Big News -- WAAS GPS is Operational for IFR

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

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

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.....

"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

"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

"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

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

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

"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

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
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759