GBAS at YMML

[underfire]

Was just at the World ATM Conference, Honeywell said a SmartPath system had been purchased and was being installed at the airport.

Anyone hear or know anything about this?

[alphacentauri]

Yep. Due be installed and operating by the end of the year

[underfire]

Thanks. A few years back, I had designed RNP-AR to GBAS final approach procedures for YMML. Never knew what happened with them.

There were also a few quasi displaced thresholds by varying the glideslope and TCH.

Guys at Honeywell sure were interested in them...

Thanks

BTW, the wake array and wind profiler on RW16 are working beautifully...

http://aviationweatherdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ScreenHunter_41-Aug.-07-14.05-300x165.jpg

http://aviationweatherdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Wind1-300x155.jpg

[t_cas]

Sorry.
Your graphic is a shade asking in resolution to even begin to comment.

[underfire]

Agree, sorry about that, its the linking issue...

At RW16, at 1000m from threshold. AC are at about 55m...

wake array, showing arrival wake vortex bouncing. .wake rebounds to almost 80m (middle of the night, very calm conditions, think of 2min spacing here)

http://i61.tinypic.com/205czt.jpg

wind profiler showing winds to 300m

note change in direction and wind speed at altitudes... there are some interesting measurements where the winds got from headwind on the ground, to tailwind aloft, and vice versa...

http://i59.tinypic.com/mm31if.jpg

[CaptainMidnight]

BTW, the wake array and wind profiler on RW16 are working beautifully...Many people ask what that gear is up there (Mr & Mrs Public).

Is there something on the web about it?

[27/09]

Who exactly can actually use the GBAS system?

What does it do that cannot be done with the ILS?

[alphacentauri]

27/09,

No doubt someone will correct if I am wrong.....however, I believe that B737-7/8/900 are fitted as standard from the Boeing factory. All other models available as a retrofit. Not sure about Airbus, I think it also might be a retrofit.

The advantage is that you can service multiple runways on one installation. Good example is Sydney. Currently the proposal for Melbourne will introduce GBAS precision approaches onto 2 runways that have never had precision approach.

At the moment current fleet capability is not great, but is expected to improve so we will just have to wait and see.

One other advantage is that you can apparently do curved approach paths, but I am not aware of any as yet.

Alpha

[Snakecharma]

Alpha - nothing is "standard" GLS and everything else on the aeroplane are options.

In many cases the airline provides them to boeing as "BFE" buyer furnished equipment..

[Capn Rex Havoc]

27/09 Who exactly can actually use the GBAS system?


Emirates A380's can do GLS approaches to Sydney.

They are auto land approved.

As Alpha says - one installation can service multiple runways or even multiple airports.

Much cheaper for the airport to install I should imagine, than installing glide path and localaliser transmitters.

[underfire]

Cpt Midnight,

We have really put too much up on the web yet...what you see there is a variation of prototypes for validation. The plane spotters across the road are always quite interested.
Soon we will have the validation finished, and really be able to speak more about it.
It really does show the wind shears very nicely at that location.

Alpha,

Currently, from what I understand, GLS is standard on A380, B787, B747-8, and new 777. It is a no cost add for new 737 and A320 aircraft.

It will be nice to have guidance on 27 and 34 after all this time.

Still wondering about the new runway though, parallel to 09/27?!?! Almost always a good crosswind...and a pain back to terminal.

Rex,

It can supply data for 26 runways ends at an airport, but not several airports. The 26 capability is for both ARR and DEP. The system is about $2M installed, so it is break even at 4 runway ILS systems. Long term maintenence is minimal with GBAS, unlike ILS.
The preceding aircraft does not disrupt a beam for the trail aircraft, as it is a signal that contains the data, there are no multipath or reflective issues as with ILS.
You can have simultaneous ARR and DEP from same runway end.

[27/09]

alphacentauri: The advantage is that you can service multiple runways on one installation. Good example is Sydney. Currently the proposal for Melbourne will introduce GBAS precision approaches onto 2 runways that have never had precision approach.

At the moment current fleet capability is not great, but is expected to improve so we will just have to wait and see.

One other advantage is that you can apparently do curved approach paths, but I am not aware of any as yet.

I was playing devils advocate to some extent. ILS 's are expensive to install and maintain.

I'm at a loss as to why SBAS hasn't been adopted in Australasia yet. Pretty well everywhere else in the civilised world has SBAS or is in the process of introducing SBAS.

With SBAS the fleet capability is very good already and both Boeing and Airbus offer it as an option.

SBAS serves multiple runways and even better serves multiple multiple airports.

While the installation costs are higher for SBAS than for an individual GBAS system, SBAS would serve the whole country making the cost per airport much cheaper. I'm standing back and waiting for someone to repeat the fallacy about the excessively high costs of installing SBAS. It doesn't cost any where near what some people claim.

You can have LPV approaches at any airport you wish with no ground based equipment.

I don't think GBAS or SBAS for that matter are required for curved approaches, we have those now without either GBAS or SBAS. However SBAS certainly opens up curved approaches to a wider audience than is currently the case.

[alphacentauri]

I'm at a loss as to why SBAS hasn't been adopted in Australasia yet. Pretty well everywhere else in the civilised world has SBAS or is in the process of introducing SBAS.

You and me both mate. There have been a few key people in Australian Aviation pushing SBAS, but here is the problem. SBAS needs to be supported and implemented to support the Australian Transport and Services Industries, it is not solely for the aviation sector, though aviation will get a lot of benefit out of it. When all the other countries of the world were developing an argument for SBAS they had a complete Transport/Service industry solution. In Australia, at the time.....everybody was silent, except aviation. Guess what? the cost is too high for aviation to be able to fund it, and other transport sectors were not interested. In fact most other transport sectors went off and developed their own solutions

In recent times, driven mainly by the aviation sector, arguments have been made to the Dept of Transport and infrastructure...and they have started to listen. AMSA are on board, and the Kiwis are very interested as they can't fund it on their own either...so there is a will, and there is a closing window of opportunity to get an SBAS receiver on a satellite.......but it is closing rapidly and the cost is increasing.

What I think is the nail in the coffin is that I hear a rumour that Thales recently hosted an 'SBAS for Australia' information session and invited all interested parties to view the proposal. By all accounts the proposal was quite good....I hear Mr Mrdak was invited......good that he couldn't even be bothered to show up. If the Dept Secretary can't be bothered to show up, guess how much interest the gov't have in implementing SBAS?

Personally, I doubt SBAS will be happening anytime soon

[training wheels]

This video explains it pretty well

xLvZu3TTz70

[7478ti]

GLS is equipped as STANDARD on all B787s and all B747-8s. It is available or planned on all other current production Boeings. Many B737NG have been delivered with GLS. Airbus has GLS available on models as well. RNP is basic on all current production Boeings (and Airbusses).

1) GLS/GBAS is vastly better than, more accurate than, and less vulnerable than ILS, and far less expensive. One GLS can cover all runways even at places like KORD or KLAX)

2) GLS can be sited without the very difficult critical areas or site restrictions common to ILS.

3) GLS has virtually no multipath effects or interference (whereas ILS often NOTAMs itself out of service with a simple snowfall disturbing the G/S beam shaping surface.

4) GLS needs virtually no repetitive costly and time consuming flight inspection after it is commissioned compared to ILS.

5) GLS is steady as a rock and straight as an arrow, compared to the scalloping of raggedy ILS beams, making for improved autoflight response.

6) GLS/GBAS when combined with RNP, can greatly reduce the length of any straight in segments needed for a FAS, and allow for accurate low RNP missed approaches to serve runways that ILS could never practically serve.

7) GLS right now already has better accuracy, integrity, and availability than ANY Wilcox ILS or ANGRN-27 that was used for the original Cat III approvals, at the four Type III ILS locations, or the 30+ Type II ILS locations back when we did the first airline approved Cat III Ops.

Once you've seen and flown GLS, particularly with RNP for the transitions to the FAS, and for the missed approach from the TDZ, you'll never want to fly any obsolete 1930s era original vintage ILS, even if it is re-born to the latest standard, ever again. That's how good GLS is.

GLS/GBAS along with RNP are the new global standard that will be with us for at least the next century. Long live the memory of ILS.

As for SBAS, ....SBAS is now an entirely obsolete waste of money. While SBAS once was a useful idea back when we only had 21+3 SVs, with SA turned "ON", ...now with "SA OFF" and 30+ GPS SVs alone, and with Galileo on the way, and even Glonass, ....SBAS is simply a $4B unnecessary obsolete waste of tax money. LPV, with its angular straight-in only criteria is another obsolete waste of both airspace and money. There is NOTHING whatsoever that LPV can do, that RNP can't do better, easier, quicker, and less expensively. Just like SBAS's WAAS and EGNOS, LPV is an idea whose time has come and gone. But also just like MLS, the FAA just hasn't figured that out yet.

[Capn Bloggs]

Very big-end-of-town-biased there, Tom. GLS might be good at the handful of big airports here, but what about the hundreds of smaller ones? And if you think the general aviation industry could cope with RNP-AR, you're on cloud-cuckoo land.

[7478ti]

Not so. 3 ft wingspan UAVs, to LSAs, to parachutists, ...to Raptors will eventually be using RNP (both trajectories and volumes) as well as GBAS (JPALS for DoD). I've even been flying a version of RNP .1 for over 8 years now in my C172C. It doesn't take rocket science. An it doesn't even need to be AR in the first place. AR only happened because it was new and unfamiliar to authorities, not because it was ever really needed. In fact, ADF/NDB ought to now be the AR requirement, not RNP. As to GBAS/GLS, if you understand what it really is at the foundation level, a simple GNSS receiver, uplinking corrections via a VHF link, it can be done so inexpensively that virtually any airport could have one. In fact, it's already being used in portable form (Portabas) and to land tiny UAVs. It is vastly simpler than ILS, can be very inexpensive, and networks of GBAS facilities used via multilateration could even go a long way to eventually solving the P-N-T issue, for protection from the 1000 year solar event. No sir, RNP, with GLS/GBAS are the future of global NAV.

[underfire]

wow, quite the discussion.

First off, take SBAS off the table for AUS. I would NEVER see AUS floating the couple of $Billion required to set this up. The 2011 report estimates $1Billion to set it up in AUS, assuming they can bogart off of other existing sat systems. (as in the Russian GLOSNAS which blew up)
There would need to be 2 sats for horizontal and 3 if you want vertical guidance. AUS doesnt have the geostationary sat coverage to put this in place, so it would have to launch their own. There would need to be 2 ground stations and the associated infrastructure in place to implement. Just forget about this.

RNP-AR needs to be certified with the avionics system on the aircraft. In time, all of the combinations will be sorted, but unless it is cert for the combination, there is significant risk.
I have had the same procedure designed for an aircraft with a certain box, that the same aircraft with a different box will disco. One has no idea of the assumptions made by the manufacturer, until there is a flight test.

It is AR for these reasons, as there are many, many assumptions made by the different manufacturers, and combinations of assumptions that may or may not work.

GBAS not only broadcasts the correction factor, it also broadcasts the parameters of the final approach segment. The broadcast includes threshold location, TCH, GPA, and FAF location. That is the guidance, nothing more.

BTW, just so you are aware, ASA owns 50% of SmartPath.

[27/09]

and with Galileo on the way,

Tom, Tell us how long had Galileo been "on the way"for now? They're now quoting 2020 before it's fully functional.

Tom SBAS is simply a $4B unnecessary obsolete waste of tax money and then underfire I would NEVER see AUS floating the couple of $Billion required to set this up.

Where do you guys get these figures from? I've heard there's been a quote that's not anywhere close to these sorts of figures. I suspect, some who quote these figures, do so to spread misinformation to detract from an SBAS solution.

If SBAS is so last year, why are many other parts of the world commissioning SBAS systems? There's three operational systems, WAAS, EGNOS, MSAS, three being implemented GAGAN, SDCM, SNAS, with one SACCSA being researched. As I said earlier, Australasia will be about the only part of the developed world without SBAS.

[27/09]

BTW, just so you are aware, ASA owns 50% of SmartPath.

Which might explain the resistance in some quarters to SBAS. SBAS is free to air, ASA cannot charge for SBAS.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Did somebody mention that Gen.3 GPS, going up now, has almost WAAS (SBAS) accuracy without the augmentation ---- all accept for aircraft and high speed trains etc.
The for ever "coming soon now" Galileo, don't forget that the accurate signal is subscription only.
Tootle pip!!

[7478ti]

The real actual cost figures for SBAS are actually worse than $4B for the US alone. The numbers you're typically seeing from ANSPs and vendors (who usually have a stake in the outcome) are NOT the fully allocated costs. Further some locations are considering SBAS for "Political" reasons, and not technical reasons, or they are being talked into adopting it by vendors selling "stuff", or they are simply poorly informed as to the true options, better and less expensive alternatives, lack of real benefits, and hidden unnecessary costs. Galileo will eventually happen. But even before that, with 30+ GPSs and SA off, there is no longer any need for SBAS in the US or anywhere. That's why airlines have been safely and successfully flying both RNP .1, and some GLS too, totally without SBAS, for well over a decade now.

Now, if we had more rational criteria by authorities, and not the present over-specified and unnecessarily complex present criteria (e.g., exceedingly poorly framed AC20-138, 90-101, etc), ... then even $2500 total cost UAVs and other vehicles, from LSAs and low end GA up to retrofit jets, could even be using it routinely and economically too, with accuracy, integrity, and availability, ...all with simple low cost GNSS Kalman filtered sensors, in FMS equivalent nav and display systems.

SBAS is now an unnecessary system whose time has come, ...and gone.

[rjtjrt]

Now, if we had more rational criteria by authorities, .....
I'm sure CASA will lead the way in THE rational use of the current GPS constellation - NOT!
As for the future with Galileo - the term "pie in the sky" comes to mind.
It is CASA and our Government with their head in the sand for proposing GBAS, and for missing out on SBAS, especially with much of the hardware for SBAS already paid for by Japan.
CASA appears to be trying to repeat the DME(A) going it alone with an orphan system with GBAS. GBAS has no future, except in Australia, where we waste money on stupidity, and a re parsimonious when it comes to common sense.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

GBAS has no future, except in Australia

Germany uses it. Frankfurt has GLS approaches.

Here is some light reading on it.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ieee_pilot/articles/96jproc12/jproc-TMurphy-2006101/article.html

[27/09]

Tom Imrich:
That's why airlines have been safely and successfully flying both RNP .1, and some GLS too, totally without SBAS, for well over a decade now.

What augmentation system are they using?

[donpizmeov]

In the last three months I have done GLS approaches in Germany, Switzerland, Australia and USA. So Oz is not alone with this.

[7478ti]

Major air-transport FMSs and AFDS typically use whatever radio, GPS, inertial, and air data sensors are available, usually with either Kalman or second order complementary filtering. None have used SBAS since the advent of SBAS, as being completely unnecessary, and just contributing to excessive cost and complexity, as well as introducing new failure modes.

However for a few recent MMRs (poorly designed by avionics vendors so as to be able sell to multiple GA customers, with common components, and to politically cater to Europe's EGNOS) unnecessarily have incorporated some SBAS capability into their units. However that capability is still unnecessary and is largely unused, even if it is in the MMR or GPSSU. For the future, MMRs will increasingly incorporate "filtered" multi-constellation GNSS capability, often also including inertial filtering, for better accuracy, integrity, and availability (e.g., to minimize ANP/EPE growth). Note that inertial capability doesn't just mean expensive IRUs or ADIRUs. Inertial can be VERY LOW COST (e.g., even accelerometers or rate gyros), such as even now used in tiny low cost UAVs and model aircraft.

As for AFDS and autoflight..., modern air-transport systems typically can accommodate ILS inputs, or radio aid (e.g., VOR) inputs, and in particular FMS LNAV and VNAV (or equivalent) inputs. All modern air transport current production jets already have or have planned capability to accommodate GLS (which is GBAS).

The comment that GLS is only applicable to Australia is completely wrong.

GLS is already being used in many more countries than even cited in the earlier posts in this thread. GLS is a terrific system, that is now being incorporated in all modern transport jets because it is vastly better than ILS, as well as significantly less expensive in the long run than ILS, and is needed for some very important reasons technically, to work in conjunction with RNP (RNP will become the global NAV standard for the next century, or longer, for all airspace users, from tiny UAVs to GA, to air transport, to military, to space access and recovery, and GLS [GBAS] will play a key role).

Hence GLS (GBAS) with RNP are the global standard for the future. This is not just an Australia issue.

Instead, it is SBAS that is now an unnecessary obsolete complete waste of money (i.e., both WAAS and EGNOS), whose days are numbered, just like the once widely touted IFR Loran C and MLS. Just ask any air transport pilot flying into places like NZQN, or PAJN, or CYLW, or ZULS, if they'd now give up RNP. Or ask any pilot that's done a well over 25 kts direct gusting crosswind A/L on a 100' wide runway, with an engine shutdown in a wide body, while nailing the centerline within about 3ft laterally (yes it can now be routinely done, and it is truly amazing to watch).

[Capn Bloggs]

Or ask any pilot that's done a well over 25 kts direct gusting crosswind A/L on a 100' wide runway, with an engine shutdown in a wide body, while nailing the centerline within about 3ft laterally (yes it can now be routinely done, and it is truly amazing to watch).
The Turkish crew at Kathmandu would beg to differ... :}

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Bloggs- I doubt the Turkish crew were doing a GLS or even an RNP-AR approach. (I know you were being sarci)

[27/09]

Tom,

If I understand you correctly the augmentation systems you mention are basically the domain of the heavy passenger jet. What about your turbo prop and GA aircraft operating IFR into places other than where there is already an ILS or VOR? I don't think they can use stuff like DME/DME or other land based nav aids for augmentation even if they were available. These aircraft make up a significant proportion of the IFR fleet.

ICAO have a recommendation to have approaches with vertical guidance to each end of the IFR runways at all airports. Many Civil Aviation Authorities and ANSP's are adopting the ICAO recommendation. I know this includes the NZCAA and Airways NZ and likely CASA and Airservices.

While Baro VNAV fulfills the vertical guidance role for some aircraft it has some serious issues. For the majority of IFR, non jet transport aircraft, SBAS is the only game in town now and in the foreseeable future. No one I know of makes IFR certified avionics for these aircraft which has augmentation other than SBAS, nor are they likely to in the future. Like it or not all of this gear comes from the US and they have SBAS and don't need to cater for anything else.

SBAS gives approaches with vertical guidance to pretty well anywhere without the need for nearby ground based aids. To me it seems a perfect fit for Australia with its vast area and many remote airfields that would benefit from an IFR approach with vertical guidance. I'd imagine the likes of the RFDS guys and girls would appreciate such an approach on a dark night into some of the places they go.

[7478ti]

Your assessment well describes the current situation, but it is only because the GA avionics manufacturers were unnecessarily and inappropriately previously led down a false dead end criteria path, largely by AIR-130 and AFS-400 toward WAAS and LPV. Now GA is in a largely self induced financial and avionics capability "swamp" for both NextGen and Sesar that will be hard to drain.

SBAS is neither necessary nor appropriate any more. With SA "Off" and 30+ SVs, plus good Baro VNAV, and especially with Kalman filtered inertial, SBAS is now an obsolete waste of money. LPV horrendously unnecessarily wastes airspace (obsolete angular criteria). Whereas, RNP is still able to serve the NAV mission better globally, and less expensively. Hopefully the GA avionics manufacturers are starting to "see the light", and recognize the key role for RNP, Baro VNAV, and GLS/GBAS as they evolve their current avionics lines. Even the BizAv avionics lines are slowly gravitating to RNP. They are retaining the SBAS elements only because of their existing poor designs, that typically don't complementary filter their sensor data well, and their hesitancy to dump now increasingly obsolete product lines. But, they need to do that anyway, because their systems are typically poorly engineered from a human factors interface perspective from the start, because they need to move to multi-constellation GNSS sensing anyway, and because inertial component costs are dramatically falling in cost and can be readily integrated now (even tiny UAVs now use filtered inertial components with GNSS).

So yes, there may be some temporary merit in flying an "ILS like" approach with RNAV systems at some locations, ....but the EXACT SAME THING could be done better, cheaper, and quicker with using RNP (WITHOUT WAAS or EGNOS). Authorities readily have the ability to "Fleet Qualify" existing nav systems for RNP, essentially the same way the airline FMSs were "Fleet Qualified" for the equivalent of RNP back in the 1990s (e.g., KEGE - which has been operating completely safely now by several airlines for well over 20 years).

The exact same thing could be done for GA, except for the intransigent of authorities, and now vested interests of a few big avionics manufacturers.

Q.E.D.

O:)
ti

[Derfred]

Tom, do you happen to know what the current issue is with the Sydney GBAS?

QF is currently restricting GLS in SYD to VMC only due to unreliability issues.

[27/09]

but the EXACT SAME THING could be done better, cheaper, and quicker with using RNP (WITHOUT WAAS or EGNOS)

I'd be keen to know how this can be achieved.

Also would I be correct in understanding that if you say SBAS isn't necessary then neither is GBAS?

[7478ti]

GBAS (but not SBAS) will always be necessary, for sub-meter positioning, for some complicated technical reasons, to get the needed ANP, with integrity and continuity. And for some other technical reasons.

I'd suggest talking directly with Alex P or Pat R about any current issues being worked with particular equipment in Australia.

SBAS hasn't been needed since SA was set to "Off", and since we now have 30+ SVs active. The situation for not needing SBAS only gets better in the future, with yet more and better SVs on the way, with multi-constellation MMR or GPSSU ops on the way also, and with better tightly coupled/filtered inertial.

[underfire]

Tom Imrich:
That's why airlines have been safely and successfully flying both RNP .1, and some GLS too, totally without SBAS, for well over a decade now.
What augmentation system are they using?

There are plenty of RNP .1 procedures out there, QANTAS, China Southern, and WestJet have many tailored procedures at this level.

No augmentation is required.

In regards to SBAS, I really dont ever see AUS investing in the stationary sats needed, nor the infrastructure to set this up. The US had 3, and when one died, they repositioned and reduced coverage area, and there are no plans to send up another.