'Pegasus' FMS WAAS Capability

[Badmachine]

Is there any reference material available regarding the Honeywell 'Pegasus' Flight Management System's ability to utilize the Wide Area Augmentation Signal (WAAS)?

Thanx.

:ok:

[kijangnim]

Greetings

For which plane? Pegasus is on Boeing and Airbus :E

[Badmachine]

Good point!

:ok:

The Boeing 757 and 767.

[Spooky 2]

I don't believe that Boeing has adopted any WAAS technology in either the Pegasus or the B777 FMS. As a matter of fact Boeing/Honeywell technology is not approved for approaches labled as GPS approaches, just RNAV. Go figure.

[Sir George Cayley]

So BA's 777s that took part in the NATS RNAV(GNSS) non precision approach trial with Baro VNAV at Gatwick last year were faking it:confused:

SGC

[kijangnim]

Greetings,
WAAS and LAAS are only in the US :ouch:, so BA B777 was flying RNP RNAV approaches :rolleyes:, Which has nothing to do with WAAS/LAAS concept, B757,B767 need certification or STC and the right equipment in the MMR

[Spooky 2]

Thank you for answering Sir George for me as I don't think I could have done it that well.:rolleyes:

[Badmachine]

Thanx for the info.

What commercial aircraft models (if any) currently utilize the WAAS signal for en route navigation? Or is the WAAS service simply a secondary supplement to older ground based nav-aids?

[NavMonkey]

Universal have a few derivatives of the UNS-1 (-1Fw, -1Ew, -1Lw) FMS that all support WAAS en-route and approach guidance, see here (http://www.uasc.com/products/index.asp?contentid=prod_fms&rightmenuid=125). Currently has STC's on the Q400 series and some Challengers, KingAirs, 737's and Astras IIRC.

[reynoldsno1]

As a matter of fact Boeing/Honeywell technology is not approved for approaches labled as GPS approaches, just RNAV. Go figure.

[QUOTE]/So BA's 777s that took part in the NATS RNAV(GNSS) non precision approach trial with Baro VNAV at Gatwick last year were faking it
[QUOTE]

Honeywell cannot cope with those procedures labelled GPS, despite them being around for 14 years or more - only those labelled RNAV (whatever....). Not the only thing Honeywell can't cope with.

Nice to see NATS getting up to speed with the new technology ...:}

[Spooky 2]

And your point is?

[kijangnim]

Greetings,
Dear Reynolds
for the record
HWL is a very good company that pioneered a lot of systems when the others would not have the courage to do it. I use to work for a company competing with HWL and despite of that I have a lot of respect for HWL.

Furthermore, you are confused between RNAV,GPS, RNP, sensors, procedures and so on :ouch:

[kijangnim]

GREETINGS

FAA TSO-C145a, Airborne Navigation Sensors Using Global Positioning System (GPS) Augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS),:ok:

[reynoldsno1]

Furthermore, you are confused between RNAV,GPS, RNP, sensors, procedures and so on


No I am not - but at least you wear your ignorance on your sleeve. I know for a FACT that Honeywell change the coding of original RNAV procedures because their legacy systems cannot cope - and that is a dubious practice, to say the least.

I know EXACTLY the difference between all the above, how the procedures are designed, how they are coded, and the difficulties encountered by many major airlines around the world due simply to the nomenclature of the procedures.

[kijangnim]

Greetings
How can you implement new leg types; such as RF, in an old platform that was not design to handle these leg?, HWL is not a fortune telling company, it is an excellent Avionics company whom did not let its customer down, despite the fact that these customers didnot want to upgrade their equipment:}
Now for the record, on the Airbus FMS2 HWL is well ahead of Thales when it comes to RNP RNAV.
Anyway I am still convinced that you dont know what you are talking about :ouch:
Dont take it personally take it on the rock :cool:

[reynoldsno1]

Some legacy systems cannot even handle TF legs, even if they have been designed as such - and some have been "recoded" as VA legs (by HWL, not the database houses) - that is scary, to say the least. The difference is significant - better to fly the procedure manually.
I have worked extensively with a major Far East airline who cannot fly GPS approaches in Australia as these procedures were not originally designated "RNAV" - a crazy situation.
Many FMS cannot cope with RNAV NPA that do not have the MAPt co-located with the runway threshold.
Anyway I am still convinced that you dont know what you are talking about
As part of my job I am involved in the design of instrument flight procedures - including all RNAV types - i.e GNSS (started 14 yrs ago), RNP to <0.3 with or without baro-VNAV and have worked with ICAO & IATA in moving towards consolidating nav specs into the PBN concept. I also flight validate them & code them. Apart from that, you may be right :ok:

[kijangnim]

Greetings,
I can see that you are taking in on the rocks:ok:

I will be very interested to know which procedure was changed from TF (Great Circle between two fixs) to VA (heading to an altitude),they are not at all in the same ball game, a VA is litterally a double floating transition :eek: and TF was encouraged to be used in lieu of CF because CF is magnetic variation sensitive :E.
As far as Legacy is concerned, the basic leg stringing offers no differences between A320 and A340 Family, can you be more precise :rolleyes: about "some legacy FMS" :confused: