but
whether at any greater rate than someone blocking the runway causing a
missed approach on a VOR IAP or GPS IAP is unknown. The risks inherent
with IFR operations at non-towered airports is certainly greater than at
towered airports.

ILS will continue to be the primary approach and landing aid for many
years and for many reasons, including the fact that RNP procedures have
a long way to go before they can provide the precision of ILS within a
mile, or so, of the runway threshold. LPV is worse. This becomes
significant for air carrier all-weather ops in particular; i.e., CAT III
autoland operations.

VOR will continue to be primary for *en route* for some unknown and
unplanned period of time, which was my premise about VOR from the
beginning of this thread. VOR has always been a lousy approach aid.

>
>
>

[ted]

> wrote in message news:Sf0If.38585$JT.12812@fed1read06...
> Ted wrote:
>
>>
>>>Those involved in planning see it differently. That is why the new RNAV
>>>(RNP) criteria presumes a failure of GPS during a terrain-critical phase
>>>of flight.
>>
>>
>> Is that because of the physics and architecture of the GPS/WAAS system or
>> is it because the system is still new and not yet proven through enough
>> testing and actual flight experience?
>
> It's because the known failure rate is considerably higher than with
> either VOR or ILS.

Really? Where did you get that data? Show us your source.


>>
>>
>>>A long history of FAA ground-based nav aids has shown very, very little
>>>problem with the ground components of the system. And, where it occurs
>>>there is usually an alternate nav aid or aids available.
>>
>>
>> It seems you missed the point. The original point was that the chance of
>> a failure of GPS is not a rationale for preferring ground based navaids
>> because ground based navaids can fail as well. No one said or implied
>> that ground based navaids have a high probability of failure.
>
> If I missed the point then you didn't do a very good job of making that
> point.

Sorry, my intended audience was people who could read english.


> I in no way stated a preference for VOR over GPS.

Oh really? Then what did you mean when you said this?:

> wrote:
>No matter how old or crummy VORs are compared to GPS, GPS still has a
>continuity and integrity issue for sole-means en route navigation in a
>non-radar domestic airspace environment.

The point you seem unable to follow is that GPS, when fully certified, has
no more continuity or integrity issues than VORs do.

[[email protected]]

ted wrote:

>
> Sorry, my intended audience was people who could read english.

I thought we were having a reasonable technical discussion. Instead,
you are another Usenet droid asshole.

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message news:5I9If.38637$JT.20875@fed1read06...
> ted wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry, my intended audience was people who could read english.
>
> I thought we were having a reasonable technical discussion. Instead, you
> are another Usenet droid asshole.

That's rich...coming from the original Usenet droid asshole/****house
lawyer.

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > wrote in message news:5I9If.38637$JT.20875@fed1read06...
>
>>ted wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sorry, my intended audience was people who could read english.
>>
>>I thought we were having a reasonable technical discussion. Instead, you
>>are another Usenet droid asshole.
>
>
> That's rich...coming from the original Usenet droid asshole/****house
> lawyer.
>
>
Well stated by one of the Usenet's finer jerk off inmates.

[ted]

>>>Those involved in planning see it differently. That is why the new RNAV
>>>(RNP) criteria presumes a failure of GPS during a terrain-critical phase
>>>of flight.
>>
>>
>> Is that because of the physics and architecture of the GPS/WAAS system or
>> is it because the system is still new and not yet proven through enough
>> testing and actual flight experience?
>
> It's because the known failure rate is considerably higher than with
> either VOR or ILS.

Really? Where did you get that data? Show us your source.


>>
>>
>>>A long history of FAA ground-based nav aids has shown very, very little
>>>problem with the ground components of the system. And, where it occurs
>>>there is usually an alternate nav aid or aids available.
>>
>>
>> It seems you missed the point. The original point was that the chance of
>> a failure of GPS is not a rationale for preferring ground based navaids
>> because ground based navaids can fail as well. No one said or implied
>> that ground based navaids have a high probability of failure.
>
> If I missed the point then you didn't do a very good job of making that
> point.

> ted wrote:
>> Sorry, my intended audience was people who could read english.
>
> wrote
> I thought we were having a reasonable technical discussion. Instead, you
> are another Usenet droid asshole.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

If you are truly interested in a technical discussion then why didn't you
answer the question above? where did you get that data?

[Roger]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:52:03 GMT, "Ted" > wrote:


>Threat to GPS Fizzled
>
>The Great GPS Scare turned out to be a false alarm.

You don't fly do you? Otherwise you'd have seen large areas where GPS
was deemed unreliable while the tesing was going on in the US.

As far as homing weapons... In your own country? That would go over
really big with the civilians who already aren't happy.



>
>In the run-up to the war, some had expressed concern that Iraqi forces could
>employ inexpensive jammers to disrupt the relatively weak signal emitted by
>Global Positioning System satellites circling the Earth. Disruption of this
>nature would have put a severe kink in USAF's ability to use GPS-guided
>weapons and navigate in the desert.
>
>However, the problem proved to be largely unfounded, as coalition forces
>used GPS-guided weapons with impunity. DOD data shows that coalition forces
>by April 5 had dropped more than 3,000 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, just
>one type of GPS-guided weapon.
>
>Early in the conflict, there were reports that Iraq had obtained several GPS
>jammers, possibly from a Russian supplier. Maj. Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr.,
>Central Command operations director, announced March 25 that coalition
>forces had identified six of these jammers and had destroyed all six.
>
Roger

[Roger]

Oops, sorry...I hit <CTRL><N> (send) before <CTRL><I> (Insert sig)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[ted]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:52:03 GMT, "Ted" > wrote:
>
>
>>Threat to GPS Fizzled
>>
>>The Great GPS Scare turned out to be a false alarm.
>
> You don't fly do you?
> Otherwise you'd have seen large areas where GPS
> was deemed unreliable while the tesing was going on in the US.

Did you actually read the article? It was talking about jamming GPS in a
war zone not during testing. If you have a problem with the contents of the
article then I suggest you take it up with the author.


>
> As far as homing weapons... In your own country? That would go over
> really big with the civilians who already aren't happy.
>

Obviously a civilian enforcement action and not military would be
appropriate for civilian interference issues. You don't know much about law
enforcement, do you?


>
>
>>
>>In the run-up to the war, some had expressed concern that Iraqi forces
>>could
>>employ inexpensive jammers to disrupt the relatively weak signal emitted
>>by
>>Global Positioning System satellites circling the Earth. Disruption of
>>this
>>nature would have put a severe kink in USAF's ability to use GPS-guided
>>weapons and navigate in the desert.
>>
>>However, the problem proved to be largely unfounded, as coalition forces
>>used GPS-guided weapons with impunity. DOD data shows that coalition
>>forces
>>by April 5 had dropped more than 3,000 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, just
>>one type of GPS-guided weapon.
>>
>>Early in the conflict, there were reports that Iraq had obtained several
>>GPS
>>jammers, possibly from a Russian supplier. Maj. Gen. Victor E. Renuart
>>Jr.,
>>Central Command operations director, announced March 25 that coalition
>>forces had identified six of these jammers and had destroyed all six.
>>
> Roger

[DILLIGAF]

Ted wrote:

>"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: ]
>>>Posted At: Sunday, February 12, 2006 5:53 AM
>>>Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
>>>Conversation: GNS430 on the Airway
>>>Subject: Re: GNS430 on the Airway
>>>
>>>ted wrote:
>>>
>>>
> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>news:%_hHf.33984$JT.6861@fed1read06...
>>>
>>>
>>...clipped for brevity...
>>[Jim Carter]
>>
>>
>>>Continuity means the reliability of the primary GPS sats themselves.
>>>They can have a sat failure or, more likely, jamming.
>>>
>>>
>>[Jim Carter]
>>Unless control of the satellite management system can be achieved, and
>>the entire constellation interrupted, wouldn't jamming be a localized
>>event based on the radiation pattern and power of the jamming
>>transmitter? And to continue jamming wouldn't the transmitter have to
>>stay active, making it a pretty easy target for any of several modern
>>weapons systems that don't rely on GPS for navigation?
>>
>>
>>
>
>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-88.htm
>
>http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb8.html
>
>HARM Block 3a and 5 software updates have completed testing and were
>incorporated as a software only engineering change starting in August 1999.
>The software improves missile performance against several threat
>countermeasures...
>
>The Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) project is adding to the
>Block VI capability by demonstrating technology for RF homing integration
>with an active millimeter wave terminal seeker to provide a counter-shutdown
>capability. Fielding this capability could be in the 2005 timeframe.
>
>http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=685
>
>http://www.chips.navy.mil/archives/02_spring/index2_files/GPS.htm
>
>http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news001/gpsnews001.htm
>
>http://www.afa.org/magazine/May2003/0503road.asp
>Threat to GPS Fizzled
>
>The Great GPS Scare turned out to be a false alarm.
>
>In the run-up to the war, some had expressed concern that Iraqi forces could
>employ inexpensive jammers to disrupt the relatively weak signal emitted by
>Global Positioning System satellites circling the Earth. Disruption of this
>nature would have put a severe kink in USAF's ability to use GPS-guided
>weapons and navigate in the desert.
>
>However, the problem proved to be largely unfounded, as coalition forces
>used GPS-guided weapons with impunity. DOD data shows that coalition forces
>by April 5 had dropped more than 3,000 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, just
>one type of GPS-guided weapon.
>
>Early in the conflict, there were reports that Iraq had obtained several GPS
>jammers, possibly from a Russian supplier. Maj. Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr.,
>Central Command operations director, announced March 25 that coalition
>forces had identified six of these jammers and had destroyed all six.
>
>
>
>
The wink link in Air Traffic control is not GPS but communications. The
FAA still uses AM VHF
transmitters and receivers for AT communications. Very easy to jam and
disrupt. One idiot with one radio could
spread havoc around a major US airport. If the person stays mobile
virtually impossible to locate and detect.

[Jim Carter]

Ala stuck mic?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DILLIGAF ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:26 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: GNS430 on the Airway
> Subject: Re: GPS jamming
>
> Ted wrote:
>
> The wink link in Air Traffic control is not GPS but communications.
The
> FAA still uses AM VHF
> transmitters and receivers for AT communications. Very easy to jam and
> disrupt. One idiot with one radio could
> spread havoc around a major US airport. If the person stays mobile
> virtually impossible to locate and detect.