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

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

Dave Blevins

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

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

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

Bob Gardner