WAAS for Australia – you heard it here first!

[Dick Smith]

I know this is a rumour network, however here is something based on fact.

I understand the Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Warren Truss, is up to speed and a supporter of Australia moving towards the installation of a Wide Area Augmentation System (“WAAS”). It appears that after the European installation costs are coming way down – estimated at only about $50 million which is less than 1.2% of the cost of the original estimated cost of the NBN at $42 billion - and I understand it’s not just for aviation. There are advantages in having WAAS for the farming community, for building roads, for marine applications, geology and lots of other activities.

Of course, the greatest advantage is the aviation safety improvement by preventing CFIT accidents – the most common cause of fatalities by professional pilots. We could see movement on this very soon after the election if the Coalition gets in. After all, John Howard supported the Alice to Darwin railway, which is a typical nation-building project which obviously doesn’t enjoy a short-term economic return but most people would consider is well worthwhile for our future security.

Personally, I will be concentrating my aviation efforts for the next two years on getting a positive decision on this. It seems ridiculous to me that we buy the latest aviation equipment – even an iPhone - and it’s all WAAS equipped but we can’t use it here.

If anyone supports me on this I would like to read your posts here.

[Jack Ranga]

Fully support you Dick! I'll be 'commissioning' a GTN750/G3X very soon, it'll be the ducks nuts to use them with WAAS :ok: :D

[peterc005]

That's good news.

Guess they'll install WAAS Ground Stations near each capital city?

Will we just send signals up to existing satellites or Australia getting it's own satellites?

[neville_nobody]

After all, John Howard supported the Alice to Darwin railway, which is a typical nation-building project which obviously doesn’t enjoy a short-term economic return but most people would consider is well worthwhile for our future security.

Well Carlyle Group who purchased it for 330 million when it cost over a billion of tax payer money to build thought it well worthwhile.

Both Haliburton and Carlyle did very well out of this 'nation building project'.

Not sure Howard would want you associating him with such a diaster.

Hopefully WAAS has better future.....

[rjtjrt]

If this turns out to be true, it is a great and overdue decision. All power to the politicians that get it done.
A lot of discussion in this thread

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/500557-waas-australia.html

It has advantages for many industries.
John

[rjtjrt]

I don't want to dilute this thread, but while we are lobbying, what about adopting a Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) system (978 MHz) for traffic in parallel with the 1090 squiter system?
Thwt way affordsble equipment available and much faster adoption of 2 way Traffic system by GA.

[chimbu warrior]

It's about time politicians realised that "regional Australia" is more than 10 miles from the east coast.

I think this is an excellent idea, and for the price seems an absolute bargain. :D

[LongLats]

Will we just send signals up to existing satellites or Australia getting it's own satellites?

I'd like to know this.

Would we only need 1 satellite to cover the country?

[601]

Wide Area Augmentation System

On the basis that this thread was moved from Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific, I guess that airlines in Oz will not be using it and have no interest in it WAAS

[duncan_g]

At least two satellites for redundancy.. the US currently has 3 for WAAS.

[rioncentu]

This is great news. Keep onto them Dick and keep us posted.

[404 Titan]

This is great news. Keep onto them Dick and keep us posted.




Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[training wheels]

Hopefully this will make NDB approaches obsolete and no longer required.

[404 Titan]

A totally useless system for the international airline industry as the standard adapted internationally is GBAS. This looks like Australian DME revisited.




Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, you have an ally here!:ok:

[Jack Ranga]

404, stick a GTN750 in your airbus then you'll be able to divert into MIA :ok:

[Mick Stuped]

Anything that gives us better more accurate navigation in the bush is good. The further you get from a city the worse maintaince becomes on the old ailing infrastructure to the point that some NDB's the signal is battling to get to the top of the tower let alone transmit.

As new pilots become more reliant on GPS and loose the basic navigation skills(just doesn't seem to be taught nowadays) the truth is more pilots are now getting lost than ever before. RAIMS outages and aircraft fitted with only one GPS, mostly old and outdated and combined with city oriented pilots going bush trying to use phone, IPad as a secondary navagation it really is a disaster waiting to happen. Swiss cheese theory, can see the holes lining up!

So long as it is accurate, reliable, has outage contingencies in place so we are not left without a signal Australia wide, I say bring it on.

[Capn Bloggs]

Hopefully this will make NDB approaches obsolete and no longer required.
Would that be the NDB flown by the autopilot from the database in VNAV and LNAV? ;)

I guess that airlines in Oz will not be using it and have no interest in it WAAS
Qantas doesn't need it as it already does RNP-ARs.

Hopefully the system and training requirements for LPVs aren't as onerous...

Do the standard LNAV minimums come down a bit with WAAS?

[404 Titan]

Jack Ranga

The problem with WAAS is that it is area specific because it is terrestrial based where as GBAS because the correction is space based will be available everywhere. I will give my left nut if WAAS will be available outside Australian capital cities because of the extremely short sightedness of the regulator and successive federal governments. So I doubt very much WAAS will be any use to you and me going into MIA where as GBAS would allow ILS type approaches into places like MIA and most bush strips if they are properly surveyed and also LVP/LVO approaches and auto landings at properly equipped airports. It is also worth noting no Boeing or Airbus is equipped with WAAS including the A350. B787, B747-8, A350 and A380 are though fitted with GBAS. The main driving force behind WAAS worldwide appears to be the business jet community who have little use for ILS type approaches into bush strips. Finally GBAS is far cheaper to introduce because it is all space based requiring far less infrastructure than WAAS for a far greater return on investment.

[Jack Ranga]

It's been a while since I've been reading WAAS material, I was under the impression that only one or two ground stations would be required Australia wide?

[rjtjrt]

404 Titan wrote
The problem with WAAS is that it is area specific because it is terrestrial based where as GBAS because the correction is space based will be available everywhere. I will give my left nut if WAAS will be available outside Australian capital cities because of the extremely short sightedness of the regulator and successive federal governments. So I doubt very much WAAS will be any use to you and me going into MIA where as GBAS would allow ILS type approaches into places like MIA and most bush strips if they are properly surveyed and also LVP/LVO approaches and auto landings at properly equipped airports. It is also worth noting no Boeing or Airbus is equipped with WAAS including the A350. B787, B747-8, A350 and A380 are though fitted with GBAS. The main driving force behind WAAS worldwide appears to be the business jet community who have little use for ILS type approaches into bush strips. Finally GBAS is far cheaper to introduce because it is all space based requiring far less infrastructure than WAAS for a far greater return on investment.


With respect, are you certain of that?
I think you have it back to front.
GBAS - Ground Based Augmentation System
Eg Ground Based Augmentation System | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/ground-based-augmentation-system-gbas)
GBAS is local, usually within 20km of the ground station
WAAS is a type of SBAS - Satellite Based Augmentation System.
WAAS is the US version, MSAS is the Japanese system we would most likely piggy back off, I assume, as they already have satellites that also cover most of Australia launched, for this service.
The term WAAS is loosely used in the Australian context, as it is the best known SBAS system.
SBAS is wide spread (yes it still needs a small set of ground stations.

[LeadSled]

rjtetc,
Sound about right to me, I am not aware that there is any difference for the aircraft equipment to take advantage of SBAS/GBAS, although Airservices, at one stage, had plans for a proprietary LAAS that was code, so that only subscribers could use the signals.

One of the major reasons for Airservices loss of interest in WAAS was that they couldn't figure out a way to charge for it!
Tootle pip!!

[404 Titan]

rjtjrt

You are correct. Doh. Note to one self don’t post on Prune after a few glasses of Chardonnay. WAAS is also called SBAS.

LeadSled

To be honest I’m not sure either but there are rumblings from the airline industry worldwide about WAAS/SBAS and their preference for GBAS. It may be a case they don’t want to pay for a system outside their field of operation, i.e. that benefits all, or it may be a case one system isn’t compatible with the other.

[Sunfish]

You can stick GBAS up your fundament. The benefit of WAAS has nothing to do with the aircraft industry at all - its to do with mining, agriculture and ground transport industries, the airline economic benefit is nothing compared to the ground (or marine) applications....And WAAS capable receivers are cheeeeeeap.

In fact we already have a good system here - but expensive - provided by John Deere for agricultural use - but of course it aint "certified" so its no use to you anyway..

StarFire (navigation system) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarFire_%28navigation_system%29)


WAAS! Bring it!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Jack Ranga, one uplink, at least nine to thirteen reference stations...selected ADS-B sites....and the transponder on either of the NBN birds, although the word is there is no room.

$60million for the package cost. I am guessing, another $130million for ref station fitout....we already have the uplink in CB to the Japanese MTSAT...so just point another one at our own bird.

It isn't just aviation that gets the benefit and Dick needs to stress this point to Warren.

[Jabawocky]

Dick.....Go for it and fast! :ok:

[404 Titan]

Sunfish I'm in complete agreement with you on the proviso that the airline industry doesn't have to pay more than its fair share.




Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[UnderneathTheRadar]

$60million for the package cost. I am guessing, another $130million for ref station fitout

Don't forget another $20mil and 20 years to write the rules to let it be used.....

[Jack Ranga]

OZ B D, when you say one up link, that's one ground station? Or when you say 9 to 13 reference stations that's 9 to 13 ground stations??

404, perhaps if the airlines took a holistic approach to the funding of this the industry would be much better resourced. In the past airlines took their pilots from GA, a pilot in GA flying WAAS like approaches would be trained on them by the time they reach the airlines (ahh have a dream!). Ain't going to happen I know while scumbags like Joyce are around..........

[Mick Stuped]

Why don't all the industries get together with a concerted effort to the government for WASS that will serve all industries. You are right other industries have been using a simular system for years and with a need for far more accuracy than Aviation ever needs.

Farmers are planting crops down rows with accuracy day in day out with privately installed shared reference stations at 1-2 cm accuracy, or using the old marine beacons signal 1000 km away to give 75 cm accuracy. They use many different satellite systems from Russia's to Japans to the US that just automatically switch's to the best available. Next time you fly over Farming country have a look how many crops are planted in straight lines compered with the around and around of a few years ago. They can see the benefit. Doesn't it scare you that the farmer siting in his tractor below you as you fly over him has a far more accurate and dependable navigation system than you do.

Miners and road buliders have portable reference stations they setup on a tripad for tracking measuring and guiding machinery. You can also buy a satellite based differential correction that can be used without being ground based for a few hundred dollars subscription a year to give you 10 cm accuracy. All the differential accuracy figures that are quoted are all over a 24 hour period so that is how far that the GPS would be out over a 24 hour period at the worst.

Why cannot all the industries get together and share the need and cost for the differential signal instead of every industry each having its own system. We will end up with a VHS V's BETTA argument all over again.

However think its probably to late and not a logical enough world for that, better to reinvent the wheel.

[ReadMyACARS]

Why don't all the industries get together with a concerted effort to the government for WASS that will serve all industries. You are right other industries have been using a simular system for years and with a need for far more accuracy than Aviation ever needs.

With WAAS all industries will benefit as a stock standard hand held GPS with WAAS capabilities will now have an accuracy of about 1m.

The 1-2 cm accuracy you refer to is achieved by a system called RTK (real time kinematics) and involves a base station and a very accurately surved ground control point. Out at 75 - 100 cm are diferential units and satellite derived corrections from systems like OmniStar. Marine beacons may not have the range for an accurate correction that far away inland.

WAAS is the generic, if you like correction, that every GPS sold in the last 5 - 10 years will accept. PROVIDED THAT THE WAAS PROPOSED FOR AUSTRALIA MEETS THIS DATA AND FREQUENCY SPEC. If Aus wanders off by itself we will be no closer than where we started and have to buy new 'Australianised' GPS equipment. Now that would be Australian DME all over again.

I am hoping that organisation like Geoscience Australia are going to be resposible for this and NOT Airservices. Their last effort at a GBAS was a little less than convincing. What would be even better would be to get someone like Prof Chris Rizos from UNSW to over see the implementation of it.

[Flying Binghi]

...Doesn't it scare you that the farmer siting in his tractor below you as you fly over him has a far more accurate and dependable navigation system than you do....

The farmers planting/working a crop where fine accuracy is needed at all times of the operation. Not just the few minutes at the start and finnish. If the farmer loses the GPS then its an easy revert back to the old round and round - Nobody dies.

The farming economy, whilst profiting from GPS, is not reliant on GPS. There are multiple individual fallback positions that allows continued farming operations. There is no GPS reliant farmers traffic control (ATC) telling farmers when to start engines, when they can turn left-right or whatever. GPS is not yet anywhere near being at the core of farming operations... unlike aviation...








.

[Mick Stuped]

ReadMyACARS, agree completely, we always as a country seem to be very good at trying to reinvent the wheel.

From what I hear, and I stand to be corrected, but WASS works well in the states, its cheaper, receivers are available now on the market at a reasonable cost and most of your old 530/430's are upgradable to WASS.

Go to WASS and share the cost and running over all industries. Easier to convince the Government to spend the dollars if it is going to be beneficial to all Aussies instead of one particular industry.

[dubbleyew eight]

I made comment about gps to some mine engineers quite a few years ago.
they told me to get up with the times. their installed mine site system gave them half millimetre accuracy.

[Flying Binghi]

Wonder how this system works ?

Apparently cheap and accurate...

Low-cost RTK GPS receiver (centimeter level precision) with open source software and board design targeted at UAVs.


Some possible applications:

UAVs
Amateur rocketry
Autonomous lawnmowers


Technical Specs:

Centimeter level positioning (RTK)
Fast (50 Hz) position/velocity/time updates
Open source software and board design
Low power consumption : 500mW / 100mA typical
Small form factor : 53 x 53 mm
Low cost : $900 for a complete RTK system


Piksi : The RTK GPS Receiver by Swift Navigation Inc. ? Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/swiftnav/piksi-the-rtk-gps-receiver)








.

[Mick Stuped]

Flying Binghi, you are right, just farmers spending a few thousand dollars an hour of their own money on chemicals, wages fuel that needs to be placed accurately with large machines. It has got to the stage that wheels now do stop if RTK goes down or marine beacon signal drops out because without differential the potential losses from over or under spray is just to great. Just go and ask any larger farmer if he would go back to non diff auto steer and see what his answer is. Machines especially Spray machines don't even come with a mechanical marking option any more. New seeders are all linked to GPS variable rate application and reliant on it. So it isn't life threating its however becoming very reliant on it so I am told.
Have a look at this link. Auto Steer - YouTube

[Check_Thrust]

Do the standard LNAV minimums come down a bit with WAAS? If WAAS is implemented in Australia like it has been in the US I do not think it will bring reduced LNAV minimums as these minimus will still be provided for GNSS units that are not WAAS equipped (e.g. TSO-129a), however RNAV approach charts will provide in addition to the LNAV minima a VNAV minima and a LPV minima.

When conducting an approach your GNSS unit will inform you if the position accuracy does not meet the requirements for the various approach minimas with a message along the lines of "Approach downgraded — Use LNAV minima" (GNS430W), a message that I struck once whilst conducting an approach with a newly fitted unit, which was followed with a statement along the lines of "What the heck does that mean? My chart only has one minima!", then I found out about all the other minimas over in the US.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Yes Jack, uplink=ground station...reference stations measure the error in position and uplink to the ground station. Correction signal sent up to the geosynchronous bird. Retransmitted as if it was a GNSS bird but with the corrected signal. ( When the yank satellite was in view, my handhelds recognized it with a W rather than a number.)

[LeadSled]

Sunny et al,

One thing Warren Truss now knows is that the original estimates for setting up a WAAS system were vastly exaggerated, this was the time when there was already blanket coverage of Australia by a Pacific WAAS equipped satellite. This satellite was moved east when it became obvious Australia was not going to go ahead with WAAS.

One thing that seems to have have escaped everybody's here is the new generation GPS (GPS III), now going up.

The new generation GPS produces WAAS or better accuracies without any augmentation, BUT, only for slow moving targets.

This was major consideration during the last review of WAAS for Australia, conducted within (then) DoTaRS, leaving aviation as the only potential users of WAAS. It seems the general conclusion was that WAAS was not justified if the only users were aviation, and all the other users mention in various posts would no longer benefit from WAAS, given the capabilities of GPS III.

Various airlines made it clear that, unless it was free, they were not interested, because they could not make a business case to pay --- on the figures presented to them. Of course, Airservices hated the idea, how do you charge for something that is available to all --- hence all the money they spent playing around with GBAS.

With the emergence of "GPS like" (but not GPS) jam proof local area navigation systems, which can be implemented with an additional card in a GPS box, and the many demonstrated shortcoming of the lack of security of current non-encrypted GPS, I would guess that airlines will become less interested in augmented GNSS Precision Approaches.

Again, I would guess this is why the promotion of GNSS precision approaches to Cat II/III has gone very quite in recent times --- it can be done --- IF --- the GPS signal in not corrupted.

Having said all of the above, Warren Truss now knows that the real cost of running a WAAS system ground based infrastructure,even if it is just for aviation (including increasing use of UAVs) is, in the big scheme of things, negligible, and on that basis, there are really quite large tangible benefits from having WAAS available for regional, rural and remote Australia..

The benefit of minimas down to the equivalent of Cat.I ILS, alone, would have measurable economic benefits to regional airlines and all the fly-in/fly-out operators in the mining provinces.

Tootle pip!!

[Jack Ranga]

OZ B D, thank you, thought as much :ok:

[rjtjrt]

A WAAS like system would have been of assistance to the 737 crew in Mildura.
Never going to have ILS at more than a very very few regional airports that can justify it for other reasons, but WAAS will make approaches at night and poor weather safer even for airlines, as well as everyone else.

[Capn Bloggs]

but WAAS will make approaches at night and poor weather safer
If it gets rid of that mongrel Foxtrot waypoint, I'm all for it. :ok:

History being made here:

Dick, WAAS sounds like a good idea.

[27/09]

If it gets rid of that mongrel Foxtrot waypoint, I'm all for it.

I doubt it, at at least SBAS will mitigate the affects of the stupid GNSS approach design.

[27/09]

A WAAS like system would have been of assistance to the 737 crew in Mildura.
Never going to have ILS at more than a very very few regional airports that can justify it for other reasons, but WAAS will make approaches at night and poor weather safer even for airlines

Unfortunately Boeing and Airbus don't install avionics that can use WAAS (SBAS).

[alphacentauri]

I doubt it, at at least SBAS will mitigate the affects of the stupid GNSS approach design.

Why is that? Can't you fly them? They are pretty straight forward....

[Dick Smith]

Surely most US airline aircraft must already have WAAS GPS receivers? If not why did the FAA spend the money!

[27/09]

I doubt it, at at least SBAS will mitigate the affects of the stupid GNSS approach design.

Why is that? Can't you fly them? They are pretty straight forward....

Having a fix part way down the final of an NPA approach is plain dumb and potentially confusing. Most operators and schools I know of use and or teach the constant descent profile, which is easy to monitor with a single fix but potential confusing and dangerous with two fixes.

[27/09]

Surely most US airline aircraft must already have WAAS GPS receivers?

I stand to be corrected but as far as I know most Boeings and Airbus (even current build aircraft) have TSO 129 (non WASS) GNSS equipment, they don't need SBAS they have INS and/or DME/DME for augmentation.

If not why did the FAA spend the money!

My guess is to provide ILS type accuracy for the masses so that they could pull out all the ILS's they had at a significant number of airports. Remember the US had many more ILS's per capita than we have in this part of the world and ILS's cost a bomb to maintain.

[Check_Thrust]

27/09,

I do agree with you in regards to the possible confusion that can result from the use of multiple waypoints in a RNAV approach, however they exist to allow for multiple points to join the approach from and to provide a definitive FAF point which is also programmed into the GNSS as a cue to conduct its own RAIM check and to transfer to tighter tolerences in RAIM and CDI display.

An advantage of LNAV/VNAV and LPV approaches however is that vertical guidance is actually provided thus helping reduce the workload in maintaining a correct approach profile (though you will still monitor that the information being displayed is still correct).

Also judging from a quick look at RNAV charts from the FAA, there is no difference in regards to the waypoints due to the approaches being designed to allow for LNAV, LNAV/VNAV and LPV to be flown from the one chart and to account for the fact that the correct criteria may not be met for the more restricive minimas, for example: http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1309/05050R21.PDF

[Capn Bloggs]

multiple waypoints in a RNAV approach, however they exist to allow for multiple points to join the approach from and to provide a diffinitive FAF point which is also programmed into the GNSS as a cue to conduct its own RAIM check and to transfer to tighter tolerences in RAIM and CDI display.

In one of the GPS boxes I have used, the boxes CDI scaled in before arriving at Foxtrot. I can't see why a system that can do so much needs physical waypoints to trigger actions. While perhaps being technically easy, Foxtrot is a menace and has ruined a fantastic concept.

[Check_Thrust]

I will not deny that the system could have been designed better but unfortunately without a major overhaul to exisiting system that would leave a lot of GNSS units incompatible with a new RNAV design we will no doubt be stuck with what we have for quite sometime to come.

Different TSOs and different manufacturers programming of their units result in them behaving one way or another. One example is a TSO-129 GNS430 will scale to CDI of 0.3 at the FAF, whereas a TSO-146 version of the same model will scale to 0.3 by the FAF and continue to reduce to a scale of 0.1 by the MAPT.

I will not defend the approach design we have for RNAVs, yes it could be better, maybe it was deemed to hard at the initial design phase of the TSO for the first GNSS that were to be RNAV capable to programme it differently and this has cascaded on to later designs, but at the end of the day a computer can be programmed to behave any way it is desired.

Another trap that have resulted from the waypoint designs is the failing of some people to compute in their minds that just because they are within 10/25nm of the IAF that they are tracking to does not necessarily mean they are within the 10/25nm MSA, however that is more so a situational awareness issue.

I suppose one benefit there has been from a FAF waypoint is to provide an easy direct to point for tracking to a 5 mile final when you are not conducting a RNAV approach, but yes, it wasn't designed for that and the potential for error that that waypoint provides whilst conducting an approach in trying conditions far outways the abovementioned benefit.

[27/09]

I will not deny that the system could have been designed better but unfortunately without a major overhaul to exisiting system that would leave a lot of GNSS units incompatible with a new RNAV design we will no doubt be stuck with what we have for quite sometime to come.

I believe the original GNSS approaches were designed for the US military and much of the legacy design does back to what was put in place at that time.

I believe if there was a will there would be a way major improvements could be achieved right now. I wonder if some of the problems arise from technocrats rather than pilots/users having the overriding input to approach design.

Why does the Foxtrot have to be at 5 miles or there-a-bouts, why not somewhere like where the profile intercepts the minimum straight in commencement altitude?

Another trap that have resulted from the waypoint designs is the failing of some people to compute in their minds that just because they are within 10/25nm of the IAF that they are tracking to does not necessarily mean they are within the 10/25nm MSA, however that is more so a situational awareness issue.

This is part of knowing how your nav aids work. TAA's and 25nm MSA'a are great things to use provided you use them correctly.

Enough of the thread drift. I think the introduction of SBAS to this part of the world is long over due. When you look at where SBAS is deployed around the world now it makes the south west Pacific area look very third world.

[Check_Thrust]

Why does the Foxtrot have to be at 5 miles or there-a-bouts, why not somewhere like where the profile intercepts the minimum straight in commencement altitude?

This has probably been inherited from the fact that most approaches (VOR, NDB, etc) have their FAF around 5nm to run to the threshold (though there are a few places that this is not the case, the Tumut, NSW (YTMU) RNAV comes to mind). Though I suppose you are really asking why does there have to be a waypoint for the FAF not just a fix based on a track and distance to run to the MAPT and have the GNSS unit conduct it's required functions at a much earlier point if it needs to rely on a waypoint for it to happen. I think the previously mentioned approach at Tumut is coming close but not fully to what you desire.

I do apologise for the thread drift.

On topic however I do agree that SBAS is long overdue to be brought to our part of the world. There are many regional as well as major aerodromes that can benefit from the advantages that this technology can bring (an LPV approach for runway 33 at Cairns comes to mind as there is only a localiser approach for it and guess which runway is typically in use during the wet!).

Anyway thats my 2 cents along with plenty of inflation.

[kimberleyEx]

Hi All.

As most who have posted on this subject, it would be a good thing that SBAS/WAAS be implemented in this part of the world.

The company I work for operate regional jets that are IRU (radio updating only) a/c.

We investigated various ways to integrate GNSS into the a/c to provide RNP LNAV approach and possibly Baro VNAV.

One option looked at:

http://www.esterline.com/Portals/17/Documents/en-us/cma5025.pdf

Unfortunately we didn't proceed with this, as this system requires WAAS or GBAS to operate (on the GBAS option, if it became more widespread across the country, it maybe a attractive option for legacy a/c). But the whole idea of it was to provide a RNP approach capability at regional aerodromes.

No WAAS, and it wouldn't operate.

Now if WAAS were to be a reality here. It's a system that would be attractive and relatively easy to install.

Also it provides a distance to run to the DA (LNAV/VNAV or LPV) which would be handy for constant rate descents from 10nm (intermediate fix). Eg it emulates a ILS display in the flightdeck.

Canadian North installed this system on their 737-300. It works alright for them:
Avionics Magazine :: Canadian North 737 Certified for GPS/LPV (http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/topstories/Canadian-North-737-Certified-for-GPSLPV_72862.html)

In the case of new build Airbus and Boeings, yes they can get by using RNP-AR. Installing a system such as this one or similar on offer from other avionics manufactures, would only benefit Regional turboprop and jet types in this country.

Regards.

K-Ex.

[Check_Thrust]

This article might be wrong as it refers to a "not yet published ICAO list" as its source, however it states that basically all biz jets and airliners (excluding the 787 and A380) have some form of WAAS/SBAS certification option available to them.

The fourth paragraph refers to the above mentioned:
Waas Delivers on Promises and Signals Further Innovation | Aviation International News (http://ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2013-07-01/waas-delivers-promises-and-signals-further-innovation)

The article I think is fairly interesting and it also talks about GBAS and GLS approaches.

[Flying Binghi]

#36
...just farmers spending a few thousand dollars an hour of their own money on chemicals, wages fuel that needs to be placed accurately with large machines. It has got to the stage that wheels now do stop if RTK goes down or marine beacon signal drops out because without differential the potential losses from over or under spray is just to great. Just go and ask any larger farmer if he would go back to non diff auto steer and see what his answer is. Machines especially Spray machines don't even come with a mechanical marking option any more. New seeders are all linked to GPS variable rate application and reliant on it. So it isn't life threating its however becoming very reliant on it so I am told.

Its been over 30 years since i last operated broadacre rig so am not conversant with the latest tech. Though i can imagine just how useful GPS would be to operations.

Now, if GPS were lost to farmers tomorrow i'd imagine it would take all of a day or two to fit up the old fashioned markers. Not as efficient as GPS though all farmers would be on the same playing field so no marketable price differences there. There'd be no near blind farmer 'traffic control' to worry about either. If it were only farmers that were using GPS then it would not be a terrorist target of interest because of the minimal impact from the loss of GPS.

Unfortunately it seems there are some in the Oz aviation community who seem to want to make our airspace more and more reliant on a single navigation and traffic system.

The more reliant we become on GPS the bigger the target it becomes...








.

[rjtjrt]

Day after election of Coalition.
Time to start gentle but persistent expert lobbying for this to become reality.
Perhaps can enlist the help of expert advice (eg the above mentioned Chris Rizzos - see post 31) re available options, and the not just aviation benefit.
The main caveat should be we must have a system that is fully and seamlessly compatible with the main world players, not a unique Australian system.
John

[7478ti]

Sadly, any move to implement WAAS in Australia would be an unnecessarily obsolete waste of money. With well over 30 SVs currently flying, the life of the Block IIs extended, Block IIIs on the way, over nearly 100 SVs planned and eventually likely to be used globally, with widespread global use of GBAS/GLS inevitable, Locata and other potential pseudolites used for multilateration on the horizon, and the fact that WAAS can never be used globally, it would be irresponsible to introduce WAAS/SBAS anywhere else in the world. In fact it is past time to start thinking about the decommission strategy for WAAS/EGNOS, just like the defunct IFR LORAN C, as an utter redundant waste of money. The future of Nav is in GPS, Galileo, and perhaps other basic SV constellations,via RNP, low cost inertial, GBAS, and likely even GBAS based multilateration. Since SA was turned off, and we have more than 30 SVs operational, and GBAS is now a reality (soon to likely even replace ILS), and multilateration via GBAS pseudolites is clearly possible (e.g., Locata etc), WAAS/SBAS is a system whose time has come, and passed, just like MLS (the Mythical Landing System).

[rjtjrt]

On the contrary Tom, waiting for these systems to be available to provide the sort of accuracy of SBAS now is folly.
I expect we can very quickly and inexpensively piggyback on the already functioning Japanese MSAS system. We presumably just need the ground element to be set up.
Practical now is much better than future pie in the sky.

[Denti]

This article might be wrong as it refers to a "not yet published ICAO list" as its source, however it states that basically all biz jets and airliners (excluding the 787 and A380) have some form of WAAS/SBAS certification option available to them.

The fourth paragraph refers to the above mentioned:
Waas Delivers on Promises and Signals Further Innovation | Aviation International News

The article I think is fairly interesting and it also talks about GBAS and GLS approaches.

Interesting article indeed. And quite contrary to what boeing told us. According to the OEM of our aircraft (both boeing and airbus) their equipment isn't LPV certified and therefore does not need to have WAAS and isn't equipped to that standard. However, at least on our boeings, GBAS is standard for the last seven years and RNP AR is possible without WAAS anyway as are BARO VNAV RNP approaches. As an airline (although based in europe) we do have zero interest in WAAS, EGNOS or whatever it is called. There was absolutely no advantage in having EGNOS operational for example, doesn't do anything for us. It is different in the GA community though, but quite understandable if airlines do not want to pay for a system that doesn't have a business case for them.

[Jack Ranga]

The airlines should be contributing to every bit of aviation infrastructure whether they directly use it or not. They take their pilots from GA & numerous other qualified people. They get customers from regional airports etc. it's time they shut their continual f@cking whinge & stump up. I pay tax for a whole range of services I don't use. Shut your moaning & contribute.

[LeadSled]

The airlines should be contributing to every bit of aviation infrastructure whether they directly use it or not. They take their pilots from GA & numerous other qualified people. They get customers from regional airports etc. it's time they shut their continual f@cking whinge & stump up. I pay tax for a whole range of services I don't use. Shut your moaning & contribute.

Jack,
Looks like you have a bad hangover from yesterday, was it celebrations or commiserations??

As for the suggestions, ain't gunna happen, as you well know.

Tootle pip!!

[Dick Smith]

It does not seem logical. Are you telling me that a newly manufactured Boeing or Airbus flying in the USA or Europe where WAAS currently operates can make no use of this system?

Did the Europeans then put in their own WAAS system just for GA?

Even the cheapest GPS hand helds use WAAS so why wouldn't it be included in the GPS engines installed in Airline aircraft?

[Jack Ranga]

Leady, no hangover! A little tired of the moaning though :E

I know it ain't a chance of happening! (and I am of the liberal/national persuasion, so cautious, mild celebration!)

[27/09]

It does not seem logical. Are you telling me that a newly manufactured Boeing or Airbus flying in the USA or Europe where WAAS currently operates can make no use of this system?

I thinks it's a matter of the Boeing/Airbus customers (the airlines) are not specifying SBAS (WAAS) TSO146 GNSS equipment, they are specifying TSO 129 gear which isn't SBAS capable. It can be done but it's not being done.

These airlines don't generally go to places where SBAS really helps them plus they have other technology not generally available to GA to augment their on board systems.

[Denti]

It does not seem logical. Are you telling me that a newly manufactured Boeing or Airbus flying in the USA or Europe where WAAS currently operates can make no use of this system?

It is simply not needed. Without WAAS/EGNOS they are certified for RNP 0.1 operation, GBAS CAT I (and currently testing CAT IIIb) and wherever airlines need it they do get their RNP AR approaches, those however require dual FMC/IRS which is not something that most GA airplanes have as equipment. Not to mention most airports served by airlines do have ILS installations as well, quite often up to CAT IIIb standard.

[7478ti]

Why they spent the money?

While once, years ago, WAAS may have been a reasonable idea (I even originally supported WAAS back in the days when we had 100m 2D RMS capability related to 21+3, with SA ON, and with little prospect of civil assurance)...

BUT, ...after SA was turned off, and we had 30+ SVs, and GLS on the way,... and Galileo on the way, and low cost inertial, and simple low cost Kalman filtering, the answer as to why WAAS wasn't "dumped" by FAA as unnecessary and totally obsolete was simply:

Politics... misguided conceptual understanding, ...special interest advocacy... lack of technical knowledge, ...lack of vision, ...marginally or unqualified non-aviation [real] experienced specialists,... unqualified managers, ...inertia,... bad advice,.. and eventually the need to amortize failed poor human interface GPS nav units being sold to unwary GA buyers, and to small airplane OEMs, who sadly didn't know any better. Where would you like to stop?

[7478ti]

It is NOT different for GA. They don't need WAAS/EGNOS any more either. WAAS is now a complete waste of money, even for GA. Instead, GA operators can get everything they need, and more, for LESS COST, WITHOUT any need forWAAS/EGNOS, by simply moving forward toward ICAO's global foundation standard RNP, just as the global airlines knew a decade ago, and are doing now for all present production and future large jet transportaircraft. Further, LPV is even a very bad idea because it unnecessarily wastes airspace (it is angular in criteria and only straight-in). Whereas RNP(and GBAS/GLS too) could provide ALL the benefits that GA needs, and more, without the unnecessary wasted cost of sustaining an obsolete redundant system, and without wasting valuable congested airspace, if the Jurassic small airplane (e.g.,GPS) avionics vendors would just finally realize they've been "sold a billof goods" by a few authorities, lobby groups, and ANSPs, and instead fully embrace the RNP andGLS/GBAS NAV foundation for the future.

[7478ti]

@rjtjrt: It isn't pie-in-the-sky at all. We have all the accuracy and integrity we need for most GA applications ... right now. Further with a decent filter design, low cost inertial (e.g., a simple PIPA or PIGA or gyro is inertial), and GPS+Galileo, Baro VNAV, and perhaps even benefitting from an RA floor, we could even be using RNP toward Cat III minima in GA. I can cite safe and successful RNP .1 approaches and departures for GA that could be flown even by a C172, that with appropriate criteria modernization at authorities, such as the application of [properly implemented] FOSA, could easily be IFR/IMC qualified for minima at least as good as any LPV minima, and without the airspace wasting straight-in angular restrictions of LPV. Hence, WAAS/EGNOS/SBAS is an idea whose time has come, and gone, just like MLS. It will just take some additional time for GA operators and small airplane manufacturers to realize it. Movement toward recognition of fully allocated costs, and asking those who still want WAAS to pay for it, will only accelerate the inevitable SBAS phase out.

[27/09]

Tom your posts are very hard to read when you make them one big long paragraph and doubly hard to read when you use small text.

I'm not sure if you're right or wrong with some of your assertions. You make a lot of comments without backing then up with facts. How available is this gear for GA aircraft? or When will it be available to GA use? How much does it cost?

In the case of GBAS it is very localised and I suspect many remote places will not be able to take advantage of it. I also understand that Baro VNAV isn't the B all and end all either.

[7478ti]

Sorry for the hard to read paragraphs and text size.

RNP and GLS will be readily available in bizAv, small GA aircraft, sport aircraft, UAVs, and even for small model airplanes that someday want to fly in sensitive airspace, ....when the user community finally realizes that RNP is key to the success of the entire future global INAS, at affordable cost, and that both SBAS and LPV are now obsolete, dead end, wastes of money.

The RNP transition is already slowly starting in the higher end BizAv new avionics offerings (albeit poorly implemented and at snail speed). It is only a matter of time until deployed RNP based procedures and operational need for their use dictate adaptation in avionics for smaller FAR 23, and even sport aircraft.

RNP isn't just for SIAPS. RNP is needed any time separation needs to be assured, takeoff to landing, whether IFR, IMC, VFR, VMC, or someday EFR (electronic flight rules), which are inevitable, ...if any of us will be able to afford to still fly in the next decades.

The supporting data is readily available, but well beyond the scope of this forum. Suffice it to say that both the large global jet transport aircraft manufacturers and ICAO, as well as most leading technically savvy airlines have wisely committed to RNP, well over a decade ago, for very good reasons. And it wasn't to waste money going bankrupt, down dead end obsolete paths, like SBAS/WAAS and LPV.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I agree generally with Tom.

I have been involved in number of updates to higher end GA airframes, where an end result is RNP certification to RNP 0.5, with a capability to get down to RNP 0.1 eventually.

In a complimentary operation, we are involved in RNP procedure design, which is making life in places like Borneo, PNG and West Papua much easier.

As I have noted in previous posts, for other than aviation, Generation III GPS will produce WAAS accuracies, for all but fast moving traffic, without augmentation.

However, as for the bulk of GA, I am less convinced about the availability of high accuracy RNP certification, it is not just initial fit and finish, very big $$$$, but ongoing certification. If you don't have an operational need to justify the $$$$, you need to be Dick.

Alas, if GA is the only potential user of WAAS/GNSS here, I don't think we are going to see it, even given the much reduced costs of the infrastructure, compared to the early days Airservices "off the planet" estimates designed to frighten pollies away from the idea --- which is why the satellite that originally provided coverage of Australia was moved east to provide addition capacity for the Americas.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Qantas has been into en-route RNP (before it was even called RNP) for what must be close to 20 years, and Qantas operations in and out of Queenstown, NZ, provide an excellent example of commercial exploitation of RNP arrivals and departures.

[Dick Smith]

Are minima's in the USA for GA fitted with WAAS lower than Australia?

With the stock standard Garmin 1000 does WAAS allow fully vertical coupled approaches in the USA?

[27/09]

Are minima's in the USA for GA fitted with WAAS lower than Australia? Depends on what approach you're talking about but WAAS can give minimas approaching Cat 1 ILS

With the stock standard Garmin 1000 does WAAS allow fully vertical coupled approaches in the USA? Yes, and for any other WAAS GPS provided the approach has been designed for VNAV and is coded into the GPS database.

[27/09]

Tom,

You make a lot of statements without providing any hard information as to how the things you talk of will be made available to GA.

P.S. WAAS nor any other augmentation isn't needed for RNP. A TSO 129 GPS can do RNP, in fact most GNSS approaches are already RNP 0.3

[duncan_g]

Leady,

RNP certification to RNP 0.5, with a capability to get down to RNP 0.1

I presume this solution uses Baro-VNAV?

And the ongoing costs of certification is related to the aerodrome infrastructure (weather stations) and equipment calibration?

[PLovett]

Came across this which will help answer a few of the questions that have been asked on this thread. For those who can't read just look at the piccies.

[Dick Smith]

Can anyone give an installed price of the lowest cost RNP equipment available for retrofit in today's market? Does Garmin have anything available?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, bad news is there is no cheap way. FMS required:-(

[Jabawocky]

Dick, you would need to have your own RNP approaches, and I doubt you will want to fund that exercise.

This is part of the problem with getting an SBAS in Australia is something that everyone wants, except Qantas. Qantas went down the RNP path and now want to exclude all others from competing by them having a WAAS/SBAS service in Australia allowing US style vertical guidance approaches.

The simple solution here would be to lobby the government to ignore the bleating by AJ and co, and get the damn job done. Not to mention how the rest of Australian industry might also benefit.

I have no proof but where there is smoke there is fire…..QF are partly behind the stalling / obstructions to us having an SBAS.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

WRT the birds required for the NBN. Have they flown yet? If not, is it too late to reconfigure the package to install a bent pipe transponder? If so, then it will be the best $64,000,000.00 ever spent for all of Australia's benefit.

[QFF]

Can anyone give an installed price of the lowest cost RNP equipment available for retrofit in today's market? Does Garmin have anything available? My understanding from the recent PBN seminars is that RNP is the new ICAO speak for RNAV.

Under CASA's deeming provisions, even the old GNS430W is deemed to be equivalent down to RNP 1.0

So the lowest cost RNP equipment would be something TSO C146 like the GNS430W.

Unless you are referring to RNP-AR curved approaches which do require RNP 0.3 and then you are looking at FMS with INS/IRS etc.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Beg to differ, QFF. Vertical guidance is the issue. The CASA think they can meet their ICAO requirements by rolling out certifiable baro sources. To utilize baro you need a FMS to drive the profile.

A 430W needs WAAS.

[alphacentauri]

Not disputing...just clarifying

QFF, RF legs are not limited to RNP0.3. You can do an RF leg on an RNP 1.0 approach or even an RNP 5 route segment. The criteria in PANS-OPS is just about to be updated to allow RF turns in basic RNAV(GNSS) approaches.
Yes, I am aware of limitations of the nav gear, in that they can't actually do RF yet, but it will come. When it does, we will be able to do RNAV(GNSS) at RNP 1.0 with RF turns.

Somebody also mentioned that RNP is ICAO speak for RNAV...pretty much nailed it. Under the approach naming convention coming the RNAV(GNSS) approach is to be renamed RNP APCH...no other changes required.

OZBUSDRIVER...spot on. I argued this a few years back. Make no mistake gentlemen, BARO VNAV is being pursued for a few stupid reasons;

1. They told ICAO they would be compliant wrt approaches with vertical guidance.
2. No one wants to spend any money on it.
3. They thought they could roll them out with relative ease (CASA proved that wrong)

It is irrelevant (CASA'a opinion) how many aircraft can fly them...the point is they would be available. The top 50 list of aerodromes that were the priority (except for the captial cities) were mainly services by aircraft that couldn't do BARO anyway



Alpha

[PLovett]

Under the approach naming convention coming the RNAV(GNSS) approach is to be renamed RNP APCH...no other changes required.

Aw ****! I have just spent months slowly updating my Jepps because they bleedin' well went and changed GPS to RNAV (GNSS) on all the charts and now they want to change the name again. :{

Jeez......Jaba. That iPad/EFB is starting to look the duck's guts more n' more every day. :ok:

[27/09]

Dick, bad news is there is no cheap way. FMS required:-( No FMS required for RNP. See below

So the lowest cost RNP equipment would be something TSO C146 like the GNS430W.

Correct.


Beg to differ, QFF. Vertical guidance is the issue.

RNP isn't based on vertical guidance, it's based on the equipment being able to provide monitoring and alerting on tracking accuracy. WAAS (SBAS) and or Baro VNAV are not required for RNP.

If your're talking APV or LPV approaches then that's another ball of wax, then vertical guidance is the issue. You can have APV or LPV approaches without RNP.

[Vag277]

There appears to be some lack of understanding of the navigation performance concept. RNAV and RNP are both navigation performance concepts within Performance Based Navigation See here; http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100178/pbn-booklet.pdf
See also CAO 20.91


RNP performance is available with a TSO C129 navigator as a minimum. Baro VNAV approaches depend on having an aircraft with the certified capability BARO VNAV capability, broadcast QNH at the aerodrome and procedures designed with the vertical path data included in the nav data base in the GPS. Nothing to do with WAAS.


There is no requirement for FMS for any RNP specification up to and including RNP Approach (current RNAV(GNSS). The current terminology for the satellite navigation based approaches is incorrect but is the result of ICAO work in progress between the navigation and IAP working groups/panels. The whole exercise is dynamic! FMS is required for RNP AR but there aren't any GA operators involved in those yet as they require a new level of navigation and auto-pilot capability.

[duncan_g]

Some may say flogging the proverbial horse, but I still think this is the best chance Australia has at getting SBAS in the near future...

via talk Satellite (http://talksatellite.com/Asia-A1013372.htm#)!

"The rural satellite and fixed wireless components of the NBN are currently subject to a separate top-level review following the release of a major review into the fixed component last week. We understand that options on the table include the potential need for additional satellite capacity - potentially a third satellite in the long term - and also the potential sale and lease back of the NBN Co satellite assets."

[LeadSled]

---- but there aren't any GA operators involved in those yet as they require a new level of navigation and auto-pilot capability.

Not so, but the number is small, and all are (obviously) using baro Vnav., with RNP 0.1.
There are quite a few more aircraft that could be certified, if the operators saw the need.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Plumbum....at what cost?

You know full well that Baro VNav is just a cheap way for the CASA to honor it's agreement with the ICAO.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

It is worth reiterating....for $64,000,000.00 plus change, a bent pipe transponder could be fitted to either of the NBN birds. This is the critical link to supplying a WAAS signal across the whole continent. There are far more uses for WAAS than just aviation.

[reynoldsno1]

RNAV(GNSS) approach is to be renamed RNP APCH
At present, RNP APCH is the PBN navigation specification for RNAV(GNSS) - it does not mean the procedures will be retitled.

One of the main problems with WAAS is that it has not been able to replace ILS - not because of accuracy issues - but because it has not been able to meet the 'time-to-alarm' specifications for a precision approach (1 second).

[underfire]

Here is the current WAAS coverage (http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/RT_NPACoverage.htm). Unless more SATs come online, AUS isnt covered.

http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/images/GeoFootPrint.gif

There were 4 SATs online, but one went down, so the US shifted one over so they would have coverage. (you need 3 for LPV)

There are 2 ground monitoring stations required. Currently, these are located on each Coast of the US.

Each aircraft would then have to have a WAAS capable receiver.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

First I have heard to need three WAAS birds for LPV.

Right now, we are 100% covered by the MTSAT. No space was available on the first NBN bird. Already have 28 ground stations and one uplink. Need another uplink on west coast or around Alice.

LPV was and is advertised as ILS like minimums.

[27/09]

OZBUSDRIVERYou know full well that Baro VNav is just a cheap way for the CASA to honor it's agreement with the ICAO.

Correct, and the Baro VNAV thing is being done in NZ for the same reason.

[c100driver]

No it is because the airlines pushed CASA and the CAA to approve RNP AR approaches for Queenstown.

B737 and A320 are already approved for Baro VNAV and it is a known method of achieving approaches into terrain challenged airports in legacy jets.

The airlines don't need WAAS so will not willingly pay for it.

[rjtjrt]

The airlines don't need WAAS so will not willingly pay for it.
It would have been handy in the fog at Mildura earlier this year, had it been available (yes I now know the airline aircraft are mostly not equipped to receive it, but they should both be equipped, and it should be available).

[underfire]

OZbusdriver,

There were 4 SATs online, but one went down, so the US shifted one over so they would have coverage. (you need 3 for LPV)

Yes, you need 3 for LPV, 2 for LP...

You see thousands of LP/LPV APP procedures in the US, and a very large percentage of these are the more rural airports with no ILS.

737 and A320 are already approved for Baro VNAV

Exactly, the ac have the system, and it is approved. You dont need to have the extensive the system requirements nor training to use RNP APCH as you do with AR, so virtually every airport I have noted in AUS has these designs, basically ILS overlays, or just the straight 'T' approach, hence the RNAV (GPS/GNSS) and RNP APCH nomenclature. (in reality, with enviro, that is all you get, a design on an existing flight corridor)

Remember that QANTAS spearheaded RNP in AUS, and paid for the RNP AR procedures. ASA and CASA are not prepared to setup or pay for the obstacle assessment requirement oversight, so QANTAS is paying for the obstacle assessment, NOTAM, and navdatabase oversight on their own...

You can only say so much about them using RNP and holding it close, unless others want to pay or ASA/CASA decide to provide this as well..

In the US there are several RNP APCH with a single coded turn to final...

[27/09]

c100driverNo it is because the airlines pushed CASA and the CAA to approve RNP AR approaches for Queenstown.

B737 and A320 are already approved for Baro VNAV and it is a known method of achieving approaches into terrain challenged airports in legacy jets.

If that's case then, why are Baro VNAV approaches being put into places that will never ever see a jet? It's solely to tick the box of meeting ICAO recommendations of approaches with vertical guidance.

[alphacentauri]

Compared to Queenstown, there is not one instrument approach in this country I would put in the category of 'terrain challenged'. The idea that we need RNP-AR or BARO-VNAV to solve our terrain problems is quite frankly horse-s**t.

The argument for WAAS was run and lost many years ago. It is true that CASA signed up to the ICAO mandate and then had a coronary when they discovered the cost. The cheapest and best solution (according to them) was BARO. This was considered the best because Airservices would do it for free. Make no mistake there are about 90 BARO designs sitting on a desk in Airservices waiting to be published, the hold up is CASA as they cannot decide how to validate them for publication (lets ignore the fact that NZ does not validate theirs). The delivery of BARO approaches was to have been finished by now.

Now the focus shifts back to WAAS, a little less expensive than previously advised, but the big end of town are not equipped for WAAS, and they are primarily paying the bills.

In short WAAS would service a lot of aerodromes for the GA market, but they won;t pay and the big end of town don't go to these places. BARO/RNP_AR would service major airports but would not fulfill our agreement with ICAO and cannot be used by non FMS eqquipped acft.

QANTAS spearheaded RNP_AR because CASA was holding off for WAAS, and QANTAS knew it would never come. Unfortunately QANTAS main aim was efficiency and minima, the result was a stack of RNP_AR approaches that are basically useless in an ATM environment. I know this because Airservices has just been asked to replace them all with public AR criteria approaches that work. The first 3 public RNP_AR procedures on mainland Australia have just been published with more to come.

Remember that QANTAS spearheaded RNP in AUS, and paid for the RNP AR procedures. ASA and CASA are not prepared to setup or pay for the obstacle assessment requirement oversight, so QANTAS is paying for the obstacle assessment, NOTAM, and navdatabase oversight on their own...

This statement is full inaccuracies....there is no extra obstacle oversight requirement for an RNP-AR beyond that which exists for any other approach.

My honest opinion....we won't be seeing WAAS anytime soon. The technology is already old, and the airlines won't pay for something they cannot use. What will we see? Its hard to know...

[underfire]

alphaC,

Yes, you have certainly nailed it. In designing RNP, to justify the cost, the major selling point was idle descent and saving fuel.

As you noted, idle descent does not work in the ATC environment.

We worked this out with MVD RNP procedures for CASA/ASA. With the coded procedure, a set of strategically placed speed restrictions would make the RNP and non-RNP ac play in the same sandbox for ATC.

I struggled with this for some time, trying to make the RNP AR turns, acceptable for A380 and 737-8, etc...you cant have several sets of waypoints that work for the ac, and expect ATC to manage them...

toss in wake sep when you now have everyone on a coded procedure, ie same H/V flightpath, it all gets real interesting, real fast...

EDIT: As AC noted, AUS will not be seeing WAAS anytime soon, if ever. It is old tech, so why bring it up, just to have it outdated..

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Under fire....I call BS on your statements re-the number of WAAS for LPV and LV. Methinks you better learn how to use google before making comments like that. All that is required for LPV is A WAAS signal WAAS level 3 equipment fitted and an authorized approach. LV is LPV localized guidance with BARO. Got nothing to do with how many WAAS birds it sees.

I am always welcome of any link that supplies information to back up any claim:8 Always ready to admit fault and demure :ok:

[27/09]

EDIT: As AC noted, AUS will not be seeing WAAS anytime soon, if ever. It is old tech, so why bring it up, just to have it outdated..

Underfire, are you sure about WAAS being outdated? WAAS is the US name for SBAS. If WAAS (SBAS) is outdatd as you say please explain to me why there has recently been a European SBAS system installed in addition to the Japanese system?

Also I have heard the Airbus 350 will have SBAS capability fitted as standard.

By the way ILS's are old tech too but they're still widely used and still being installed

OZBUSDDRIVER

It is my understanding as well that only one SBAS satellite signal is required for LPV etc.

[underfire]

WAAS is outdated, and is only being implemented at airports instead of an ILS. It is just anoth augmentation scheme of GPS, but, unfortunately, did require a different receiver, which the airline neglected to purchase, given the cert for RNAV/RNP.

WAAS is really being advertised for GA and smaller aircraft.


OZbusdriver. Perhaps you should learn to Google. WAAS needs two ground stations and 2 sats to provide LP and 3 sats to provide LPV. As staed, WAAS is only a correction factor to tune up GPS, so like GPS, did you really think you would get vertical with 2 sats?

"The GPS information collected by the WRS sites is forwarded to the WAAS Master Station (WMS) via a terrestrial communications network. At the WMS, the WAAS augmentation messages are generated. These messages contain information that allows GPS receivers to remove errors in the GPS"

So you need many ground stations that coordinate with the 2 master stations for rebroadcast of the corection factor.

As far as the numbers, it was directly from the FAA website, which perhaps even you can determine how to search for and read...

Navigation Programs - Satellite Navigation (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/approaches/)

[Flying Binghi]

Perhaps you should learn to Google

Heh......:)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-WAAS-performance-standard.pdf

Sorry, cannot do links with my phone......a little light reading and get back to me:ok:

well buggame....it does do links.....enjoy:p

[OZBUSDRIVER]

To explain again what Australia has and needs to do to enable WAAS.
We already have a master station in Canberra that talks to the MTSAT as a reference station only. We already have a ground constellation of 28 ADS-B receiver sites...already accurately surveyed...talking to a central facility...that can be used as the monitoring sites. Do need a few along the eastern seaboard to complete the network. Another uplink somewhere west of Alice Springs and then get a transponder on the next two NBN birds....(I do note, the FAA have a goal to have redundancy with their GEO birds. Although, only one WAAS signal is required....conceding that I have never realised this until challenged...learn something every day)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

WRT the bird stationed over the central pacific....it was moved to enhance coverage along the west coast US and Alaska after a bird went u/s.

[27/09]

Underfire2 sats to provide LP and 3 sats to provide LPV. As staed, WAAS is only a correction factor to tune up GPS, so like GPS, did you really think you would get vertical with 2 sats?

Your statement here indicates to me you don't really know how SBAS works.

The vertical and lateral calculations are made by using the GPS constellation. The SBAS satellite is only used to broadcast a correction signal based on the info provided by the ground stations. This correction signal is used by the GPS receiver to refine is calculated location.

There is no 3D signal requirement for the correction signal. Remember it is a wide area augmentation which works on a similar principle to local area augmentation where a signal is broadcast to the local area from a single ground station.

You haven't explained why you say SBAS is outdated. You just keep saying it's outdated when there is evidence to show otherwise.

[Vag277]

There are some misconceptions here. The availability or not of SBAS in Australia has nothing to do with CASA. There is no government interest in funding the facility. Providing infrastructure is NOT part of CASA responsibilities under the Civil Aviation Act. CASA staff in the relevant areas are supportive. BARO-VNav is the only viable vertically guide procedure that can be developed with minimal infrastructure - broadcast QNH.

Australia, as a signatory to the Chicago Convention, has an obligation to support ICAO including the policy of moving all navigation to space based technology. SBAS is not an ICAO mandate.

[rjtjrt]

There is no government interest in funding the facility
That is the point - I believe we should be lobbying to change governments mind.
For what appears to be minimal cost, we could utilise the Japanese system, so the cost benefit calculation is shifted to be more favourable to this being implemented, given the wide ranging usefulness to many groups in the nation, not just aviation, not to mention the safety benefit.

[alphacentauri]

The availability or not of SBAS in Australia has nothing to do with CASA.

...and who do you think advises the Government on what direction it should take with national infrastructure? Its CASA. CASA has everything to do with this.

Providing infrastructure is NOT part of CASA responsibilities under the Civil Aviation Act.

Correct, but advising Government on national infrastructure is one of their responsibilities.

CASA staff in the relevant areas are supportive.

Not all of them, at least not the one's that count

BARO-VNav is the only viable vertically guide procedure that can be developed with minimal infrastructure - broadcast QNH.

Just because it won't cost anything does not mean that is the option we should be pursuing. I will say this again, 80-90% of the aerodromes are services by a fleet that is not BARO capable. What is the point? The intention of the ICAO mandate for LPV is to increase safety and reduce CFIT. Can you explain how safety is enhanced by providing safer approaches that no-one can fly?

Australia, as a signatory to the Chicago Convention, has an obligation to support ICAO including the policy of moving all navigation to space based technology. SBAS is not an ICAO mandate..

This conversation is about Australia supporting the ICAO mandate to provide approaches with vertical guidance. The PBN mandate it different. You are correct, SBAS is not an ICAO mandate. But APV is an ICAO mandate and SBAS will allow Australia to meets its obligations.

[underfire]

27/09

Your statement here indicates to me you don't really know how SBAS works.

The SBAS signal requires the 3 sats to provide the vertical correction factor.

If you only have 2 available, the correction factor does not include vertical, so you only have LP.

As Ozbusdriver stated, there were 4 sats, and one went down, so they moved the one that was over the Central Pacific so that Alaska would be covered with 3 for LPV.

It is outdated, simply because the commercial airlines have little interest in retrofitting a fleet for WAAS. It is useful for GA and remote airfields, and that is its market.

Commercial fleets simply moved past the technology, going with RNAV (GPS) then RNAV (RNP)/APCH,AR then to GBAS/GLS...

EDIT: BTW, why are they going with 27/09 R and L, when it will just put it all in crosswind conditions? What's up with 16/34 R & L??

[27/09]

UnderfireThe SBAS signal requires the 3 sats to provide the vertical correction factor.

I cannot find any info to support this statement, in fact the only reference is to the correction signal from THE satellite (singular). There have been many periods when there has only been two WAAS satellites so I still say you're mistaken re the need for three WAAS satellites for vertical guidance on an approach.


It is outdated, simply because the commercial airlines have little interest in retrofitting a fleet for WAAS. It is useful for GA and remote airfields, and that is its market.

Commercial fleets simply moved past the technology, going with RNAV (GPS) then RNAV (RNP)/APCH,AR then to GBAS/GLS...

Riddle me this then, why are Airbus putting SBAS receivers into the A350?

[27/09]

alphacentauri

Well put, you're correct in every point you make in post #114

[Vag277]

It appears that anti CASA sentiment colours judgement or knowledge. APV is a generic description of a range of approaches with vertical guidance. They include Baro-VNav and LPV where vertical guidance is provided through the use of SBAS.
Australia is only one of many countries that do not have access to SBAS. Performance Based Navigation is a concept that includes enroute navigation, departure and approach procedures classified according to the accuracy of navigation performance of the aircraft nav systems. There is no ICAO LPV mandate. There is an encouragement to implement vertically guided approaches where feasible. That is why the ICAO PBN Manual includes a range of specifications for such approaches.

Who is the CASA person who does not support SBAS?
Where in the Civil Aviation Act is CASA given the infrastructure responsibilities ascribed by alpha centauri?

If the GA community is willing to pay tens of millions of dollars any thing is possible. The other possible users aren't pushing for this.

[underfire]

Alpha,

Back to post #102. Yes you illustrate why WAAS will likely never make it to AUS.

The ICAO mandate allows quite a bit of leaway for vertical guidance: The 'V' being supplied by Baro, and of course, GBAS (of which ASA is 50% owners of HW SmartPath)

Resolves that:
States and planning and implementation regional groups (PIRGs) complete a PBN implementation plan by 2009 as a matter of urgency to achieve:
1) implementation of RNAV and RNP operations (where required) for enroute and terminal areas according to established timelines and intermediate milestones; and
2) implementation of approach procedures with vertical guidance (APV) (Baro-VNAV and/or augmented GNSS) for all instrument runway ends, either as the primary approach or as a back-up for precision approaches by 2016.

This statement is full inaccuracies....there is no extra obstacle oversight requirement for an RNP-AR beyond that which exists for any other approach.

That is not correct. ICAO and FAA P77 obstacle surfaces only go straight out to 50,000 feet to 1200' AT, tapering to the runway width.
RNP obstacle assessment does not taper, but follows containment width +ANP growth (ICAO surface is abit different) and is along the entire coded part of the flightpath, with AR turns, it is far outside the areas maintained by the government database. The missed approach OC surface for RNP is much different, and of course, EO missed is a custom not contained in the criteria.

While the govt maintains the obstacle and NOTAM services for public procedures, they do not have anything to do with the tailored/custom procedures that QANTAS and others fly. NOTAM assessment and obstacle assessment are done 24/7/365 by GE on these procedures.


EDIT: Most of the baro procedures sitting there, are sitting there because of enviro... there are many approved, but are perm NOTAM's out...

While Airbus is supporting SBAS for access to other markets, it is important to understand that Boeing does not support SBAS. (the European system has a long way to go before they see any sorts of accuracy that has been alluded to. ICAO regs currently limit SBAS to 250 HAT anyways...)

NATS SBAS (http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/Global/Luftfart/Flygplatser/LPV_Implementation_in_UK.pdf)

Airbus APV (http://www.paris.icao.int/documents_open_meetings/show_file.php?id=482) (good explaination of Airbus system thoughts)

[alphacentauri]

Underfire, Airservices is also now the publisher of RNP-AR approaches and I can assure you they were designed under existing obstacle protection framework. There are no differences, from other types of approaches.

As for Baro, enviro assessments are not required as there is no track or height change. The box waiting to be ticked is an authorisation to publish from CASA .....they won't do this until they figure out how to validate them.

[rjtjrt]

The other possible users aren't pushing for this.
They may join in if we start a campaign.
Just because other potential users aren't yet actively lobbying does not mean they are disinterested in it coming to fruition.
Again we should lobby government if we believe this is both worthwhile and there is a technical opportunity with the Japanese and/or piggyback on soon to be launched NBN satellites.

[alphacentauri]

Vag277,

I didn't say CASA had infrastructure responsibilities. What I said is that CASA advises the Government on national infrastructure. The CASA board is appointed by the Minister (for whatever it is called these days). If the department ever have a question, who do you think they go to for advice?. Airservices board is appointed and reports in exactly the same way.

Do you really think I am going to name CASA people on here?

Mate, you may well be correct and I am more than happy to say I was wrong. But from where I have to work and the people I deal with everyday, this is what we are being told and how it looks from my end.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

There are still people in Airservices who only ever think in sovereign control and proprietary rights....with a huge fee! SBAS will never happen under their watch. That is if no one takes the fight up.

We have to borrow the US argument on why they allowed GNSS into the public arena. It becomes an economic multiplier. It isn't just aviation!

In agriculture alone, crop improvements using data capture on accurate crop yield at micro levels allow fertiliser application to be precisely placed to the meter...huge savings in production costs. The alternative is DGPS at a considerable cost to each farm operation. The accuracy supplied from DGPS is a magnitude of a hundred to a thousand times too accurate for such an application.

[27/09]

GBAS (of which ASA is 50% owners of HW SmartPath)

There are still people in Airservices who only ever think in sovereign control and proprietary rights....with a huge fee! SBAS will never happen under their watch. That is if no one takes the fight up.

These two statements pretty well sum up some of the opposition to SBAS.

How much has ASA spent on developing HW SmartPath? It's my guess is they could have paid a sunstantial part of aviations share of an SBAS system and instead of just covering one or two airports with a GBAS system covered the whole country with SBAS.

[alphacentauri]

The reasons we will never get SBAS, is as OZBUSDRIVER alluded to. As I said before, the argument for SBAS has been one and lost. You guys are ranting about how its a critical piece of aviation kit. Yes, I agree. But no one entity is going to fund a satellite program just for aviation. If this is to be funded by government (as has been in the US) then the entire country's transport sector has to be involved.

You need to get maritime, land, agriculture and aviation all on board.

Some say Airservices needs to fund it. Primarily, Airservices is funded by the major airlines. We don't get any public money from the Government. Why should Airservices then fund public infrastructure? If the major airlines don't want/need it, Airservices won't spend the money on it (not saying agree with it, but that's the way it is). You don't have the economy of scale in Aviation in Australia. This has to be a transport wide initiative.....and except the Aviation, the other parties are not making as much noise about it.

Welcome to user pays system. I didn't create it, I am not a big fan of it, but that is the way it is. If GA want SBAS, then GA will have to fund it. That is why you will never get it.

[underfire]

Alpha,

I understand there are a few RNP AR MVD public procedures. Lets just say I know the ones at YMML very, very well.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2hekpzk.jpg

(so I see you are with ASA, then you will likely know who I am)

[Dick Smith]

Is it a fact that the major Aus airlines do not need WAAS because they all have fully coupled RNAV approaches without it?

[PLovett]

You said it Dick. However, there is an argument that the regionals would like to have it in their armoury. Especially as some seem to have trouble finding the runway.

[Dick Smith]

Do Rex have fully coupled RNAV approach equipment in their aircraft.? I would not have thought so.

[Capn Bloggs]

fully coupled RNAV approach equipment in their aircraft
Does WAAS come with free coupling?

[rjtjrt]

Australian SBAS project ?well and truly underway? | Australian Aviation (http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/07/australian-sbas-project-well-and-truly-underway/)

If this ends up with a unique radio kit being required it will be stillborn.
Shades of DME-A, and Microwave Landing System.
Only useful in most applications if it is a US adopted system, or if it can be received by WAAS capable equipment.

[Sunfish]

what rtj said!

In its mature form the system would comprise “probably two or three” purpose-built ground stations across Australia, and a master control station. The Australian-developed SBAS promises not only greater accuracy than existing SBAS applications – the US Wide Area Augmentation System (or WAAS) typically provides better than one metre accuracy – but is a technology that could be easily implemented worldwide.

“Things all working well, the program in two years goes to maturity and rolls out to production, then we would seek to take what’s currently a regional capability and roll that out around the globe,” Drury said.

Different business models for using the SBAS are still being studied, Drury said.

Someone tell this idiot he is dreaming. It matters not how technically awesome the system is. If it is not adopted by the USA it is not going to be "rolled out around the globe". Unfortunately also for the idiot, America has a long history of "not invented here" as well. That means that even if there is a technical breakthrough that catches Americas interest, they will either steal or adapt the technology and tweak it in ways that render the Australian investment worthless. As for fitting any such equipment to Australian aircraft this century, don't make me laugh.

The only consumer level good (ie., non government defence) that broke this rule is the CSIRO wifi patent and even that took ten years to generate a return to Australia.

Just adopt WAAS and be done with it.

[TurboMaggot]

Rex do not have fully coupled RNAVs but a VNAV profile. What would it take to couple them?

[rjtjrt]

I wonder if the involvement of Lockheed Martin can get some practicality to be shown in this?

[Icarus2001]

Sunfish are you aware of these products?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairlight_CMI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_recorder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_banknote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeme_Clark_(doctor)

Tomorrow's World, the Australian Initiative - Early Innovations in Transport (http://www.apc-online.com/twa/history3.html)

Whilst I am not a fan of Wikipedia you get the idea.

[Vref+5]

Those Australian inventions basically filled a void, rarely- if ever- did they replace something commonly used overseas. Except the banknote,I'll pay that. Fantastic idea btw. Necessity being the mother of invention - waterproof money that you can keep in your boardies whilst swimming, enabling you to buy the meat pie at lunchtime so you don't starve, brilliant. I digress....

Certification-typically requires AFM statements that the fit complies with the relevant TSO, so upgrade may be required. Re-certification of old kit would most likely cost more. Just because a glide path appears on the EFIS doesn't mean the system is suitable for Baro-VNAV. Some continuing airworthiness requirements to cover, and suitability/control of nav database needs to be shown. Information in CAO 20.91

[Sunfish]

icarus, great inventions but not consumer goods like GPS is now. FWIW, John Deere already runs a WAAS system for agriculture in Australia - star fire,

[OZBUSDRIVER]

From the Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/au/news/press-releases/2017/191220161.html)site-

By augmenting signals from multiple GNSS constellations – both Galileo and GPS – second-generation SBAS is not dependent on just one GNSS. It will also use signals on two frequencies – the L1 and L5 GPS signals, and their companion E1 and E5a Galileo signals – to provide integrity data and enhanced accuracy for industries that need it the most.
...my bolding.

Smells like a special receiver to access the augmentation signal