The FAA is marching toward sole dependence on GPS.

[WolfRat]

The FAA is marching toward sole dependence on GPS. The FAA
engineers and controllers are screaming from the
mountaintops PLEASE do not single thread North American
airspace navigation on satellite only. Yes GPS is awesome.
Yes GPS has and will change our lives. But the signal is
small and vulnerable. From an infrastructure perspective all
you have to do is jam the down link. IF we were GPS only in
North American Air Traffic control the Chinese or
sophisticated internal terrorism could shut down the system.

High Power GPS jammers energized at coordinated locations
near big cities. Mobile jammers in vans. GPS jammers and
Spoofers on balloons launched up wind from major cities.

We would come to our knees. It would take days to sort out
the jammer locations while our entire economy is crippled.

GPS can be PRIMARY But!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we should have a
secondary Robust ground network for Navigation and
Communication of aircraft, military, trucks and ships and
trains and people.

Use an integrated GPS/VOR/DME/LORAN concept. All GPS
receivers sold after 2010 everywhere should be capable of
picking up all four systems. FOUR separate frequencies for
more spectrum jamming difficulty. Keep ILS at major airports.

[Sam Spade]

It's not just the FAA, wolfie. It is the entire aviation industry
working with the FAA in performance-based navigation concepts.

Most of the serious transport aircraft have, or will have, very accurate
IR systems in addition to GPS, thus they are not single thread aircraft.

ILS won't be decommissioned for many, many years.

VOR triangulation is so inaccurate that it has no value in today's RNAV
terminal procedures. DME can work, but only where the geometry is good.
All modern transport aircraft can degrade to DME/DME updating and
there is no plan to stop placing that capability in serious aircraft.

WolfRat wrote:
> The FAA is marching toward sole dependence on GPS. The FAA
> engineers and controllers are screaming from the
> mountaintops PLEASE do not single thread North American
> airspace navigation on satellite only. Yes GPS is awesome.
> Yes GPS has and will change our lives. But the signal is
> small and vulnerable. From an infrastructure perspective all
> you have to do is jam the down link. IF we were GPS only in
> North American Air Traffic control the Chinese or
> sophisticated internal terrorism could shut down the system.
>
> High Power GPS jammers energized at coordinated locations
> near big cities. Mobile jammers in vans. GPS jammers and
> Spoofers on balloons launched up wind from major cities.
>
> We would come to our knees. It would take days to sort out
> the jammer locations while our entire economy is crippled.
>
> GPS can be PRIMARY But!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we should have a
> secondary Robust ground network for Navigation and
> Communication of aircraft, military, trucks and ships and
> trains and people.
>
> Use an integrated GPS/VOR/DME/LORAN concept. All GPS
> receivers sold after 2010 everywhere should be capable of
> picking up all four systems. FOUR separate frequencies for
> more spectrum jamming difficulty. Keep ILS at major airports.

[Sam Spade]

And LORAN sucks and does not work in much of the world.

[Bob Gardner]

No, Sam....LEGACY loran sucks. Enhanced loran (which will require new
receivers/antennas to utilize its GPS-equivalent accuracy) is right around
the corner. A new eLoran station has recently been put on the air in the UK,
and the Coast Guard is well on the way to upgrading its whole system. Go to
www.loran.org and start following links. www.crossrate.com is another useful
site.

Bob Gardner

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> And LORAN sucks and does not work in much of the world.

[Sam Spade]

Well, let me put it this way. It isn't in any of the FAA's NexGen
performance-based nav systems plans.

Bob Gardner wrote:
> No, Sam....LEGACY loran sucks. Enhanced loran (which will require new
> receivers/antennas to utilize its GPS-equivalent accuracy) is right
> around the corner. A new eLoran station has recently been put on the air
> in the UK, and the Coast Guard is well on the way to upgrading its whole
> system. Go to www.loran.org and start following links. www.crossrate.com
> is another useful site.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> And LORAN sucks and does not work in much of the world.
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

Can't argue with that...it is a Coast Guard program, not an FAA program.
Still, if you follow the links in www.loran.org you will see a lot of USCG
Headquarters names listed.

It seems as though I have to repeat this over and over, but with eLoran you
don't have to select chains or group repetition rates...you just turn it on,
like a GPS, and it starts displaying RNP 0.3-accuracy positions. Its
all-in-view technology uses all usable signals within range and processes
them simultaneously. The wonders of microtechnology...

Bob Gardner

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Well, let me put it this way. It isn't in any of the FAA's NexGen
> performance-based nav systems plans.
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> No, Sam....LEGACY loran sucks. Enhanced loran (which will require new
>> receivers/antennas to utilize its GPS-equivalent accuracy) is right
>> around the corner. A new eLoran station has recently been put on the air
>> in the UK, and the Coast Guard is well on the way to upgrading its whole
>> system. Go to www.loran.org and start following links. www.crossrate.com
>> is another useful site.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> And LORAN sucks and does not work in much of the world.
>>

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Sam Spade > wrote:

>Well, let me put it this way. It isn't in any of the FAA's NexGen
>performance-based nav systems plans.

The FAA does not OWN LORAN. The DOT has done a diservice to the GA
comminity by waffling on LORAN for a decade or more. Make it a viable
system and the GA community can have another viable RNAV-like system
like the big boys do with their expensive FMS, DME, inertial units.

NextGen. Yea right. Force GA pilots to spend TBD thousands of
dollars on the ADS-B Out equipment that provides no benefit to me.
They can't even make what they have now work properly although the
airlines are also culpable in the problems we have today.

Ron Lee

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Well, let me put it this way. It isn't in any of the FAA's NexGen
>>performance-based nav systems plans.
>
> The FAA does not OWN LORAN.
>

Nor does the FAA OWN GPS.

[Bob Gardner]

I missed my target, Sam. M (Mitch? Michael?) Nairns is the enhanced loran
go-to guy at FAA headquarters.

Bob Gardner

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> And LORAN sucks and does not work in much of the world.

[Sam Spade]

Ron Lee wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>Well, let me put it this way. It isn't in any of the FAA's NexGen
>>performance-based nav systems plans.
>
>
> The FAA does not OWN LORAN. The DOT has done a diservice to the GA
> comminity by waffling on LORAN for a decade or more. Make it a viable
> system and the GA community can have another viable RNAV-like system
> like the big boys do with their expensive FMS, DME, inertial units.
>
> NextGen. Yea right. Force GA pilots to spend TBD thousands of
> dollars on the ADS-B Out equipment that provides no benefit to me.
> They can't even make what they have now work properly although the
> airlines are also culpable in the problems we have today.
>
> Ron Lee

ADS-B is not a performance-based navigation system, thus not in the
context of this thread.

Performance-based navigation is. Have you seen the RNP SAAAR IAP for
Runway 31 at Bishop, CA for example? Look at the minimums on that IAP
compared to the other IAPs for that airport.

So far as the GA community is concered, keep in ming there are light
aircraft then there are business aircraft. A world of difference.

[Bob Gardner]

Sorry...it's Mitch Narins...I spelled it wrong. Read this:
http://www.loran.org/library/Road%20to%20eLoran.pdf and note the FAA logo on
the first page.

Bob Gardner

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Well, let me put it this way. It isn't in any of the FAA's NexGen
> performance-based nav systems plans.
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> No, Sam....LEGACY loran sucks. Enhanced loran (which will require new
>> receivers/antennas to utilize its GPS-equivalent accuracy) is right
>> around the corner. A new eLoran station has recently been put on the air
>> in the UK, and the Coast Guard is well on the way to upgrading its whole
>> system. Go to www.loran.org and start following links. www.crossrate.com
>> is another useful site.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> And LORAN sucks and does not work in much of the world.
>>

[Sam Spade]

That presentation is close to 4 years old.

This has not been discussed as a possible RNP sensor by the PARC
(Performance-based Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee) during the
past 3 years.

Because RNP is technically sensor-independent an airframe OEM or
avionics vendor is free to attempt to certify any sensor.

Bob Gardner wrote:
> Sorry...it's Mitch Narins...I spelled it wrong. Read this:
> http://www.loran.org/library/Road%20to%20eLoran.pdf and note the FAA
> logo on the first page.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Well, let me put it this way. It isn't in any of the FAA's NexGen
>> performance-based nav systems plans.
>>
>> Bob Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> No, Sam....LEGACY loran sucks. Enhanced loran (which will require new
>>> receivers/antennas to utilize its GPS-equivalent accuracy) is right
>>> around the corner. A new eLoran station has recently been put on the
>>> air in the UK, and the Coast Guard is well on the way to upgrading
>>> its whole system. Go to www.loran.org and start following links.
>>> www.crossrate.com is another useful site.
>>>
>>> Bob Gardner
>>>
>>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> And LORAN sucks and does not work in much of the world.
>>>
>>>

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>> Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>>Well, let me put it this way. It isn't in any of the FAA's NexGen
>>>performance-based nav systems plans.
>>
>> The FAA does not OWN LORAN.
>>
>
>Nor does the FAA OWN GPS.
>

True Steven but they do own WAAS (a GPS augmentation system) which
they seem to make essential to many programs such as ADS-B Out.

Ron Lee
>

[Bob Gardner]

Mitch Narins is still at AJW-41; give him a call. He can also be reached
through the Google Earth Community, where he posted about loran stations
(UK, Saudi Arabia, Norway) as recently as the 19th.

Bob Gardner

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> That presentation is close to 4 years old.
>
> This has not been discussed as a possible RNP sensor by the PARC
> (Performance-based Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee) during the
> past 3 years.
>
> Because RNP is technically sensor-independent an airframe OEM or avionics
> vendor is free to attempt to certify any sensor.
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> Sorry...it's Mitch Narins...I spelled it wrong. Read this:
>> http://www.loran.org/library/Road%20to%20eLoran.pdf and note the FAA logo
>> on the first page.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Well, let me put it this way. It isn't in any of the FAA's NexGen
>>> performance-based nav systems plans.
>>>
>>> Bob Gardner wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, Sam....LEGACY loran sucks. Enhanced loran (which will require new
>>>> receivers/antennas to utilize its GPS-equivalent accuracy) is right
>>>> around the corner. A new eLoran station has recently been put on the
>>>> air in the UK, and the Coast Guard is well on the way to upgrading its
>>>> whole system. Go to www.loran.org and start following links.
>>>> www.crossrate.com is another useful site.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Gardner
>>>>
>>>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> And LORAN sucks and does not work in much of the world.
>>>>
>>>>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Ron Lee) wrote:

> True Steven but they do own WAAS (a GPS augmentation system) which
> they seem to make essential to many programs such as ADS-B Out.

huh? What is the relationship/interaction between WAAS and ADS-B?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Bob Noel > wrote:

> (Ron Lee) wrote:
>
>> True Steven but they do own WAAS (a GPS augmentation system) which
>> they seem to make essential to many programs such as ADS-B Out.
>
>huh? What is the relationship/interaction between WAAS and ADS-B?
>
>Bob Noel

Look at the ADS-B Out NPRM, page 56956, third column (right side of
page) for these points which IMO seems that the FAA conveniently
specify ADS-B Out performance requirements that can only be met using
GPS augmented with WAAS.

"This proposal specifies performance standards for aircraft avionics
equipment for operation to enable ADS B Out. These performance
standards would accommodate and facilitate the use of new technology.
Presently, GPS augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)
is the only navigation position service that provides the level of
accuracy and integrity (NIC, NACp, and NACv) to enable ADS-B Out to be
used for NAS based surveillance operations with sufficient
availability."

Plus near the bottom of that column:

"In order to meet the proposed performance requirements using the
GPS/WAAS system, aircraft would be required to have equipment
installed onboard the aircraft that meets one of the following: (1)
TSO C145b, Airborne Navigation Sensors using the GPS augmented by
WAAS; or (2) TSO-C146b Stand-Alone Airborne Navigation Equipment using
the GPS augmented by WAAS."

Ron Lee

[Sam Spade]

Why wouldn't you want a WAAAS capable panel mount in any case, ADS-B
notwithstanding?

There is a whole different world of safety and operational access
available with 145/146 panel mounts over 129 boxes.

Ron Lee wrote:
> Bob Noel > wrote:
>
>
(Ron Lee) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>True Steven but they do own WAAS (a GPS augmentation system) which
>>>they seem to make essential to many programs such as ADS-B Out.
>>
>>huh? What is the relationship/interaction between WAAS and ADS-B?
>>
>>Bob Noel
>
>
> Look at the ADS-B Out NPRM, page 56956, third column (right side of
> page) for these points which IMO seems that the FAA conveniently
> specify ADS-B Out performance requirements that can only be met using
> GPS augmented with WAAS.
>
> "This proposal specifies performance standards for aircraft avionics
> equipment for operation to enable ADS B Out. These performance
> standards would accommodate and facilitate the use of new technology.
> Presently, GPS augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)
> is the only navigation position service that provides the level of
> accuracy and integrity (NIC, NACp, and NACv) to enable ADS-B Out to be
> used for NAS based surveillance operations with sufficient
> availability."
>
> Plus near the bottom of that column:
>
> "In order to meet the proposed performance requirements using the
> GPS/WAAS system, aircraft would be required to have equipment
> installed onboard the aircraft that meets one of the following: (1)
> TSO C145b, Airborne Navigation Sensors using the GPS augmented by
> WAAS; or (2) TSO-C146b Stand-Alone Airborne Navigation Equipment using
> the GPS augmented by WAAS."
>
> Ron Lee
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Sam Spade >
wrote:

> Why wouldn't you want a WAAAS capable panel mount in any case, ADS-B
> notwithstanding?
>

VFR-only aircraft do not gain much operational utility from the increased
accuracy of WAAS GPS. Simply put, WAAS enables near CAT I instrument
approaches. Non-WAAS GPS is perfectly capable of being used VFR.

And why ADS-B requires the small accuracy gain of WAAS is a mystery to me.
I wonder why the FAA wants to make a US version of ADS-B instead of using
a common standard.

> There is a whole different world of safety and operational access
> available with 145/146 panel mounts over 129 boxes.

huh?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"John Collins" > wrote:

> Bob Noel wrote:
>
> "And why ADS-B requires the small accuracy gain of WAAS is a mystery to me.
> I wonder why the FAA wants to make a US version of ADS-B instead of using
> a common standard."
>
> Technically speaking, the FAA NPRM doesn't require a C146a or C145a WAAS GPS
> for the position information, although in the body of the NPRM they state:
>
>
> "Presently, GPS augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is the
> only navigation position service that provides the level of accuracy and
> integrity (NIC, NACp, and NACv) to enable ADS-B Out to be used for NAS-based
> surveillance operations with sufficient availability."

Which leads to the fundamental question of why that level of accuracy needs
to be required for ADS-B? ADS-B with something suitable for, say, RNP-1,
apparently isn't good enough. I'd love to see the requirement analysis that
lead to the FAA deciding to allocate that level of accuracy, integrity,
availability, and continuity to ADS-B out.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

>In the proposed change to the FAR's, Appendix H is added to part 91 which
>specifies the technical requirements for the navigation source, WAAS is not
>mentioned. Instead, specific requirements for the values of NIC, NAC, and
>SIL are specified. Of course, a WAAS GPS can meet these requirements. It
>is not clear to me that a standard GPS can not be modified (software) to
>also meet the requirements. SIL (Surveillance Integrity Category) is a
>static value based on the specific hardware and software and can be met by a
>GPS without WAAS.

John, that the proposed FAA does not mention a technical solution
(GPS/WAAS) as the only currently known way to meet their specs, the
FAA in this NPRM does state that:

"Presently, GPS augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)
is the only navigation position service that provides the level of
accuracy and integrity (NIC, NACp, and NACv) to enable ADS-B Out to be
used for NAS based surveillance operations with sufficient
availability."

Now did they define the operational use of this system, analytically
determine that each spec was the right number and magically ONLY
GPS/WAAS could handle it or did they do it backwards and define specs
that only GPS/WAAS could meet and then define the operational utility.

Ron Lee

[Bob Gardner]

This is recent. Seems like re-inventing the wheel, because FreeFlight, Inc.,
(the old Trimble folks) flight-tested a combination GPS-eLoran a couple of
years ago, providing ground tracks that were virtually indistinguishable.
The maritime industry is using eLoran right now.

http://www.tc.faa.gov/logistics/grants/doc/07-G-003.doc

Bob Gardner

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> That presentation is close to 4 years old.
>
> This has not been discussed as a possible RNP sensor by the PARC
> (Performance-based Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee) during the
> past 3 years.
>
> Because RNP is technically sensor-independent an airframe OEM or avionics
> vendor is free to attempt to certify any sensor.
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> Sorry...it's Mitch Narins...I spelled it wrong. Read this:
>> http://www.loran.org/library/Road%20to%20eLoran.pdf and note the FAA logo
>> on the first page.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Well, let me put it this way. It isn't in any of the FAA's NexGen
>>> performance-based nav systems plans.
>>>
>>> Bob Gardner wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, Sam....LEGACY loran sucks. Enhanced loran (which will require new
>>>> receivers/antennas to utilize its GPS-equivalent accuracy) is right
>>>> around the corner. A new eLoran station has recently been put on the
>>>> air in the UK, and the Coast Guard is well on the way to upgrading its
>>>> whole system. Go to www.loran.org and start following links.
>>>> www.crossrate.com is another useful site.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Gardner
>>>>
>>>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> And LORAN sucks and does not work in much of the world.
>>>>
>>>>

[Sam Spade]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >, Sam Spade >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Why wouldn't you want a WAAAS capable panel mount in any case, ADS-B
>>notwithstanding?
>>
>
>
> VFR-only aircraft do not gain much operational utility from the increased
> accuracy of WAAS GPS. Simply put, WAAS enables near CAT I instrument
> approaches. Non-WAAS GPS is perfectly capable of being used VFR.
>
> And why ADS-B requires the small accuracy gain of WAAS is a mystery to me.
> I wonder why the FAA wants to make a US version of ADS-B instead of using
> a common standard.
>
>
>>There is a whole different world of safety and operational access
>>available with 145/146 panel mounts over 129 boxes.
>
>
> huh?
>
I thought we were speaking of IFR operations.

With VFR any non-certified hand-held is plenty good.

With IFR WAAS (145/146) gives you LPV (much greater access, and
increasing all the time), and you get VNAV minimums on VNAV/LNAV IAPs,
and you get safer vertical guidance on LNAV only IAPs. Lots more safety
avoid dive and drive.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Sam Spade > wrote:

>I thought we were speaking of IFR operations.

Not me. I am VFR
>
>With VFR any non-certified hand-held is plenty good.
>
>With IFR WAAS (145/146) gives you LPV (much greater access, and
>increasing all the time), and you get VNAV minimums on VNAV/LNAV IAPs,
>and you get safer vertical guidance on LNAV only IAPs. Lots more safety
>avoid dive and drive.

True but plain old non-WAAS Garmin GNS 430 offers adequate approach
functionality.

Ron Lee

[Sam Spade]

Ron Lee wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>I thought we were speaking of IFR operations.
>
>
> Not me. I am VFR
>
>>With VFR any non-certified hand-held is plenty good.
>>
>>With IFR WAAS (145/146) gives you LPV (much greater access, and
>>increasing all the time), and you get VNAV minimums on VNAV/LNAV IAPs,
>>and you get safer vertical guidance on LNAV only IAPs. Lots more safety
>>avoid dive and drive.
>
>
> True but plain old non-WAAS Garmin GNS 430 offers adequate approach
> functionality.
>
> Ron Lee
>
I would add "limited" to "adequate." Eventually, the 145/146 platforms
will be able to do RF legs; not so with 129 panel mounts.

[LWG]

I have my Loran on almost all the time. I never cease to be amazed at the
great correlation between my Loran and GPS. They agree within a knot or so,
sometimes less, and a 1/10 of a mile. I think Loran is great as a backup to
the GPS for situational awareness.

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
. ..
> No, Sam....LEGACY loran sucks.