GPS altitude again is close to actual

[Ron Lee]

I made another flight to KFTG this afternoon and periodically checked
the GPS receiver provided altitude versus my aircraft altimeter. GPS
was within 40' every time I checked (closer at times). I need to
check my last altimeter check to see if it has any errors but it is
certainly within standards so GPS is proving to be close enough for
VFR in these cold weather conditions.

Ron Lee

[john smith]

In article >,
(Ron Lee) wrote:

> I made another flight to KFTG this afternoon and periodically checked
> the GPS receiver provided altitude versus my aircraft altimeter. GPS
> was within 40' every time I checked (closer at times). I need to
> check my last altimeter check to see if it has any errors but it is
> certainly within standards so GPS is proving to be close enough for
> VFR in these cold weather conditions.

Ron, is your GPS WAAS enabled?
My non-WAAS Garmin 195 will only get within 150 feet vertically.
Vertical is the least accurate of the three planes.

[Ron Lee]

john smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> (Ron Lee) wrote:
>
>> I made another flight to KFTG this afternoon and periodically checked
>> the GPS receiver provided altitude versus my aircraft altimeter. GPS
>> was within 40' every time I checked (closer at times). I need to
>> check my last altimeter check to see if it has any errors but it is
>> certainly within standards so GPS is proving to be close enough for
>> VFR in these cold weather conditions.
>
>Ron, is your GPS WAAS enabled?
>My non-WAAS Garmin 195 will only get within 150 feet vertically.
>Vertical is the least accurate of the three planes.

Good question. It is a Garmin GNS 430 without WAAS. I should try my
Etrex as well.

Of course I am not advocating using GPS to establish flight altitudes.

Ron Lee

[Marco Leon]

I thought the primary factor in determining the differences between
baro altitude and GPS altitude was the difference between "sea level"
and the WGS84 datum plane at the particular location? From my
understanding these two planes of reference are not the same but are
closer in some spots than in others.

Marco

Ron Lee wrote:
> john smith > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (Ron Lee) wrote:
> >
> >> I made another flight to KFTG this afternoon and periodically checked
> >> the GPS receiver provided altitude versus my aircraft altimeter. GPS
> >> was within 40' every time I checked (closer at times). I need to
> >> check my last altimeter check to see if it has any errors but it is
> >> certainly within standards so GPS is proving to be close enough for
> >> VFR in these cold weather conditions.
> >
> >Ron, is your GPS WAAS enabled?
> >My non-WAAS Garmin 195 will only get within 150 feet vertically.
> >Vertical is the least accurate of the three planes.
>
> Good question. It is a Garmin GNS 430 without WAAS. I should try my
> Etrex as well.
>
> Of course I am not advocating using GPS to establish flight altitudes.
>
> Ron Lee

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I thought the primary factor in determining the differences between
> baro altitude and GPS altitude was the difference between "sea level"
> and the WGS84 datum plane at the particular location? From my
> understanding these two planes of reference are not the same but are
> closer in some spots than in others.
>
> Marco

Pressure based altitude measurements also assume a standard pressure change
as a function of altitude that will not always be correct. This will cause
the difference between the altimeter and the GPS to change with altitude.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Mxsmanic]

Marco Leon writes:

> I thought the primary factor in determining the differences between
> baro altitude and GPS altitude was the difference between "sea level"
> and the WGS84 datum plane at the particular location?

In theory, yes. But in practice there is also a lot of inaccuracy in
altitude readings via GPS. The system is not designed to provide
highly accurate altitude, as the original users (soldiers in the
field, ships) didn't require it. For most users, it's a lot more
important to know where you are on the map than to know how high you
are above sea level.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Marco Leon writes:
> > I thought the primary factor in determining the differences between
> > baro altitude and GPS altitude was the difference between "sea level"
> > and the WGS84 datum plane at the particular location?
>
> In theory, yes. But in practice there is also a lot of inaccuracy in
> altitude readings via GPS. The system is not designed to provide
> highly accurate altitude, [..]

And a simple Google search with "gps altitude accuracy" will bring up
quite a few interesting write-ups on the topic. All urge extreme
caution about trying to use GPS as an altimeter.

Kev

[Ron Lee]

"Kev" > wrote:

>
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Marco Leon writes:
>> > I thought the primary factor in determining the differences between
>> > baro altitude and GPS altitude was the difference between "sea level"
>> > and the WGS84 datum plane at the particular location?
>>
>> In theory, yes. But in practice there is also a lot of inaccuracy in
>> altitude readings via GPS. The system is not designed to provide
>> highly accurate altitude, [..]
>
>And a simple Google search with "gps altitude accuracy" will bring up
>quite a few interesting write-ups on the topic. All urge extreme
>caution about trying to use GPS as an altimeter.
>
>Kev
>

Altitude accuracy is not as good as horizontal for reasons already
mentioned...not because of a design issue. It is not the accepted
form of altitude information because baro inputs do that. However, it
can be an indicator if somehow a pilot lost all altitude information.

Ron Lee

[N2310D]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Kev" > wrote:
>
>>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Marco Leon writes:
>>> > I thought the primary factor in determining the differences between
>>> > baro altitude and GPS altitude was the difference between "sea level"
>>> > and the WGS84 datum plane at the particular location?
>>>
>>> In theory, yes. But in practice there is also a lot of inaccuracy in
>>> altitude readings via GPS. The system is not designed to provide
>>> highly accurate altitude, [..]
>>
>>And a simple Google search with "gps altitude accuracy" will bring up
>>quite a few interesting write-ups on the topic. All urge extreme
>>caution about trying to use GPS as an altimeter.
>>
>>Kev
>>
>
> Altitude accuracy is not as good as horizontal for reasons already
> mentioned...not because of a design issue. It is not the accepted
> form of altitude information because baro inputs do that. However, it
> can be an indicator if somehow a pilot lost all altitude information.
>
> Ron Lee

Never say never, as the old saw goes....
Having said that, I would never use my GPS altitude indication for
anything other than driving my car over the Rockies or Sierras.
On the other hand, the KLN-89B in the 172SP I used to fly had the
ability to dial in the local baro setting. I don't recall the delta between
the 89B and the legal altimeter being more than 20 feet with the baro date
set in. Biggest problem was the 89B altitude info was all but useless for
anything other than audible altitude deviation alert. That and having to dig
out the book and flip through the pages to remember how to input the baro
data. And, as I recall the altitude alerting was not legal for Part 91
either

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> In theory, yes. But in practice there is also a lot of inaccuracy in
> altitude readings via GPS.

You are the absolute last person, flying a sim, to make this statement.
This is simply not borne out by those of us who actually do compare
the GPS to the altimeter.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Lee writes:

> Altitude accuracy is not as good as horizontal for reasons already
> mentioned...not because of a design issue.

It's also a design issue. GPS was designed to provide highly accurate
lateral positioning; vertical positioning was just a fringe benefit
and no great effort was put into making it accurate. The intended
users of GPS didn't need much vertical accuracy, as they were
typically on the ground or on the sea.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> You are the absolute last person, flying a sim, to make this statement.

There isn't any connection between flight simulation and GPS.

> This is simply not borne out by those of us who actually do compare
> the GPS to the altimeter.

Do what you want, as long as I'm not your passenger and not in your
airspace. Some people learn best through experience.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Marco Leon writes:
>
> > I thought the primary factor in determining the differences between
> > baro altitude and GPS altitude was the difference between "sea level"
> > and the WGS84 datum plane at the particular location?
>
> In theory, yes. But in practice there is also a lot of inaccuracy in
> altitude readings via GPS. The system is not designed to provide
> highly accurate altitude, as the original users (soldiers in the
> field, ships) didn't require it.

Altitude has always been very important to field soldiers and "ships"
whose responsibilities include flinging large projectiles long
distances. Among the multitude of variable factors of which indirect
fire requires calculation, the accuracy of the weapon and target
constants x,y and z are most important. It's tough to hit targets
12-20 miles distant if you don't know the difference in altitude
between weapon and target.

GPS, being a military system, was finally derived (IMO, and
suprisingly, opinions vary) by combining the technologies being
developed by the Navy (Project Timation) and the Air Force (System
621B).

Since both services incorporate aviation and one goal of military
avaition is to operate in "all weather" the ultimate goal of GPS/WAAS
altitude accuracy is to permit pilots to land safely in zero-zero
visibility without the need, expense (and redundant technologies) and
limitations of the present ILS.
See: http://gps.faa.gov/programs/waas/questionsanswers-text.htm

The altimeter/GPS altitude accuracy debate is beyond my expertise but
my experience includes a different altimeter indication after landing
at an airport I had left earlier in the day while my handheld $150 WAAS
capable GPSr indicated its identical reading to 1/10ft.

Barometric altimeters are analog and the finest divisions of the scale
IME are 20', so I would not expect them to be any more accurate than +-
10'. I think WAAS combined with DGPS will soon provide digital
accuracy... far beyond any ordinary need.

"Both horizontal and vertical changes in position can be measured to an
accuracy of a few millimeters (horizontal) to several millimeters
(vertical).
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/About/What/Monitor/Deformation/GPS.html

The GPS altitude accuracy "problem" is mostly attributable to the
limitations and generality of the WGS84 datum geoid height
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/datum/gif/geoid2.gif
which could have easily been overcome by WAAS correction and simply
adding more satellites (and postioning them optimally). Economics have
precluded this rush to solution.

The bottom line is, IMO, WAAS altitude is far more accurate than
altimeter... depending on how many birds are in view. 4 (depending on
positional diversion and attitude relative to the receiver), I'd trust
GPS if my life depended on it.
-----

- gpsman

[Don Poitras]

N2310D > wrote:

> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> Never say never, as the old saw goes....
> Having said that, I would never use my GPS altitude indication for
> anything other than driving my car over the Rockies or Sierras.
> On the other hand, the KLN-89B in the 172SP I used to fly had the
> ability to dial in the local baro setting. I don't recall the delta between
> the 89B and the legal altimeter being more than 20 feet with the baro date
> set in. Biggest problem was the 89B altitude info was all but useless for
> anything other than audible altitude deviation alert. That and having to dig
> out the book and flip through the pages to remember how to input the baro
> data. And, as I recall the altitude alerting was not legal for Part 91
> either

You input the baro by hitting the ALT button. Not sure much page flipping
is required for that. But entering in the current pressure is to allow
an input pressure altitude to be compensated for, not the altitude calculated
from the GPS satellites. Finding the GPS altitude does require a certain
amount of buttonage. You must have had MODE S , my MODE C will only be within
100 feet of my "legal" altimeter.

--
Don Poitras

[Jose[_1_]]

> I think WAAS combined with DGPS will soon provide digital
> accuracy...

What is "digital accuracy"?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

gpsman writes:

> Altitude has always been very important to field soldiers and "ships"
> whose responsibilities include flinging large projectiles long
> distances.

The altitude of a ship is sea level. The altitude of an infantry unit
is marked on its maps.

> The altimeter/GPS altitude accuracy debate is beyond my expertise but
> my experience includes a different altimeter indication after landing
> at an airport I had left earlier in the day while my handheld $150 WAAS
> capable GPSr indicated its identical reading to 1/10ft.

WAAS isn't part of GPS.

> Barometric altimeters are analog and the finest divisions of the scale
> IME are 20', so I would not expect them to be any more accurate than +-
> 10'. I think WAAS combined with DGPS will soon provide digital
> accuracy... far beyond any ordinary need.

There's nothing inherently accurate about digital systems. No digital
system can be more accurate than the best analog system.

> "Both horizontal and vertical changes in position can be measured to an
> accuracy of a few millimeters (horizontal) to several millimeters
> (vertical).
> http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/About/What/Monitor/Deformation/GPS.html

Not in a tenth of a second. You can average readings over long
periods and get extremely accurate measurements, but that technique is
useless to aircraft.

> The GPS altitude accuracy "problem" is mostly attributable to the
> limitations and generality of the WGS84 datum geoid height
> http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/datum/gif/geoid2.gif
> which could have easily been overcome by WAAS correction and simply
> adding more satellites (and postioning them optimally). Economics have
> precluded this rush to solution.

The problem is linked to the basic design of the system.

> The bottom line is, IMO, WAAS altitude is far more accurate than
> altimeter... depending on how many birds are in view.

WAAS isn't part of GPS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> > I think WAAS combined with DGPS will soon provide digital
> > accuracy...
>
> What is "digital accuracy"?

It's a marketing term, which translates roughly to "fleecing the
uninformed."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> gpsman writes:
>
>
> WAAS isn't part of GPS.
>
>
> WAAS isn't part of GPS.
>

For the purposes of GPS's use in aircraft it most certainly is.

[Ron Lee]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

>Jose writes:
>
>> > I think WAAS combined with DGPS will soon provide digital
>> > accuracy...
>>
>> What is "digital accuracy"?
>
>It's a marketing term, which translates roughly to "fleecing the
>uninformed."

I am not sure of all of MX's biases but GPS provides a far better
navigation, positioning and timing service globally, free than
anything he or his country has done.

Ron Lee

[Jules]

Ron Lee wrote:
GPS provides a far better
> navigation, positioning and timing service globally, free than
> anything he or his country has done.
>

He's American.

Are you talking about GLONASS being better?

[gpsman]

Jose wrote:
> > I think WAAS combined with DGPS will soon provide digital
> > accuracy...
>
> What is "digital accuracy"?

LOL! I guess you got me on that one.

I meant to imply that there is no practical limit of the accuracy of
digital gauges while analog gauges are severely limited, comparatively.
-----

- gpsman

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>
> WAAS isn't part of GPS.
>
That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology is
discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an aviation
newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the application, and in
that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in other words, in aviation
there is no application for WAAS independent GPS AFAIK. So, your above
claim is extremely off-topic, at best.

Neil

[Jose[_1_]]

> I meant to imply that there is no practical limit of the accuracy of
> digital gauges while analog gauges are severely limited, comparatively.

Uh... the accuracy of a measurement is independent of the method used to
present the result. An extremely accurate result can be presented using
analog gauges, and can be presented faithfully. (just add verniers and
more hands). An extremely poor result can be presented using digital
gauges, and can be presented in such a way to appear very precise.
(altitude 3631.567298 feet, +/- 100 feet).

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gpsman writes:
>
>> Altitude has always been very important to field soldiers and "ships"
>> whose responsibilities include flinging large projectiles long
>> distances.
>
> The altitude of a ship is sea level. The altitude of an infantry unit
> is marked on its maps.
>
>> The altimeter/GPS altitude accuracy debate is beyond my expertise but
>> my experience includes a different altimeter indication after landing
>> at an airport I had left earlier in the day while my handheld $150 WAAS
>> capable GPSr indicated its identical reading to 1/10ft.
>
> WAAS isn't part of GPS.
>
>> Barometric altimeters are analog and the finest divisions of the scale
>> IME are 20', so I would not expect them to be any more accurate than +-
>> 10'. I think WAAS combined with DGPS will soon provide digital
>> accuracy... far beyond any ordinary need.
>
> There's nothing inherently accurate about digital systems. No digital
> system can be more accurate than the best analog system.
>
>> "Both horizontal and vertical changes in position can be measured to an
>> accuracy of a few millimeters (horizontal) to several millimeters
>> (vertical).
>> http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/About/What/Monitor/Deformation/GPS.html
>
> Not in a tenth of a second. You can average readings over long
> periods and get extremely accurate measurements, but that technique is
> useless to aircraft.
>
>> The GPS altitude accuracy "problem" is mostly attributable to the
>> limitations and generality of the WGS84 datum geoid height
>> http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/datum/gif/geoid2.gif
>> which could have easily been overcome by WAAS correction and simply
>> adding more satellites (and postioning them optimally). Economics have
>> precluded this rush to solution.
>
> The problem is linked to the basic design of the system.
>
>> The bottom line is, IMO, WAAS altitude is far more accurate than
>> altimeter... depending on how many birds are in view.
>
> WAAS isn't part of GPS.
>
Once again your most certainly wrong. WAAS is very much a part of the
GPS SYSTEM and your statements to the contrary just reinforce your
incredible ignorance of the real world as opposed to your simulated world.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Neil Gould > posted:
>
> aviation there is no application for WAAS independent GPS AFAIK.
>
Of course, that *should* read "...independent of GPS..."

[Ron Lee]

Jules > wrote:

>
>
>Ron Lee wrote:
>GPS provides a far better
>> navigation, positioning and timing service globally, free than
>> anything he or his country has done.
>>
>
>He's American.
>
>Are you talking about GLONASS being better?
>
I thought he was European.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"Neil Gould" > wrote:

>Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>>
>> WAAS isn't part of GPS.
>>
>That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology is
>discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an aviation
>newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the application, and in
>that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in other words, in aviation
>there is no application for WAAS independent GPS AFAIK. So, your above
>claim is extremely off-topic, at best.
>
>Neil

Actually he is correct. WAAS is not part of GPS. You don't need WAAS
to use GPS for aviation.

Ron Lee

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Jules > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Ron Lee wrote:
>>GPS provides a far better
>>> navigation, positioning and timing service globally, free than
>>> anything he or his country has done.
>>>
>>
>>He's American.
>>
>>Are you talking about GLONASS being better?
>>
> I thought he was European.
>
> Ron Lee

No he is just an American that lives in France on $637/Mo.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>>Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>>>
>>> WAAS isn't part of GPS.
>>>
>>That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology is
>>discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an aviation
>>newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the application, and in
>>that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in other words, in aviation
>>there is no application for WAAS independent GPS AFAIK. So, your above
>>claim is extremely off-topic, at best.
>>
>>Neil
>
> Actually he is correct. WAAS is not part of GPS. You don't need WAAS
> to use GPS for aviation.
>
> Ron Lee

Do you know of an aviation use of WAAS that isn't tied to GPS? That is the
issue.

[RomeoMike]

No, but you need GPS to use WAAS, which enhances GPS accuracy in most,
but not all, of the continental USA. In that sense WAAS is certainly
part, albeit a newer part, of the GPS system.


>
> Actually he is correct. WAAS is not part of GPS. You don't need WAAS
> to use GPS for aviation.
>
> Ron Lee

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Ron Lee > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>> Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>>>
>>> WAAS isn't part of GPS.
>>>
>> That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology
>> is discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an
>> aviation newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the
>> application, and in that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in
>> other words, in aviation there is no application for WAAS
>> independent GPS AFAIK. So, your above claim is extremely off-topic,
>> at best.
>>
>
> Actually he is correct. WAAS is not part of GPS. You don't need WAAS
> to use GPS for aviation.
>
No one said that one needs WAAS to use GPS for aviation. Obviously, there
are non-WAAS-enabled GPS receivers. However, do you know of some use of
WAAS in aviation that _doesn't_ involve GPS? I don't. If there isn't one,
then any discussion of WAAS in aviation necessarily includes GPS, and any
attempt to exclude it as "not part of GPS" is nonsense.

Neil

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:56:29 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>>
>>>Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>>>>
>>>> WAAS isn't part of GPS.
>>>>
>>>That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology is
>>>discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an aviation
>>>newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the application, and in
>>>that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in other words, in aviation
>>>there is no application for WAAS independent GPS AFAIK. So, your above
>>>claim is extremely off-topic, at best.
>>>
>>>Neil
>>
>> Actually he is correct. WAAS is not part of GPS. You don't need WAAS
>> to use GPS for aviation.

True but my GPS says WAAS enabled.

>>
>> Ron Lee
>
>Do you know of an aviation use of WAAS that isn't tied to GPS? That is the
>issue.

I've never heard of any.
As we use it you can use GPS withoug WAAS , but not WAAS without GPS.
IOW it's an augmentation system.



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

[Ron Lee]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>>>>> WAAS isn't part of GPS.
>>>>>
>>>>That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology is
>>>>discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an aviation
>>>>newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the application, and in
>>>>that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in other words, in aviation
>>>>there is no application for WAAS independent GPS AFAIK. So, your above
>>>>claim is extremely off-topic, at best.
>>>>
>>>>Neil
>>>
>>> Actually he is correct. WAAS is not part of GPS. You don't need WAAS
>>> to use GPS for aviation.
>
>True but my GPS says WAAS enabled.
>
>>>
>>> Ron Lee
>>
>>Do you know of an aviation use of WAAS that isn't tied to GPS? That is the
>>issue.
>
>I've never heard of any.
>As we use it you can use GPS withoug WAAS , but not WAAS without GPS.
>IOW it's an augmentation system.

Exactly, it is an augmentation system developed for and funded by the
FAA. The notion that WAAS is part of GPS is like saying that NDGPS or
CORS or any other separate systems that use or work with GPS are GPS
systems.

Of course WAAS cannot be used without GPS since it corrects GPS
signals and provides an integrity function. WAAS is worthless without
GPS but the converse is not the case.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

RomeoMike > wrote:

>No, but you need GPS to use WAAS, which enhances GPS accuracy in most,
>but not all, of the continental USA. In that sense WAAS is certainly
>part, albeit a newer part, of the GPS system.

WAAS is not part of the GPS.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"Neil Gould" > wrote:
:
>>>>
>>>> WAAS isn't part of GPS.
>>>>
>>> That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology
>>> is discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an
>>> aviation newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the
>>> application, and in that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in
>>> other words, in aviation there is no application for WAAS
>>> independent GPS AFAIK. So, your above claim is extremely off-topic,
>>> at best.
>>>
>>
>> Actually he is correct. WAAS is not part of GPS. You don't need WAAS
>> to use GPS for aviation.
>>
>No one said that one needs WAAS to use GPS for aviation. Obviously, there
>are non-WAAS-enabled GPS receivers. However, do you know of some use of
>WAAS in aviation that _doesn't_ involve GPS? I don't. If there isn't one,
>then any discussion of WAAS in aviation necessarily includes GPS, and any
>attempt to exclude it as "not part of GPS" is nonsense.
>
>Neil

No, it would be incorrect.

Ron Lee

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Lee writes:

> I am not sure of all of MX's biases but GPS provides a far better
> navigation, positioning and timing service globally, free than
> anything he or his country has done.

This is incorrect. My country designed GPS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Lee writes:

> I thought he was European.

You've jumped to an incorrect conclusion concerning my nationality.
What does this imply with respect to your other assertions?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> For the purposes of GPS's use in aircraft it most certainly is.

It's important to understand the difference between GPS and WAAS. GPS
is a global satellite-based navigation system. WAAS is a regional
service that broadcasts estimated corrections to GPS positioning
information via satellite. WAAS actually depends on standard
surveying for its accuracy, not GPS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology is
> discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an aviation
> newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the application, and in
> that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in other words, in aviation
> there is no application for WAAS independent GPS AFAIK.

There are no GPS aviation receivers that are not equipped with WAAS?
Are you sure? The GNS430 and GNS530 manuals I have in front of me say
nothing about WAAS, which would be quite an omission if they supported
it. And assuming that a GPS receiver supports WAAS when it does not
is very dangerous. (So is overestimating WAAS, but that's a separate
issue.)

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Do you know of an aviation use of WAAS that isn't tied to GPS?

Absolutely. GPS can be used (and is used) for en-route navigation
without WAAS. It is more than precise enough for this purpose for
lateral navigation. Standard GPS can be used for any lateral
navigation except during take-off and landing, where it is not
reliable enough for safety as the sole means of navigation. Many
existing aviation GPS receivers do not include support for WAAS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Lee writes:

> Exactly, it is an augmentation system developed for and funded by the
> FAA. The notion that WAAS is part of GPS is like saying that NDGPS or
> CORS or any other separate systems that use or work with GPS are GPS
> systems.

None of the augmentation systems are part of GPS.

It worries me that I see a lot of ignorance of GPS in the aviation
community. It is not surprising given the newness of the technology,
but it is worrisome because people often rush to embrace a new
technology because of the gee-whiz factor, long before they understand
the technology and its limitations. It's like people who drive off a
pier into a river because they don't realize that GPS can be
dramatically incorrect in urban environments.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> There's nothing inherently accurate about digital systems.
> No digital system can be more accurate than the best analog system.

An electronics expert now. How about a frequency counter?
Propose your circuit design here for an analog frequency counter
(they exist), to be the "best analog," as good as a digital.

F--

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> No one said that one needs WAAS to use GPS for aviation.

Perhaps, but some seem to assume that all aviation GPS uses WAAS,
which is not true. And some seem confused concerning the accuracy of
GPS, with or without augmentation by WAAS.

> Obviously, there
> are non-WAAS-enabled GPS receivers. However, do you know of some use of
> WAAS in aviation that _doesn't_ involve GPS? I don't.

All en-route navigation can be (and often is) conducted without WAAS.
There are many GPS receivers (in aviation and in other applications)
that do not use WAAS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> Once again your most certainly wrong. WAAS is very much a part of the
> GPS SYSTEM and your statements to the contrary just reinforce your
> incredible ignorance of the real world as opposed to your simulated world.

GPS has nothing to do with simulation. GPS is a system in itself,
unrelated to WAAS. The latter is an augmentation used in some forms
of aviation. GPS does not require WAAS, and WAAS is not a part of
GPS.

It's important to understand these facts if you wish to use GPS safely
in aviation. The utility and accuracy of GPS-based navigation systems
vary greatly with the implementation and the use or non-use of
augmentation strategies such as WAAS. Assuming that GPS alone
provides the same accuracy as WAAS augmentation is dangerous (as is
overestimating the accuracy of GPS with or without augmentation
generally).

You would do well to spend less time on knee-jerk attacks against the
opinions of others with whom you disagree, and more time on learning
how GPS is used for aviation. Your safety may depend on this.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

gpsman writes:

> I meant to imply that there is no practical limit of the accuracy of
> digital gauges while analog gauges are severely limited, comparatively.

There's no limit on the precision; but the limit on accuracy is the
same, since digital gauges are just representations of an analog
variable, and all barometric altitude measurement (like all other
measurement of physical variables) is analog.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> An electronics expert now.

Actually, it's a matter of physics, not electronics. Any system that
interacts with the physical world is constrained to use analog systems
to do so. The accuracy of these analog systems constrains the entire
system as a whole, irrespective of any use of digital components.
Therefore no digital system that interacts with the physical world
(and this includes all aviation navigation systems, as well as things
like video and audio) can be superior in accuracy to the best analog
systems.

> How about a frequency counter?

How about it?

> Propose your circuit design here for an analog frequency counter
> (they exist), to be the "best analog," as good as a digital.

If the frequency exists in the real world, the best analog system is
at least as good as any digital system.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> RomeoMike > wrote:
>
>>No, but you need GPS to use WAAS, which enhances GPS accuracy in most,
>>but not all, of the continental USA. In that sense WAAS is certainly
>>part, albeit a newer part, of the GPS system.
>
> WAAS is not part of the GPS.

It is all in how you view it, and define it.

Saying it is not part of GPS, is like saying a catalytic converter is not part
of a car. It enhances the car. It is used with the car. Not all cars have
them, especially old ones.

I would say it is part of the car. It certainly can not be put on a sewing
machine.
--
Jim in NC

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> If the frequency exists in the real world, the best analog
> system is at least as good as any digital system.

I don't believe this. This proves you have no clue as to
basically the only way an analog frequency counter (meter
actually) can be fashioned, and how relatively inaccurate it is.
Nor how a digital counter works.

Any now in another post you say video too? Do you know how an
all-digital, LCD flat screen TV works? Does picture get even
better if hooked to digital cable?

F--

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> I don't believe this.

It's not necessary for you to believe it. It remains true in any
case.

> This proves you have no clue as to
> basically the only way an analog frequency counter (meter
> actually) can be fashioned, and how relatively inaccurate it is.
> Nor how a digital counter works.

Frequencies, outside of pure, abstract mathematics, are things that
exist in the physical world. The physical world is an analog world,
and all systems that interact with the physical world do so using
analog equipment. Therefore the maximum accuracy attainable in any
system that interacts with the real world is determined by the maximum
accuracy of the analog instrumentation upon which it depends for that
interaction. It follows, then, that no digital system interacting
with the physical world (including navigation, audio, video, and just
about everything else except for things like corporate accounting) can
provide greater accuracy than the best analog system.

> Any now in another post you say video too?

Yes. Video also interacts with the physical world, and so it is
subject to the same constraints, as I've described above.

> Do you know how an all-digital, LCD flat screen TV works?

There is no such thing as an "all-digital" device that interacts with
the physical world. I do know how LCD screens work, but they are not
digital devices, they are analog interfaces.

> Does picture get even better if hooked to digital cable?

There is no consistent difference between digital and analog. Either
can provide any arbitrary level of image quality. It is interesting
to note, however, that analog systems are theoretically capable of
perfection and yet never attain it, whereas digital systems can never
be perfect and yet sometimes come closer to it. I leave an
understanding of why this is so as an exercise for the reader.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[RomeoMike]

Argumentative! He didn't state that or imply it.

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> There are no GPS aviation receivers that are not equipped with WAAS?
> Are you sure?

[Dave Stadt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jules > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ron Lee wrote:
>>>GPS provides a far better
>>>> navigation, positioning and timing service globally, free than
>>>> anything he or his country has done.
>>>>
>>>
>>>He's American.
>>>
>>>Are you talking about GLONASS being better?
>>>
>> I thought he was European.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
> No he is just an American that lives in France on $637/Mo.

Don't forget that he knows everything about everything but has never backed
up any of his claims.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> One thing you keep missing as a "pretend" pilot is that an error of
> +/- 100 ft is insignificant in the real world.

GPS errors can easily exceed 100 feet. And 100 feet sounds pretty
significant for RVSM. With errors that large, some aircraft may be
vertically separated by only slight more than the spans of their
wings.

But as I've said, as PIC, you do what you want.

> If a 100 ft error on the GPS is the difference between life and death,
> a real pilot will climb.

Unless death awaits above.

> It matters very little that you show that you are 5500 ft msl when you are actually
> 5400 ft. you ain't gonna crash and you're no more likely to have a mid-air
> than flying at 5500.

How wasteful of manufacturers to produce altimeters that provide
accuracy better than the nearest 100 feet.

> This is the difference between the REAL world that we live in, and the
> FANTASY world that you live in. We live it and KNOW. You read it and
> pretend to be an expert.

You make mistakes and die. I make mistakes and learn. Simulation
affords the opportunity to make mistakes safely and teaches humility.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> I'm just amazed we've all been able to survive this long, considering
> that we seem to be so damned ignorant in regards to the many
> aviation topics in which you posess superior knowledge.

The death rate among GA pilots is 100 times higher than it is among
automobile drivers. That's pretty strong evidence of ignorance (but
also impulsiveness, a disdain for rules and regulations, and a thirst
for risk-taking behavior).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Ron Lee writes:
>
>> Exactly, it is an augmentation system developed for and funded by the
>> FAA. The notion that WAAS is part of GPS is like saying that NDGPS
>> or CORS or any other separate systems that use or work with GPS are
>> GPS systems.
>
> None of the augmentation systems are part of GPS.
>
And, as usual, your learn-resistance has forced you to post yet another
useless and off-topic repsonse.

> It worries me that I see a lot of ignorance of GPS in the aviation
> community.
>
You are mistaking the responses as ignorance because you are refusing to
understand that in aviation, only the application matters to the pilot. We
are trained to use and understand the issues involved in every piece of
equipment in the airplane. That means that we understand the limitations
of non-WAAS-enabled GPS, for example, and why we can't use them for IFR
approach; it is *exactly* because WAAS provides accurate alititude
information. If you disagree, take it up with the FAA, where you will be
told exactly the same things that many of us have told you. Furthermore,
we understand such not-so-subtle differences as whether something is
_measuring_ angles or the timing of signals, and won't fall victim to such
misconceptions. The only reason that you won't fall victim to your lack of
knowledge is that you aren't doing anything real.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Ron Lee > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WAAS isn't part of GPS.
>>>>>
>>>> That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology
>>>> is discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an
>>>> aviation newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the
>>>> application, and in that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in
>>>> other words, in aviation there is no application for WAAS
>>>> independent GPS AFAIK. So, your above claim is extremely off-topic,
>>>> at best.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually he is correct. WAAS is not part of GPS. You don't need
>>> WAAS to use GPS for aviation.
>>>
>> No one said that one needs WAAS to use GPS for aviation. Obviously,
>> there are non-WAAS-enabled GPS receivers. However, do you know of
>> some use of WAAS in aviation that _doesn't_ involve GPS? I don't. If
>> there isn't one, then any discussion of WAAS in aviation necessarily
>> includes GPS, and any attempt to exclude it as "not part of GPS" is
>> nonsense.
>>
>> Neil
>
> No, it would be incorrect.
>
Such a distinction can be made in some context other than aviation, as
I've already written. However, you have yet to name one application --
read "device" -- in use in aviation where WAAS is independent of GPS.
Therefore, the meaning of "a part of" as you are using it is clearly wrong
in this context, and can only mislead. Is that your intention?

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology
>> is discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an
>> aviation newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the
>> application, and in that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in
>> other words, in aviation there is no application for WAAS
>> independent GPS AFAIK.
>
> There are no GPS aviation receivers that are not equipped with WAAS?
>
In aircraft, there are no WAAS devices that I know of that do not include
a GPS. If you understood what you responded to, above, you would see that
distinction; I did NOT write "there is no application for GPS that is
independent of WAAS", which is the misleading question you have
introduced. Why do you do such things???

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> No one said that one needs WAAS to use GPS for aviation.
>
> Perhaps, but some seem to assume that all aviation GPS uses WAAS,
> which is not true. And some seem confused concerning the accuracy of
> GPS, with or without augmentation by WAAS.
>
>> Obviously, there
>> are non-WAAS-enabled GPS receivers. However, do you know of some use
>> of WAAS in aviation that _doesn't_ involve GPS? I don't.
>
> All en-route navigation can be (and often is) conducted without WAAS.
> There are many GPS receivers (in aviation and in other applications)
> that do not use WAAS.
>
Once again, you introduced an incorrect interpretation of my question, and
merely re-stated what was I wrote in the previous paragraph. Do you really
not get this, or are you trying to deliberately mislead people in this
newsgroup?

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil, your last four posts have been dedicated to criticizing people
with whom you disagree. When you're ready to again concentrate on the
topic, and not on the people discussing it, let me know. I'm not
interested in personal attacks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[mike regish]

There was a story a while back (don't know if it's true or not, but sounded
legit) that some guy was demonstrating his latest, greatest GPS by using it
to taxi into his hangar. It wasn't quite that accurate and the repair bill
wasn't cheap.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> It worries me that I see a lot of ignorance of GPS in the aviation
> community. It is not surprising given the newness of the technology,
> but it is worrisome because people often rush to embrace a new
> technology because of the gee-whiz factor, long before they understand
> the technology and its limitations. It's like people who drive off a
> pier into a river because they don't realize that GPS can be
> dramatically incorrect in urban environments.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Lee]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

>Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> One thing you keep missing as a "pretend" pilot is that an error of
>> +/- 100 ft is insignificant in the real world.
>
>GPS errors can easily exceed 100 feet. And 100 feet sounds pretty
>significant for RVSM. With errors that large, some aircraft may be
>vertically separated by only slight more than the spans of their
>wings.

The equipment requirements for RVSM are certainly far more stringent
than what a VFR pilot needs and who might have to use GPS altitude as
a data source under some hypothetical situation.

Ron Lee

[mike regish]

Digital systems are merely easier to read in some cases. Most people
nowadays (at least it seems) prefer digital watches. They provide the same
accuracy (1 second) but digital gives you a number and in stopwatch mode can
give you a number good to several decimal places. I prefer my analog since
I don't need that kind of precision for my daily timetracking. It is
quicker to read, but if need be, it could be made to give several decimal
places of accuracy.

I hate digital speedometers in a car. They drive me nuts with the numbers
always flipping back and forth.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> If the frequency exists in the real world, the best analog system is
> at least as good as any digital system.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

mike regish writes:

> There was a story a while back (don't know if it's true or not, but sounded
> legit) that some guy was demonstrating his latest, greatest GPS by using it
> to taxi into his hangar. It wasn't quite that accurate and the repair bill
> wasn't cheap.

One problem with GPS is that accuracy can be rapidly and significantly
degraded by the presence of buildings or mountains or other obstacles
that reflect or block signals. This is why GPS isn't likely to be
very accurate in the streets of Manhattan. The system itself provides
good accuracy, but in order to obtain that accuracy, you have to be
able to receive the signals without interference. On the ocean, in
the countryside, or in the open sky, you can receive signals very well
indeed, but once you are on the ground, the situation changes.

Another problem, not actually part of GPS per se, is moving maps.
Your GPS position may be accurate, but that doesn't guarantee that the
map is accurate. If the mountain on the map is in the wrong place in
relation to its real-world position, having high accuracy from GPS
won't help you. Very often map errors are more of a problem than
errors in the GPS itself.

Note that WAAS and LAAS will _not_ compensate for either of the above
types of error. Differential GPS systems like this work best when you
are at exactly the spot used as a reference for the corrections. If
you are anywhere else, the corrections may not be right for your
position. The further away you are from the surveyed reference
position used to generate the corrections, the more likely it is that
your position will be incorrect.

Some of these systems also correct for atmospheric and other effects,
but here again, the corrections are most useful when you are in the
exact position for which they are generated. If the reference point
is in Cheyenne and you are in Denver, the corrections may be well off
the mark.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> The death rate among GA pilots is 100 times higher than it is among
> automobile drivers. That's pretty strong evidence of ignorance (but
> also impulsiveness, a disdain for rules and regulations, and a thirst
> for risk-taking behavior).
>

Why do you spend life posting this stuff here? Bicycling is
infinitely more dangerous than computer gaming. And you complain
about personal attacks.

F--

[Mxsmanic]

mike regish writes:

> Digital systems are merely easier to read in some cases. Most people
> nowadays (at least it seems) prefer digital watches.

Are you sure? Every time I look at watches, analog watches (with
hands) seem to outnumber the digital ones ten to one, especially at
the high end of the price range. The inexpensive watches sometimes
have a fair selection of digital styles, but everything above that is
analog. Then again, I think that people who spend $5000 for a watch
probably don't actually care about telling time, anyway (otherwise,
why would they settle for styles that have hands but no numbers, or
dials that are only 4 mm across?).

The watches that are marketed to engineering and geek types do seem to
be digital, but they're a small segment of the market.

Casio makes some nice digital, radio-synchronized ("atomic") watches
that are solar powered. No batteries, clear digital readout, and
accurate to one second in three million years. Ideal if you want
accurate timekeeping, and they aren't expensive.

If you want to be pretty, Chopard makes a very pretty analog
mechanical watch for about $100,000. Of course, it's hard to actually
determine the time from the dial, and it's off by six seconds a day
....

> I hate digital speedometers in a car. They drive me nuts with the numbers
> always flipping back and forth.

If they had three decimal places that wouldn't be a problem, but for
some reason they never seem to show fractions of a mile per hour. I'm
surprised they are digital at all, given the fondness most people have
for analog indications.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> Why do you spend life posting this stuff here?

To provide perspective.

> Bicycling is infinitely more dangerous than computer gaming.

Not infinitely so, but significantly so, especially in traffic. I've
tried cycling in traffic in Paris, and it's too stressful to be fun.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[mike regish]

Hey! That's what I use. I hand programmed the entire (well, almost) AFD into
it. $127 with a $50 rebate.

mike

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>

> And I can't ever remember my cheap little (2000 vintage) Garmin 12xl
> handheld ever being off more than 100 ft when checked against a topo
> during a hike or the occasional geocache search.

[mike regish]

Compared to which standard?

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> The death rate among GA pilots is 100 times higher than it is among
> automobile drivers.

[Mxsmanic]

mike regish writes:

> Compared to which standard?

Fatalities per trip.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[mike regish]

I have actually had a hard time finding a cheap analog watch at times. I
always get the Indiglo face. I notice these days that they (analog) are
becoming more prevalent. But it only been the last year or 2.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish writes:
>
>> Digital systems are merely easier to read in some cases. Most people
>> nowadays (at least it seems) prefer digital watches.
>
> Are you sure? Every time I look at watches, analog watches (with
> hands) seem to outnumber the digital ones ten to one, especially at
> the high end of the price range.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
[...]
> Note that WAAS and LAAS will _not_ compensate for either of the above
> types of error. Differential GPS systems like this work best when you
> are at exactly the spot used as a reference for the corrections. If
> you are anywhere else, the corrections may not be right for your
> position. The further away you are from the surveyed reference
> position used to generate the corrections, the more likely it is that
> your position will be incorrect.

While correct for the case of LAAS and DGPS, this is not correct in the
case of WAAS.

Hint: W != L

Regards,
Jon

[RomeoMike]

Suggest you go to the Garmin website, where you will find that the 430
and 530 ARE WAAS enabled. Even the cheap Garmin yellow etrex on the
shelves today (not the early ones) is WAAS enabled. It would in your
words be quite an omission for any NEW GPS unit to not be WAAS enabled,
though I certainly don't know that ALL of them are.

Mxsmanic wrote:
The GNS430 and GNS530 manuals I have in front of me say
> nothing about WAAS, which would be quite an omission if they supported
> it.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> While correct for the case of LAAS and DGPS, this is not correct in the
> case of WAAS.

It's true for WAAS, too. WAAS has only a few fixed reference points
and extrapolates for all other points.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

RomeoMike writes:

> Suggest you go to the Garmin website, where you will find that the 430
> and 530 ARE WAAS enabled.

I did, and I actually read what was on the page, where it is clearly
written that the 530 is WAAS-UPGRADEABLE. Obviously, if it is
upgradable, it doesn't use WAAS out of the box.

There is a version of the 530 that includes WAAS capability,
designated 530W. What that means, obviously, is that the base version
of the GNS 530 does not include WAAS.

> It would in your
> words be quite an omission for any NEW GPS unit to not be WAAS enabled,
> though I certainly don't know that ALL of them are.

No, it would be an omission to provide WAAS capability and not mention
it in the manual. In the Garmin lexicon, "enabled" apparently means
"compatible with," but not "equipped with."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

mike regish writes:

> I have actually had a hard time finding a cheap analog watch at times. I
> always get the Indiglo face. I notice these days that they (analog) are
> becoming more prevalent. But it only been the last year or 2.

Analog is probably more expensive to produce, and thus would be less
common among cheap watches.

I once had a watch with a LCD screen that showed simulated analog
hands, which was rather a combination of the best of both worlds. It
also had digits.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> > While correct for the case of LAAS and DGPS, this is not correct in the
> > case of WAAS.
>
> It's true for WAAS, too. WAAS has only a few fixed reference points
> and extrapolates for all other points

You don't understand how WAAS works.

You stated:

" The further away you are from the surveyed reference
position used to generate the corrections, the more likely it is that
your position will be incorrect."

This is false. Being inside the reference network is all that matters,
proxitimity to a WRS does not matter.

Regards,
Jon

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You don't understand how WAAS works.

Yes, I do. There are only 29 reference points in WAAS, including
Alaska. The corrections are completely accurate for these surveyed
reference points. For all other points, the corrections are
extrapolations.

This is different from LAAS and many DGPS systems, which use local
reference points to develop corrections for local receivers. No
significant extrapolation is required, so potential accuracy is
higher.

> This is false. Being inside the reference network is all that matters,
> proxitimity to a WRS does not matter.

No. The exact conditions of atmospheric disturbances and other
sources of inaccuracy cannot be fully predicted on the basis of
non-local references. The only truly accurate way to get this
information is to measure it at the point where it will be used.
However, this is very expensive, which is why WAAS was developed. It
trades a slight loss of accuracy for much lower cost.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> > You don't understand how WAAS works.
>
> Yes, I do. There are only 29 reference points in WAAS, including
> Alaska. The corrections are completely accurate for these surveyed
> reference points. For all other points, the corrections are
> extrapolations.

You don't understand how WAAS works.

The corrections are to grid points based on observables from multiple
reference stations.

> This is different from LAAS and many DGPS systems, which use local
> reference points to develop corrections for local receivers. No
> significant extrapolation is required, so potential accuracy is
> higher.
>
> > This is false. Being inside the reference network is all that matters,
> > proxitimity to a WRS does not matter.
>
> No. The exact conditions of atmospheric disturbances and other
> sources of inaccuracy cannot be fully predicted on the basis of
> non-local references. The only truly accurate way to get this
> information is to measure it at the point where it will be used.
> However, this is very expensive, which is why WAAS was developed. It
> trades a slight loss of accuracy for much lower cost.

You don't understand how WAAS works.

> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[RomeoMike]

> Go to http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/110906.html and read "enabled." The new ones are enabled, the old ones upgradeable.



Mxsmanic wrote:
> RomeoMike writes:
>
>> Suggest you go to the Garmin website, where you will find that the 430
>> and 530 ARE WAAS enabled.
>
> I did, and I actually read what was on the page, where it is clearly
> written that the 530 is WAAS-UPGRADEABLE. Obviously, if it is
> upgradable, it doesn't use WAAS out of the box.
>
> There is a version of the 530 that includes WAAS capability,
> designated 530W. What that means, obviously, is that the base version
> of the GNS 530 does not include WAAS.
>
>> It would in your
>> words be quite an omission for any NEW GPS unit to not be WAAS enabled,
>> though I certainly don't know that ALL of them are.
>
> No, it would be an omission to provide WAAS capability and not mention
> it in the manual. In the Garmin lexicon, "enabled" apparently means
> "compatible with," but not "equipped with."
>

[RomeoMike]

Look harder. Old ones are upgradeable, new ones are enabled, which means
enabled, not "equipped with."

Mxsmanic wrote:
> RomeoMike writes:
>
>> Suggest you go to the Garmin website, where you will find that the 430
>> and 530 ARE WAAS enabled.
>
> I did, and I actually read what was on the page, where it is clearly
> written that the 530 is WAAS-UPGRADEABLE. Obviously, if it is
> upgradable, it doesn't use WAAS out of the box.
>
> There is a version of the 530 that includes WAAS capability,
> designated 530W. What that means, obviously, is that the base version
> of the GNS 530 does not include WAAS.
>
>> It would in your
>> words be quite an omission for any NEW GPS unit to not be WAAS enabled,
>> though I certainly don't know that ALL of them are.
>
> No, it would be an omission to provide WAAS capability and not mention
> it in the manual. In the Garmin lexicon, "enabled" apparently means
> "compatible with," but not "equipped with."
>

[Ron Lee]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

writes:
>
>> You don't understand how WAAS works.
>
>Yes, I do. There are only 29 reference points in WAAS, including
>Alaska. The corrections are completely accurate for these surveyed
>reference points. For all other points, the corrections are
>extrapolations.

I suspect that Jon is far smarter on WAAS that either one of us Mx.

Ron Lee

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You don't understand how WAAS works.
>
> The corrections are to grid points based on observables from multiple
> reference stations.

The corrections are based on data from only 29 stations, but they are
extrapolated to an entire continent. This inevitably increases
inaccuracies. It's as simple as that.

That's why LAAS exists, which uses reference points that are at the
same location as the location for which corrections are being
provided.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Lee writes:

> I suspect that Jon is far smarter on WAAS that either one of us Mx.

I don't have to be smart: I look things up.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Actually, at least for the most part, they are INTERpolations.
> There's a big difference.

Not in terms of accuracy. Either way, they are _estimates_.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

RomeoMike writes:

> Go to http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/110906.html and read "enabled."
> The new ones are enabled, the old ones upgradeable.

The new ones have a different model number, e.g., 530W instead of 530.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

RomeoMike writes:

> Look harder. Old ones are upgradeable, new ones are enabled, which means
> enabled, not "equipped with."

The ones I referenced are upgradeable.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Lee writes:
>
> > I suspect that Jon is far smarter on WAAS that either one of us Mx.
>
> I don't have to be smart: I look things up.

That explains a lot.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> > You don't understand how WAAS works.
> >
> > The corrections are to grid points based on observables from multiple
> > reference stations.
>
> The corrections are based on data from only 29 stations, but they are
> extrapolated to an entire continent. This inevitably increases
> inaccuracies. It's as simple as that.

You stated:

" The further away you are from the surveyed reference
position used to generate the corrections, the more likely it is that
your position will be incorrect."

Until you recognize that your above claim is patently false, your
replies are of little value.

It's as simple as that.

But I don't expect you to given what I've read in other threads you've
'participated in'...

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:


>
> GPS errors can easily exceed 100 feet.


And it is exceedingly rare that they do.


And 100 feet sounds pretty
> significant for RVSM.


It is not.




>
>
> Unless death awaits above.

It does not.




>
>
> How wasteful of manufacturers to produce altimeters that provide
> accuracy better than the nearest 100 feet.

Irrelavant.




>
>
> You make mistakes and die.


No, very few mistakes cause death.






I make mistakes and learn. Simulation
> affords the opportunity to make mistakes safely and teaches humility.


So does actual flying.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:


> Another problem, not actually part of GPS per se, is moving maps.
> Your GPS position may be accurate, but that doesn't guarantee that the
> map is accurate. If the mountain on the map is in the wrong place in
> relation to its real-world position, having high accuracy from GPS
> won't help you. Very often map errors are more of a problem than
> errors in the GPS itself.


Once again you don't know what you're talking about. Even if the map
were out of spec a little it doesn't matter as you aren't flying that
close to the mountains if you are IFR. An actual pilot would know that.



>
> Note that WAAS and LAAS will _not_ compensate for either of the above
> types of error.

Doesn't matter.





Differential GPS systems like this work best when you
> are at exactly the spot used as a reference for the corrections. If
> you are anywhere else, the corrections may not be right for your
> position. The further away you are from the surveyed reference
> position used to generate the corrections, the more likely it is that
> your position will be incorrect.

Completely irrelavant for aviation.

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> One thing you keep missing as a "pretend" pilot is that an error of
>> +/- 100 ft is insignificant in the real world.
>
> GPS errors can easily exceed 100 feet. And 100 feet sounds pretty
> significant for RVSM. With errors that large, some aircraft may be
> vertically separated by only slight more than the spans of their
> wings.
>
> But as I've said, as PIC, you do what you want.
>
>> If a 100 ft error on the GPS is the difference between life and death,
>> a real pilot will climb.
>
> Unless death awaits above.
>
>> It matters very little that you show that you are 5500 ft msl when you
>> are actually
>> 5400 ft. you ain't gonna crash and you're no more likely to have a
>> mid-air
>> than flying at 5500.
>
> How wasteful of manufacturers to produce altimeters that provide
> accuracy better than the nearest 100 feet.
>
>> This is the difference between the REAL world that we live in, and the
>> FANTASY world that you live in. We live it and KNOW. You read it and
>> pretend to be an expert.
>
> You make mistakes and die. I make mistakes and learn. Simulation
> affords the opportunity to make mistakes safely and teaches humility.

Your simulator affords you the opportunity to play a game........nothing
more, nothing less.

>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dave Stadt]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
> Compared to which standard?
>
> mike

The same standard he has used to back-up most of his claims. The make
believe simulated standard.

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The death rate among GA pilots is 100 times higher than it is among
>> automobile drivers.
>
>

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I don't have to be smart: I look things up.

Roger on the first part; as to the second, Google your life away.
Or fly real airplanes.

F--

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Stadt writes:

> Your simulator affords you the opportunity to play a game........nothing
> more, nothing less.

If that were true, it wouldn't be called a simulator.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Everything is an estimate.

Some estimates are more accurate than others.

If you are standing on a hill you know to be 1000 feet high, and you
estimate that the elevation of a hill 500 feet away is 1000 feet also,
you're much more likely to be correct than if you estimate the same
height for a hill 100 miles away. That's just a function of natural
probability.

Likewise, if you measure GPS error at 29 points, and then estimate the
error for all other points, the estimates will be most accurate for
the points nearest the ones you actually measured. There's no getting
around this when one is dealing with natural topographic features. If
the Earth were a perfect sphere, or any shape that can be simply
described and that includes no random anomalies, one or a handful of
measurements would suffice to describe all points with 100% accuracy.
But that is not actually the case in real life, so estimates are off
to a degree that roughly correlates with their distance from
explicitly measured reference points.

> The important question is "is it close
> enough to work with?" +/- 100 ft, for aviation purposes, is close enough.

Laterally, perhaps. Not vertically. And unfortunately GPS is far
less accurate vertically than laterally.

> Hell, I've navigated some long trips by boat using a sextant and a
> watch. I doubt I've ever found my true position within a mile. But I
> always made it to the correct harbor. Close enough.

That's by boat. Harbors are larger than runways. Oceans are flat and
very large indeed.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Spam Magnet]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Dave Stadt writes:
>
>> Your simulator affords you the opportunity to play a game........nothing
>> more, nothing less.
>
>If that were true, it wouldn't be called a simulator.
>

What Microsoft chooses to name it for marketing purposes is irrelevant.

[gpsman]

Ron Lee wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
> >Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
> >>
> >> WAAS isn't part of GPS.
> >>
> >That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology is
> >discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an aviation
> >newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the application, and in
> >that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in other words, in aviation
> >there is no application for WAAS independent GPS AFAIK. So, your above
> >claim is extremely off-topic, at best.
> >
> >Neil
>
> Actually he is correct. WAAS is not part of GPS. You don't need WAAS
> to use GPS for aviation.

Following that logic my water softener is not part of my water system.
Without it, the water system still operates as intended; with it, I
receive a better end result.

WAAS/GPS Terms and Definitions

Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The WAAS is made up of an
integrity reference monitoring network, processing facilities,
geostationary satellites, and control facilities. Wide area reference
stations and integrity monitors are widely dispersed data collection
sites that contain GPS/WAAS ranging receivers that monitor all signals
from the GPS, as well as the WAAS geostationary satellites.

The reference stations collect measurements from the GPS and WAAS
satellites so that differential corrections, ionospheric delay
information, GPS/WAAS accuracy, WAAS network time, GPS time, and UTC
can be determined.

The wide area reference station and integrity monitor data are
forwarded to the central data processing sites. These sites process
the data in order to determine differential corrections, ionospheric
delay information, and GPS/WAAS accuracy, as well as verify residual
error bounds for each monitored satellite. The central data processing
sites also generate navigation messages for the geostationary
satellites and WAAS messages.

This information is modulated on the GPS-like signal and broadcast to
the users from geostationary satellites.
http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/Terms.html
-----

- gpsman

[Mxsmanic]

Spam Magnet writes:

> What Microsoft chooses to name it for marketing purposes is irrelevant.

That's what people choose to call it, not simply what Microsoft names
it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

gpsman writes:

> Following that logic my water softener is not part of my water system.

That's how your water utility looks at it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> gpsman writes:
>
>> Following that logic my water softener is not part of my water
>> system.
>
> That's how your water utility looks at it.
>
And, there you have the crux of this matter. As pilots, we are identical
to the end user of the water system, not the utility company. If you want
to discuss WAAS independent of GPS, go to some GPS or WAAS group and
discuss your concepts to your heart's content.

Neil

[Ron Lee]

"Neil Gould" > wrote:

>Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>
>> gpsman writes:
>>
>>> Following that logic my water softener is not part of my water
>>> system.
>>
>> That's how your water utility looks at it.
>>
>And, there you have the crux of this matter. As pilots, we are identical
>to the end user of the water system, not the utility company. If you want
>to discuss WAAS independent of GPS, go to some GPS or WAAS group and
>discuss your concepts to your heart's content.
>
>Neil
>
The crux of the matter is that WAAS is not part of GPS. How many
pilots use WAAS in an IFR or even VFR manner? Not many I suspect.

Using your logic and a Garmin 496 you would say that XM weather and
radio is part of GPS because they are integrated into a GPS receiver.

Ron Lee

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote

> The crux of the matter is that WAAS is not part of GPS. How many
> pilots use WAAS in an IFR or even VFR manner?

What the hell was that last sentence trying to get at? I'm clueless, as are
you.

> Using your logic and a Garmin 496 you would say that XM weather and
> radio is part of GPS because they are integrated into a GPS receiver.

You are either being silly, or stupid.

Does the WAAS make the GPS position more accurate? Yes. Part of GPS.

Does XM radio or XM weather make the GPS position more accurate? No. Not a part
of GPS.

See? Easy.

Whatever you do, stop arguing this silly point. We get it. You do not think
that WAAS is a part of GPS.

OK, we get it. Let it die.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> gpsman writes:
>
>
>>Following that logic my water softener is not part of my water system.
>
>
> That's how your water utility looks at it.

It is as irrelavant what the water company thinks about my water system
as what you think about GPS.

[Jim Macklin]

WAAS is certainly part of GPS, it is included in the
original goals and if you check GPS pages on the USCG, FAA
or USN and Air Force sites you will see that these accuracy
improving features are part of GPS. If it is included, it
functions automatically.



"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
| "Neil Gould" > wrote:
|
| >Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
| >
| >> gpsman writes:
| >>
| >>> Following that logic my water softener is not part of
my water
| >>> system.
| >>
| >> That's how your water utility looks at it.
| >>
| >And, there you have the crux of this matter. As pilots,
we are identical
| >to the end user of the water system, not the utility
company. If you want
| >to discuss WAAS independent of GPS, go to some GPS or
WAAS group and
| >discuss your concepts to your heart's content.
| >
| >Neil
| >
| The crux of the matter is that WAAS is not part of GPS.
How many
| pilots use WAAS in an IFR or even VFR manner? Not many I
suspect.
|
| Using your logic and a Garmin 496 you would say that XM
weather and
| radio is part of GPS because they are integrated into a
GPS receiver.
|
| Ron Lee
|

[Ron Lee]

"Morgans" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote
>
>> The crux of the matter is that WAAS is not part of GPS. How many
>> pilots use WAAS in an IFR or even VFR manner?
>
>What the hell was that last sentence trying to get at? I'm clueless, as are
>you.

Wow. Resort to name calling. I suspect that I am far more informed
about GPS that the majority of the folks here.


>> Using your logic and a Garmin 496 you would say that XM weather and
>> radio is part of GPS because they are integrated into a GPS receiver.
>
>You are either being silly, or stupid.

Nope. Using similar logic as others here. More name calling. So
sad.

>Does the WAAS make the GPS position more accurate? Yes. Part of GPS.

Your statement does not make WAAS part of GPS.

>Does XM radio or XM weather make the GPS position more accurate? No. Not a part
>of GPS.
>
>See? Easy.
>
>Whatever you do, stop arguing this silly point. We get it. You do not think
>that WAAS is a part of GPS.

You don't seem to get it. Accept the truth.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

>WAAS is certainly part of GPS, it is included in the
>original goals and if you check GPS pages on the USCG, FAA
>or USN and Air Force sites you will see that these accuracy
>improving features are part of GPS. If it is included, it
>functions automatically.
>

I doubt that WAAS was considered when I was supporting GPS satellites
launches many years ago. That WAAS complements GPS automatically
does not make WAAS part of GPS.

Ron Lee


>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>| "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>|
>| >Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>| >
>| >> gpsman writes:
>| >>
>| >>> Following that logic my water softener is not part of
>my water
>| >>> system.
>| >>
>| >> That's how your water utility looks at it.
>| >>
>| >And, there you have the crux of this matter. As pilots,
>we are identical
>| >to the end user of the water system, not the utility
>company. If you want
>| >to discuss WAAS independent of GPS, go to some GPS or
>WAAS group and
>| >discuss your concepts to your heart's content.
>| >
>| >Neil
>| >
>| The crux of the matter is that WAAS is not part of GPS.
>How many
>| pilots use WAAS in an IFR or even VFR manner? Not many I
>suspect.
>|
>| Using your logic and a Garmin 496 you would say that XM
>weather and
>| radio is part of GPS because they are integrated into a
>GPS receiver.
>|
>| Ron Lee
>|
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> WAAS is certainly part of GPS ...

No, it's a separate system that depends on GPS.

> ... it is included in the original goals ...

Really? I don't recall reading about it in the specifications. GPS
greatly predates WAAS and DGPS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Lee writes:

> I doubt that WAAS was considered when I was supporting GPS satellites
> launches many years ago. That WAAS complements GPS automatically
> does not make WAAS part of GPS.

Development on WAAS began around 1995. GPS dates from the late 1970s.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[gpsman]

Ron Lee wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>
> >WAAS is certainly part of GPS, it is included in the
> >original goals and if you check GPS pages on the USCG, FAA
> >or USN and Air Force sites you will see that these accuracy
> >improving features are part of GPS. If it is included, it
> >functions automatically.
> >
>
> I doubt that WAAS was considered when I was supporting GPS satellites
> launches many years ago. That WAAS complements GPS automatically
> does not make WAAS part of GPS.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

Maybe... this will help:

Main Entry: 1aug·ment
Pronunciation: og-'ment
Function: verb

1 : to make greater, more numerous, larger, or more intense <the impact
of the report was augmented by its timing>
2 : to add an augment to
3 : SUPPLEMENT <augmented her scholarship by working nights>
intransitive verb : to become augmented

_** synonym see INCREASE **_
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/augment
-----

- gpsman

[Doug[_1_]]

Is the OBS button, I mean the actual plastic button, a part of GPS? I
mean I REALLY need to know the answer to this question. Won't somebody
tell me PLEASE!!!

It's SOOOOooooo important....

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt writes:
>
>> Your simulator affords you the opportunity to play a game........nothing
>> more, nothing less.
>
> If that were true, it wouldn't be called a simulator.

Microsoft calls it a toy.

[gpsman]

Doug wrote:
> Is the OBS button, I mean the actual plastic button, a part of GPS? I
> mean I REALLY need to know the answer to this question. Won't somebody
> tell me PLEASE!!!
>
> It's SOOOOooooo important...

No.

But I think you miss the point.

The point is, in this instance, IMO, to separate the wheat from the
chaff; those who know of what they write, and those who don't.

Checking a GPS satellite launch pad for foreign objects, or playing
with one's wee-wee while navigating usenet with the other hand, does
not an expert in GPS technology make.

You can usually tell who knows of what they write by referenced links
in support of their opinion. Those who eschew such support are merely
blowers of smoke seeking receptive asses.

Or, as we old farmboys say, they don't know "**** from apple-butter"...
but are anxious to provide you unlimited sandwiches.

Sniff before you bite.
-----

- gpsman

[gpsman]

Newps wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > gpsman writes:
> >
> >
> >>Following that logic my water softener is not part of my water system.
> >
> >
> > That's how your water utility looks at it.
>
> It is as irrelavant what the water company thinks about my water system
> as what you think about GPS.

People who have never acquired a home of their own are unlikely to
consider the necessity of a well. Or a cistern.

All water must be provided by somebody else... all knowledge must be
provided by somebody else, and spoon fed... only to be spit out and
spooned back in, then spit out once again... because it doesn't taste
so good if it is not an invention of your own "mind".

I guess. There ought to be a shrink or two here...
-----

- gpsman

[Jim Macklin]

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/GPS_augmentation_systems.htm


"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| >WAAS is certainly part of GPS, it is included in the
| >original goals and if you check GPS pages on the USCG,
FAA
| >or USN and Air Force sites you will see that these
accuracy
| >improving features are part of GPS. If it is included,
it
| >functions automatically.
| >
|
| I doubt that WAAS was considered when I was supporting GPS
satellites
| launches many years ago. That WAAS complements GPS
automatically
| does not make WAAS part of GPS.
|
| Ron Lee
|
|
| >
| >"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
| ...
| >| "Neil Gould" > wrote:
| >|
| >| >Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
| >| >
| >| >> gpsman writes:
| >| >>
| >| >>> Following that logic my water softener is not part
of
| >my water
| >| >>> system.
| >| >>
| >| >> That's how your water utility looks at it.
| >| >>
| >| >And, there you have the crux of this matter. As
pilots,
| >we are identical
| >| >to the end user of the water system, not the utility
| >company. If you want
| >| >to discuss WAAS independent of GPS, go to some GPS or
| >WAAS group and
| >| >discuss your concepts to your heart's content.
| >| >
| >| >Neil
| >| >
| >| The crux of the matter is that WAAS is not part of GPS.
| >How many
| >| pilots use WAAS in an IFR or even VFR manner? Not many
I
| >suspect.
| >|
| >| Using your logic and a Garmin 496 you would say that XM
| >weather and
| >| radio is part of GPS because they are integrated into a
| >GPS receiver.
| >|
| >| Ron Lee
| >|
| >
| >
|

[Jim Macklin]

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/GPS_augmentation_systems.htm
"gpsman" > wrote in message
ps.com...
Ron Lee wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" >
> wrote:
>
> >WAAS is certainly part of GPS, it is included in the
> >original goals and if you check GPS pages on the USCG,
> >FAA
> >or USN and Air Force sites you will see that these
> >accuracy
> >improving features are part of GPS. If it is included,
> >it
> >functions automatically.
> >
>
> I doubt that WAAS was considered when I was supporting GPS
> satellites
> launches many years ago. That WAAS complements GPS
> automatically
> does not make WAAS part of GPS.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

Maybe... this will help:

Main Entry: 1aug·ment
Pronunciation: og-'ment
Function: verb

1 : to make greater, more numerous, larger, or more intense
<the impact
of the report was augmented by its timing>
2 : to add an augment to
3 : SUPPLEMENT <augmented her scholarship by working nights>
intransitive verb : to become augmented

_** synonym see INCREASE **_
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/augment
-----

- gpsman

[Jim Macklin]

http://gps.faa.gov/FAQ/index.htm


"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
| "Morgans" > wrote:
|
| >
| >"Ron Lee" > wrote
| >
| >> The crux of the matter is that WAAS is not part of GPS.
How many
| >> pilots use WAAS in an IFR or even VFR manner?
| >
| >What the hell was that last sentence trying to get at?
I'm clueless, as are
| >you.
|
| Wow. Resort to name calling. I suspect that I am far
more informed
| about GPS that the majority of the folks here.
|
|
| >> Using your logic and a Garmin 496 you would say that XM
weather and
| >> radio is part of GPS because they are integrated into a
GPS receiver.
| >
| >You are either being silly, or stupid.
|
| Nope. Using similar logic as others here. More name
calling. So
| sad.
|
| >Does the WAAS make the GPS position more accurate? Yes.
Part of GPS.
|
| Your statement does not make WAAS part of GPS.
|
| >Does XM radio or XM weather make the GPS position more
accurate? No. Not a part
| >of GPS.
| >
| >See? Easy.
| >
| >Whatever you do, stop arguing this silly point. We get
it. You do not think
| >that WAAS is a part of GPS.
|
| You don't seem to get it. Accept the truth.
|
| Ron Lee

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Stadt writes:

> Microsoft calls it a toy.

I don't worry too much about what Microsoft calls it. They will call
it whatever best sustains sales.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Doug writes:

> Is the OBS button, I mean the actual plastic button, a part of GPS?

No. GPS provides data useful for navigation. It doesn't actually
provide navigation functions themselves.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Ron Lee > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>> Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>>
>>> gpsman writes:
>>>
>>>> Following that logic my water softener is not part of my water
>>>> system.
>>>
>>> That's how your water utility looks at it.
>>>
>> And, there you have the crux of this matter. As pilots, we are
>> identical to the end user of the water system, not the utility
>> company. If you want to discuss WAAS independent of GPS, go to some
>> GPS or WAAS group and discuss your concepts to your heart's content.
>>
>> Neil
>>
> The crux of the matter is that WAAS is not part of GPS. How many
> pilots use WAAS in an IFR or even VFR manner? Not many I suspect.
>
Your question is easily answered by finding out which GPS units are
IFR-approved, and understanding why others are not.

> Using your logic and a Garmin 496 you would say that XM weather and
> radio is part of GPS because they are integrated into a GPS receiver.
>
Weather and radio do not enhance positional information, which is what GPS
is about. WAAS does nothing *other* than enhance positional information of
GPS. Seems like a pretty obvious difference to me. So, haven't you any
idea about how we arrive at the notion that for aviators WAAS is indeed
"part of GPS", or is there some value to your pedantry that we are
missing? You have yet to answer my earlier question: what piece of
equipment in the cockpit involves WAAS but not a GPS?

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Ron Lee writes:
>
>> I doubt that WAAS was considered when I was supporting GPS satellites
>> launches many years ago. That WAAS complements GPS automatically
>> does not make WAAS part of GPS.
>
> Development on WAAS began around 1995. GPS dates from the late 1970s.
>
Both of these "contributions" miss the whole point of what *is* important
to the pilot regarding GPS and WAAS. The issue raised was the altitude
accuracy of a GPS receiver (as the ONLY component relevant to the pilot,
and the ONLY component that reports a specific altitude is the receiver
anyway). The ONLY component to use WAAS in the cockpit is the GPS
receiver, and as the ONLY purpose of WAAS is to enhance the positional
accuracy of the GPS receiver's positional reporting, then it is, indeed
part of the GPS _receiver_. To leave off the "receiver" in the statement
does nothing to diminish the important information to the pilot any more
than leaving off the "receiver" statement from the VOR, NDB, or LORAN
units in discussion of those navaids. To insist that WAAS is not a part of
GPS is as useless as insisiting that indicator needles are not a part of
VOR, or rotating antennae not a part of NDB, or that read-out data is not
a part of LORAN. All of these statements may be true and useful in some
other context, such as the design and maintenance of VOR stations, but are
off-topic and useless to the pilot.

If your pedantic insistance has some value to aviators that we are
missing, please make that clear. If, OTOH, the only relevance is to insist
that GPS does not report accurate altitude information, then refer to the
numerous cites that you have been given in this thread and move on,
please.

Neil

[Ron Lee]

"Neil Gould" > wrote:

>Your question is easily answered by finding out which GPS units are
>IFR-approved, and understanding why others are not.

MY GNS 430 is IFR approved but does not use WAAS.

>> Using your logic and a Garmin 496 you would say that XM weather and
>> radio is part of GPS because they are integrated into a GPS receiver.
>>
>Weather and radio do not enhance positional information, which is what GPS
>is about. WAAS does nothing *other* than enhance positional information of
>GPS. Seems like a pretty obvious difference to me. So, haven't you any
>idea about how we arrive at the notion that for aviators WAAS is indeed
>"part of GPS", or is there some value to your pedantry that we are
>missing? You have yet to answer my earlier question: what piece of
>equipment in the cockpit involves WAAS but not a GPS?

Because it is irrelevant. WAAS needs a GPS receiver to work but that
does not make WAAS a part of the DoD operated GPS system. GPS was not
even "given" to civils to use until after KAL 007 was shot down in the
mid 1980s.

And I am a pilot who uses GPS for navigation and fully understand
which system does what.

Ron Lee

>Neil
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Do you know of an aviation use of WAAS that isn't tied to GPS?
>
> Absolutely. GPS can be used (and is used) for en-route navigation
> without WAAS. It is more than precise enough for this purpose for
> lateral navigation. Standard GPS can be used for any lateral
> navigation except during take-off and landing, where it is not
> reliable enough for safety as the sole means of navigation. Many
> existing aviation GPS receivers do not include support for WAAS.
>

You act like you are answering my question but you are not. Please reread
the question.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> You make mistakes and die. I make mistakes and learn. Simulation
>...teaches humility.

Then please, please get back on your simulator.

[Doug[_1_]]

I am SOOOooooo glad to know the ANSWER to my question. It will
undoubtably make me SUCH a better pilot. I can now SAFELY use the OBS
button without fear of the GPS satellites FALLING from the sky.
Mxsmanic, you are TRULY a genius and should WRITE A BOOK on GPS. It
would be so WONDERFUL....

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Doug writes:
>
> > Is the OBS button, I mean the actual plastic button, a part of GPS?
>
> No. GPS provides data useful for navigation. It doesn't actually
> provide navigation functions themselves.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> You act like you are answering my question but you are not. Please reread
> the question.

En-route navigation is not tied to WAAS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Ron Lee > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>> So, haven't you any idea about how we arrive at the notion that for
>> aviators WAAS is indeed "part of GPS", or is there some value to
>> your pedantry that we are missing? You have yet to answer my earlier
>> question: what piece of equipment in the cockpit involves WAAS but
>> not a GPS?
>
> Because it is irrelevant. WAAS needs a GPS receiver to work but that
> does not make WAAS a part of the DoD operated GPS system.
>
As I've mentioned several times now, while it may be a true statement, who
cares what the DoD operated GPS system was, and how does that change
anything with regards to our use of GPS today?

> And I am a pilot who uses GPS for navigation and fully understand
> which system does what.
>
Which only makes it more puzzling that you want to go on about this.

Neil

[Ron Lee]

"Neil Gould" > wrote:

>Recently, Ron Lee > posted:
>
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>>
>>> So, haven't you any idea about how we arrive at the notion that for
>>> aviators WAAS is indeed "part of GPS", or is there some value to
>>> your pedantry that we are missing? You have yet to answer my earlier
>>> question: what piece of equipment in the cockpit involves WAAS but
>>> not a GPS?
>>
>> Because it is irrelevant. WAAS needs a GPS receiver to work but that
>> does not make WAAS a part of the DoD operated GPS system.
>>
>As I've mentioned several times now, while it may be a true statement, who
>cares what the DoD operated GPS system was, and how does that change
>anything with regards to our use of GPS today?
>
>> And I am a pilot who uses GPS for navigation and fully understand
>> which system does what.
>>
>Which only makes it more puzzling that you want to go on about this.
>
>Neil

Neil, what is amazing is that you won't differentiate between
different systems and use of those where they are almost
complementary. Actually, WAAS is basically useless without GPS. It
augments GPS much as EGNOS does in Europe yet do you call EGNOS part
of GPS?

Using the logic of several on this board, NDGPS and CORS are also part
of the DoD operated GPS.

Ron Lee
>

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Ron Lee > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>> Recently, Ron Lee > posted:
>>
>>> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, haven't you any idea about how we arrive at the notion that for
>>>> aviators WAAS is indeed "part of GPS", or is there some value to
>>>> your pedantry that we are missing? You have yet to answer my
>>>> earlier question: what piece of equipment in the cockpit involves
>>>> WAAS but not a GPS?
>>>
>>> Because it is irrelevant. WAAS needs a GPS receiver to work but
>>> that does not make WAAS a part of the DoD operated GPS system.
>>>
>> As I've mentioned several times now, while it may be a true
>> statement, who cares what the DoD operated GPS system was, and how
>> does that change anything with regards to our use of GPS today?
>>
>>> And I am a pilot who uses GPS for navigation and fully understand
>>> which system does what.
>>>
>> Which only makes it more puzzling that you want to go on about this.
>>
>> Neil
>
> Neil, what is amazing is that you won't differentiate between
> different systems and use of those where they are almost
> complementary.
>
I have no idea what you are referring to, here, but it sounds like an
inaccurate assessement of what I will or won't do. For one thing, we are
talking about one "system" with different components (more on that point
below).

> Actually, WAAS is basically useless without GPS.
>
On this, we completely agree. And, it is what makes WAAS "a part of" GPS
systems.

> It
> augments GPS much as EGNOS does in Europe yet do you call EGNOS part
> of GPS?
>
I probably would, if my GPS receiver integrated EGNOS data to enhance the
accuracy of the positional information.

By definition, a system can have a number of interrelated components, and
there is no requirement that those components be operated by (or the
responsibility of) a single entity. As a _user_ of such systems, one's
concerns are focused on the ability to properly integrate system
information into the primary task at hand. How would it help the primary
task to focus on components of a system that can not be isolated? The only
thing we can do as pilots is know whether the information we are getting
is useful, and what to do if it isn't. I'm comfortable with that.

I am far less concerned about who is responsible for operating and
maintaining the components of the GPS system than I am about who is
responsible for operating and maintaining my water supply, and I recognize
that in either case I am powerless to affect either of those components or
their managers. So, I focus my attention on using both systems in the best
way to get the results I need, and anything beyond that is a distraction
and a waste of time.

Neil