If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Moore wrote in message ...
You are completely dismissing installation and database subscription costs. The difference in installation for a GPS/GPS system vs. a GPS/Loran system would be negligible. A GPS/Loran/Sandel or GPS/Loran/MFD system would probably cost more to install but not all that much more if it were all done at the same time. Database subscriptions could be paid for out of the reduction in capital cost, as I mentioned. Either way the cost is noise compared with what a dual GPS installation costs. Plus, Loran is in no way, shape or form a moving map or even a marginally modern user interface technology. Why is Loran not a moving map if you can connect it to an MFD or to a Sandel EHSI? What "modern" features does Loran lack? One last time... I am not saying Loran should be a FIRST box. I am saying it it better as a SECOND box intead of a second GPS. -- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Kaplan wrote:
I am not saying Loran should be a FIRST box. I am saying it it better as a SECOND box intead of a second GPS. or perhaps part of a better box: "GPS Safety Net GPS - Loran Prototype Processor" May 1, 2003 By: Linn Roth, Jim Doty, Patrick Hwang GPS World "...Concurrently, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implemented an active Loran assessment program. The department seeks to determine Loran's ability to meet nonprecision approach standards using new required navigation performance (RNP) guidelines of 0.3 nautical miles (NM) as well as more-stringent requirements for availability, integrity, and continuity. FAA's plans to transition to an area navigation (RNAV) system based on GPS has accelerated evaluation of a modern Loran system because Loran also provides RNAV capabilities. Under the leadership of Mitchell Narins, FAA program manager, a team of academic, government, and industry personnel has been tapped to carry out this task. Rockwell Collins and Locus, Inc. participated in the effort and have worked together to build an integrated GPS-Loran prototype system for FAA flight tests..." Describing some 2002 test results: " Figures 3 and 4 show example results from a May 2002 test series in Madison, Wisconsin. These tests demonstrated that an all-in-view Loran receiver could provide accuracies that meet FAA requirements. Using the Dane County Regional Airport as a base, the plane flew various routes around the area and conducted 10 fly-over, ILS-guided approaches at the main runway..." And then concludes: "...Rockwell Collins is scheduled to have delivered an integrated GPS-Loran system to the FAATC by May 1, and flight tests will be performed this summer and fall..." Article at: http://www.gpsworld.com/gpsworld/art...l.jsp?id=57972 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Carter wrote:
Loran is on back burner now, but if we want a backup for GPS (not a bad idea) then it seems a lot more practical to add one or two Loran stations (if they are actually needed) for CONUS operation than to maintain the hundreds of VOR's required for the enroute structure. Since Loran can currently be jammed by a bad storm, there is likely to be plenty of ways to jam it, including over wide areas with a balloon or whatever terrorist fantasy you have in mind for GPS. This is technological avocation on par with ouja boards and tarot cards. -- For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman. Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman. Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict..... |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Moore" wrote in message ... Doug Carter wrote: Loran is on back burner now, but if we want a backup for GPS (not a bad idea) then it seems a lot more practical to add one or two Loran stations (if they are actually needed) for CONUS operation than to maintain the hundreds of VOR's required for the enroute structure. Since Loran can currently be jammed by a bad storm, there is likely to be plenty of ways to jam it, including over wide areas with a balloon or whatever terrorist fantasy you have in mind for GPS. This is technological avocation on par with ouja boards and tarot cards. -- For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman. Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman. Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict..... Loran uses relatively high powered ground based transmitters on low frequencies. It would not be a trivial project to jam it. Using demodulation techniques such as signal correlation, a lot of natural and man made interference can be reduced in the receiver. I fly a lot with old Lorans and have not yet had any signal problems that lasted more than 30 seconds, and usually only 0 or 1 per flight. Perhaps it is time to give Loran a sprucing up rather than phase it out. Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message news:7b63917e3624a7aef5446d67fd3bed12@TeraNews.. .
"Scott Moore" wrote in message ... No moving map. I'll save time here. I am a computer engineer. There is no way it can be too high tech for me. I like moving maps. I don't want to go An M1 Loran can easily be hooked up to most moving map multi-function displays. [snip] my loran solution is the external loran receiver to the apollo nms2001 gps. although it uses the 2001 u/i and database, i at least have redundant 'sensors' if the whole gps constellation goes t.u. it's legal for enroute nav, also, but of course for an approach i'd have to fall back on the ol' kx-155 if gps is out. that's one reason i haven't 'upgraded' to one of the new boxes -- the 2001 is 'previous generation' stuff, but it does the job, and has the loran for backup. g_a |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Pappano" wrote in message gy.com...
"Scott Moore" wrote in message ... Doug Carter wrote: Loran is on back burner now, but if we want a backup for GPS (not a bad idea) then it seems a lot more practical to add one or two Loran stations (if they are actually needed) for CONUS operation than to maintain the hundreds of VOR's required for the enroute structure. Since Loran can currently be jammed by a bad storm, there is likely to be plenty of ways to jam it, including over wide areas with a balloon or whatever terrorist fantasy you have in mind for GPS. This is technological avocation on par with ouja boards and tarot cards. -- For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman. Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman. Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict..... Loran uses relatively high powered ground based transmitters on low frequencies. It would not be a trivial project to jam it. Using demodulation techniques such as signal correlation, a lot of natural and man made interference can be reduced in the receiver. I fly a lot with old Lorans and have not yet had any signal problems that lasted more than 30 seconds, and usually only 0 or 1 per flight. Perhaps it is time to give Loran a sprucing up rather than phase it out. Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA I saw a talk given at ION last year where they (IIRC, Stanford, The Tech Center, FAA, couple others) were doing some flight trials for WAAS up in Alaska. The tests were performed to compare against the WAAS GEO (Pacific Ocean Region, in this case). Loran transmitters were set up to broadcast the WAAS corrections/integrity information During a significant enough turn, the plane lost lock on the GEO - which i suspect isn't too hard up at those latitudes given the GEO's location. Continuity was maintained with the Loran signal, however. As another datapoint, "Sole Means" is no longer part of the FAA's vocabulary. Primary means, sure. Every pilot I've ever talked/flown to/with echoes the age old proverb "A good navigator never depends on just one navaid." Regards, Jon |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Moore wrote in message ...
Since Loran can currently be jammed by a bad storm, there is likely to be plenty of ways to jam it, including over wide areas with a balloon or whatever terrorist fantasy you have in mind for GPS. This is technological avocation on par with ouja boards and tarot cards. Once again (as I mentioned in the GPS NOTAM thread yesterday)... I am not talking about terrorists as the cause of a navaid outage. I am talking about either unforeseen technical issues or military testing, just like the current GPS NOTAM. -- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Moore wrote in message ...
Since Loran can currently be jammed by a bad storm, there is likely to be plenty of ways to jam it, including over wide areas with a balloon or whatever terrorist fantasy you have in mind for GPS. This is technological avocation on par with ouja boards and tarot cards. Once again (as I mentioned in the GPS NOTAM thread yesterday)... I am not talking about terrorists as the cause of a navaid outage. I am talking about either unforeseen technical issues or military testing, just like the current GPS NOTAM. -- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"Jon Parmet" wrote in message m... snip As another datapoint, "Sole Means" is no longer part of the FAA's vocabulary. No, Blakey's press release was quite explicit, in the use of the term, "sole means". John P. Tarver, MS/PE |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Not to beat a dead horse, but this article on avweb echoes Rich Kaplan's
concerns: http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/182754-1.html It basically talks about the vulnerability of GPS to jammers (intentional and non-intentional), poor geometry (I've had that happen), government testing and system shutdowns etc. Richard Kaplan wrote: "Scott Moore" wrote in message ... No moving map. I'll save time here. I am a computer engineer. There is no way it can be too high tech for me. I like moving maps. I don't want to go An M1 Loran can easily be hooked up to most moving map multi-function displays. If you want a really "high tech" panel, then instead of a Garmin 530/530 combo, take the money for the second 530 and instead buy an M1 Loran and hook both the GPS and the Loran to a Sandel electronic HSI. This setup will be more "high tech" than a dual-GPS panel, it will be more redundant, and it will also cost less! back. Plus, I don't see the point. Loran was good for nothing but enroute, If we are talking about re-designing the airspace system, then we can also consider what is reasonable to be approved for what purposes. Loran got a bad rap early on due to poor installations. When a Loran is installed properly, there is no reason at all why it could not be reliable enough for non-precsion approaches. In fact, in a genuine emergency where I had limited electrical power and had to get in on the first approach, I would without a second thought use my VFR Loran today over my IFR VOR/DME KNS-80. Also, if we start decommissioning VORs then certainly there will be areas of the country where there is no VOR coverage at all at low altitudes and therefore there will be no effective backup to GPS in those areas. If you keep the Loran system, then there will be a GPS backup EVERYWHERE at all altitudes. If nothing else, Loran would work just fine to let pilots navigate to VMC conditions if there should be a GPS outage at some point. In addition to all this, since Loran is basically just another form of digital RNAV, it would be a great component of a new generation of hybrid GPS-Loran receivers which automatically switch from one source to another as necessary. VOR has a built in mapping system. You know where the VOR is, its somewhere you want to go (an airport), and it even identifies itself. LAT/LON without I do not understand this at all. VOR has a built-in mapping system? Maybe in a Garmin 530 because the Garmin 530 is basically a multi-function display, but then a Loran can be connected to just about any MFD as well. airport data is useless, and getting pseudo-vor to an airport for $30 a month with no moving map does not excite me in the least. Considering that the There is no requirement to update either Loran or GPS databases monthly for enroute purposes. Apollo Loran data subscription would probally have cost near as much as my 430 GPS data, I would say the 430 was the more cost effective solution. A Garmin 430 may have lots of advantages over Loran, but cost effectiveness is certainly not one of them. If a Garmin 430 costs $10,000 more to install than a Loran, then at a 5% cost of capital the Loran user will save $500 per year in interest costs, more than enough to pay for Loran updates forever and still hold onto the original capital! But really I am not doubting that GPS is useful and I also do not doubt that GPS is more useful than Loran... my point is not what someone's FIRST box should be but rather what their SECOND box should be... in that regard, I think a GPS/Loran panel (or GPS/Loran/Sandel EHSI panel) is less expensive and more redundant than a GPS/GPS panel... it is not often in aviation that less money leads to more function as in this case. -- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com -- --Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc. 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Engine update, good and bad news | nauga | Home Built | 3 | June 25th 04 06:26 PM |
Sport Pilot Leaves DOT for OMB, Latest News | Fitzair4 | Home Built | 3 | December 25th 03 02:49 AM |
Test..sorry, please ignore, just trying a new isp, news server, and newsreader. | Doug Sowder | Aerobatics | 0 | November 9th 03 06:04 PM |
It's all about the credibility you don't have, ChuckZZZ | Juan.Jimenez | Home Built | 8 | November 4th 03 01:03 PM |
News server problems on just this group | Chris W | Home Built | 9 | August 9th 03 02:32 AM |