GPS altitude again is close to actual

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.

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--

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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--

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.

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?