Bush Prepares for Possible GPS Shutdown

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

I did not see that article, and cannot locate it just now. But I don't
understand the logic that would imply that for a TSO146 GPS unit.

Can you elaborate?

Well, I found that one and couldn't find the reference I thought I read. But I
did find another article that contained this "Currently, two manufacturers of GA
avionics — UPSAT and Chelton — have WAAS-certified receivers that can be used
for 'sole-source' IFR navigation, meaning no other navigation systems are
required on the aircraft. UPSAT expects to receive certification for vertical
navigation ('glideslope') within two months. Other manufacturers will be
offering WAAS receivers soon." That states I was wrong.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:23:15 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

I did not see that article, and cannot locate it just now. But I don't
understand the logic that would imply that for a TSO146 GPS unit.

Can you elaborate?

Well, I found that one and couldn't find the reference I thought I read. But I
did find another article that contained this "Currently, two manufacturers of GA
avionics — UPSAT and Chelton — have WAAS-certified receivers that can be used
for 'sole-source' IFR navigation, meaning no other navigation systems are
required on the aircraft. UPSAT expects to receive certification for vertical
navigation ('glideslope') within two months. Other manufacturers will be
offering WAAS receivers soon." That states I was wrong.


This latter stuff you quote is what I thought also. As the owner of a
CNX80, I did not think other equipment was required (although, of course,
it is present).

And the vertical navigation to which your article refers has been available
on the CNX80, as a free, factory-installed upgrade, since the beginning of
October. Mine is going in next week for that upgrade process.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I'm not saying that. Just like I'm not saying there aren't VOR
approaches where the missed is based on having a working VOR. But VOR
receivers cash it in, as well. Don't recall seeing any, but there may
be some NDB approaches where the missed is based only on the NDB; I
don't shoot many of those any more. Plenty of planes have a single GPS
receiver...my response was about the similarlity between losing the
entire GPS system, and having your pretty new Garmin 430 go 'pzzzzt!'
and dark halfway into a GPS approach.

In both cases, you lack the ability to fly the published missed if the
missed is solely based on the GPS. So what? We aren't robots...we're
pilots. We think our way through things. If we're talking to approach
or tower, we tell them we lost the GPS and we need vectors for the
missed and a different approach. If we're not talking to anyone, then
we do what we can...does the airport have a VOR approach as well? Well,
given the spacing requirements between IFR traffic, then we fly *that*
missed, maybe.


I try to tell my students that one cannot prepare for *every*
possibility. That's one reason they have to *understand* what's going
on as they are doing something...not just be able to perform it by
rote. The probability of losing the entire GPS system is so low that it
doesn't even register on my radar. And the probability that I happen to
be on a GPS approach (in actual), not talking to ATC, on an approach
that has a missed procedure solely based on the GPS when they shut it
down? Probability quickly fading towards infinitely small...and if it
does somehow manage to happen? I'll find a way to deal with it, as
would you, and every other qualified pilot out there.

Cheers,

Cap

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 16 Dec 2004 12:40:02 -0800, wrote in
.com::


Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:08:48 -0500, "Chris Gumm"
wrote
in ::



http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...&w=APO&coview=



Mo



http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=103...a&s=rb041 215


================================================== ==============


This begs the question, what do you do if you're on a GPS approach
when they shut the system down?


You mean other than go missed and shoot something else? Kind of
similar
to what you'd do if your GPS went South on you in the middle of an
approach?

Cap

So, you're saying there are no GPS approaches whose missed approach
procedures rely upon GPS?

Aren't there some of the newer planes that are coming out with GPS only
panels?

mike regish

wrote in message
oups.com...

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:08:48 -0500, "Chris Gumm" wrote
in ::


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...&w=APO&coview=



Mo


http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=103...a&s=rb041 215

================================================== ==============


This begs the question, what do you do if you're on a GPS approach
when they shut the system down?


You mean other than go missed and shoot something else? Kind of similar
to what you'd do if your GPS went South on you in the middle of an
approach?

Cap

set back by what critics
called a stunning failure of its first full flight test in two
years.

I would hate having my experiments all open to public scrutiny.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:20:07 -0800, "Slip'er" wrote
in lpywd.66048$Af.42511@fed1read07::

set back by what critics
called a stunning failure of its first full flight test in two
years.

I would hate having my experiments all open to public scrutiny.


The Missile Defense Shield (or whatever they're calling it) is being
*DEPLOYED* now, before it is fully developed! If it were merely an
experiment, it's lack of performance might be more reasonable.

But hey, it's only a trillion dollar bill.* :-(


* The News Hour, PBS

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

The Missile Defense Shield (or whatever they're calling it) is being
*DEPLOYED* now, before it is fully developed! If it were merely an
experiment, it's lack of performance might be more reasonable.

But hey, it's only a trillion dollar bill.* :-(

Well, given the rather precarious attachment with reality that the Norks
have, count me as glad to see we at least have some chance of a shoot-down
in case they decide to go postal. Longer term we have to be thinking about
the Iranians as well. They're going to build their bomb sooner or later and
the missiles to carry it. Having intercept capability, even a 50-50 one,
reduces the odds that it will ever come to shooting.

-cwk.

"C Kingsbury" writes:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

The Missile Defense Shield (or whatever they're calling it) is being
*DEPLOYED* now, before it is fully developed! If it were merely an
experiment, it's lack of performance might be more reasonable.

But hey, it's only a trillion dollar bill.* :-(

Well, given the rather precarious attachment with reality that the Norks
have, count me as glad to see we at least have some chance of a shoot-down
in case they decide to go postal. Longer term we have to be thinking about
the Iranians as well. They're going to build their bomb sooner or later and
the missiles to carry it. Having intercept capability, even a 50-50 one,
reduces the odds that it will ever come to shooting.

The problem is this tends towards the emotional, away from the
rational.

There are always limited resources to secure our safety. Therefore
our dollars should always be funding those projects with the best
estimated marginal rate of return for security.

So the half-assed MDS (or whatever it's called), with a very sorry
history of performance and reliability, is being given tens of
billions of dollars, while obvious stuff like checking incoming cargo,
or trying to round up Russia's nuke material, is apparently
underfunded and proceeding much slower than it could. But those
aren't macho. It looks better on your resume to have done a mighty
missle project than rounding up loose nukes or figured out how to
check containers efficiently.

Islamic terrorists, and probably not even N. Korea, are not
fundamentally a military problem, but we are treating it as such.
There may indeed be military elements to reducing the islamic
terrorist threat, but military solutions should not be primary. Bush
and his idealogues are fighting the last threat, global communism, not
the current threat.

"Slip'er" wrote in message

set back by what critics
called a stunning failure of its first full flight test in two
years.

I would hate having my experiments all open to public scrutiny.


Even if they're paying for it?

m

"Slip'er" writes:

set back by what critics
called a stunning failure of its first full flight test in two
years.

I would hate having my experiments all open to public scrutiny.

If my experiments cost $80M a pop I would expect them to be open to
public scrutiny.