WAAS in Australia

[rjtjrt]

With the next federal election in the foreseeable timeframe, is it time for industry and all other interested groups to start to very actively lobby for an Australian program to install ground stations to utilise Japanese MSAS/MTSAT satellites?
This could presumably partly utilise the ADS-B infrastructure and thus it would be cheaper than a de-novo system.
Surely now is the time for interested parties to join together, get the media involved, and lobby the politicians for support in the lead up to the election (when politicians and parties are more amenable to lobbying).

John

[Sunfish]

That would be much too simple. We will instead design our own system because the other one wasn't invented here.

...and when that doesn't work after spending billions, we will eventually buy WAAS.

[Capn Bloggs]

and when that doesn't work after spending billions
Billions on what, Sunfish?

[T28D]

Our very own 25 or more ground stationsto give us Geo reference for the GPS signal

[mnehpets]

With the next federal election in the foreseeable timeframe, is it time for industry and all other interested groups to start to very actively lobby for an Australian program to install ground stations to utilise Japanese MSAS/MTSAT satellites?
This could presumably partly utilise the ADS-B infrastructure and thus it would be cheaper than a de-novo system.


While I would very much like to see this happen, I think it's very unlikely.

The SBAS review in 2011 came to a clear conclusion that was something like "difficult to justify the costs" of around $150 - $200 million, and that's assuming we do the intelligent thing and piggyback on MSAS. There was already a fair bit of lobbying going on during the SBAS review. I don't see how more lobbying will change minds.

In the longer term, there is hope for an SBAS in Australia, though. There are a bunch of new satellite constellations running on multiple frequencies that are coming online (slowly) - namely GPS block III, galileo, glonass, compass and qzss. Supposedly, by using the multi-frequency + multi constellations, we can get the fault tolerance and accuracy benefits of SBAS without the need for a ground reference network (or possibly with a much smaller ground reference network). Unfortunately, this is still at the research stage, and it'd probably be 2020 or later before it will be in a useable form.

- S

[swh]

Technically I think this is not possible. From what I understand the WAAS transmissions made in Japan are referenced to GPS receivers (measuring the differential) on the ground in Japan providing the WAAS capability over that local geographic area.

I would think that potentially using that WAAS differential signal in Australia (which is essentially a time shift of the GPS signal in the receiver) could put an aircraft way off course compared to turning the WAAS signal off. GPS receivers work their positions out by looking at the time differance between GPS signals, WAAS makes an adjustment to these time series.

A receiver in Australia would see a different satellite constellation than a receiver in Japan would at any given time (a satellite that is visible in Japan could be beyond the horizon in Australia), and is the WAAS transmission is making corrections to only part of the constellation that a receiver in Australia would have visible.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Not quite right regarding the MTSAT.

The Japanese Department of Transport wanted to get Australia on board from the start. So much so that there is a ref station uplink in Canberra as well as one in Hawaii. All that is required is the ground constellation to work out the differentials and transmit the code up to the MTSAT. There is already a transponder pointing this way. If you are wondering what coverage would be like, just look at any satellite picture of our neck of the woods. Those pics are from the MTSAT. $300million is bogus, the ground stations are already there, surveyed in, already talking to mummy, just need another aerial and another tray in the rack.

What IS required is to organise a cohort of like minded industry users to lobby Canberra to show it isn't just aviation that can benefit from this technology. Lord knows it will save lives out in the GAFA...GAFA? any time there is marginal wx it will save lives or rather, put lives at less risk.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
One of the obstacles we face is that aviation is only one small section of the community that uses GPS systems.
In the US in particular, there are many ground based users of GPS/WAAS positioning accuracy.

With the coming of the new generation of GPS, WAAS like accuracies will be available without WAAS, but only to slow moving targets.

Thus, we are faced with a situation where aviation will be the only beneficiary of WAAS, the notional cost can only be spread over a very narrow field, in any cost/benefit analysis.

Of course, in a "user pays" environment, WAAS is unpopular, because gummint/AirServices haven't been able to devise a way for charging for it.

Tootle pip!!

[mnehpets]

Technically I think this is not possible. From what I understand the WAAS transmissions made in Japan are referenced to GPS receivers (measuring the differential) on the ground in Japan providing the WAAS capability over that local geographic area.


It's possible. MSAS (and the other WAAS compatible systems) are designed to provide service over a wide area (theoretically, the entire earth, but this may be limited by the available bandwidth in the SBAS bitstream). The correction messages fall into two categories - the satellite clock/position errors, which are obviously useable whether the end user is in Japan or in Australia; and the ionosphere corrections. We can extend MSAS to provide the ionospheric corrections over Australia if we add a ground reference stations to the MSAS reference network. It's this local ground reference network that we'll need to get funding for.

Actually, an alternative setup would be to build our own SBAS system, and simply use the MSAS satellites to broadcast the correction messages. However, I don't see any practical advantage in this approach over the extend-MSAS approach.

the ground stations are already there, surveyed in, already talking to mummy, just need another aerial and another tray in the rack


Errrm... We need a full network of ground reference stations - a single station won't give sufficient coverage to get the necessary ionospheric correction data.

- S

[swh]

The correction messages fall into two categories - the satellite clock/position errors, which are obviously useable whether the end user is in Japan or in Australia; and the ionosphere corrections. We can extend MSAS to provide the ionospheric corrections over Australia if we add a ground reference stations to the MSAS reference network.

I understand how the corrections are made and what they are correcting, my point was without the ground stations in Australia, that see the satellites that a receiver in Australia would see, a WAAS correction from Japan would not be technically possible.

However, I don't see any practical advantage in this approach over the extend-MSAS approach.

We should leverage on equipment available elsewhere to reduce costs, it would be pointless having a system which requires Australia specific avionics.

[baswell]

Errrm... We need a full network of ground reference stations
That's what he's saying, we have a network: the ADS-B ground stations. Just a bit of extra kit in them and done.

[Jack Ranga]

Lordy-lordy,

As Leadsled says (we are on the same page brutha) the ONLY reason it aint happening is because the turds in Canberra haven't figured out a way of charging for it. Good ole Australian user pays! If a politicians wife, son or daughter (or mistress, gay lover etc) is killed through it not being switched on, rest assured it will be switched on the day after.

[T28D]

Found out today, you can actually polish a turd if you soak it in liquid nitrogen first, weshould tell the folk in Northborne Avenue.

[swh]

As Leadsled says (we are on the same page brutha) the ONLY reason it aint happening is because the turds in Canberra haven't figured out a way of charging for it. Good ole Australian user pays! If a politicians wife, son or daughter (or mistress, gay lover etc) is killed through it not being switched on, rest assured it will be switched on the day after.

There is already a government funded network in place, however I do not think it is aviation grade. Geoscience Australia is the federal government organisation responsible for managing the Australian geospatial infrastructure. The network is already used for marine, land, and airborne applications.

[Old Akro]

I kind of agree with Lead Sled / Jack Ranga, but think the stumbling block to WAAS is that the airlines don't need it. The hockey stick high traffic routes are served by ILS and no where else really matters.

Although (with less sarcasm) most other locations in Australia have good enough weather than GNSS NPA is good enough.

It should be noted that Australia does have WAAS beacons, but they point to sea for marine use and are not usable for aviation.

[baswell]

I do not think it is aviation grade
You mean over-priced, under performing and without validation or redundancy? :ugh:

Australia does have WAAS beacons, but they point to sea for marine use
I don't think that is WAAS, but rather a completely separate system and you need a special receiver, just a normal WAAS one won't do. Farmers use a GBAS too for auto-steering their tractors, but again: not WAAS.

[Oktas8]

One of the major benefits of SBAS is the improved availability of the GPS signal, so an alternate is not required when your destination is only served by a GNSS approach. I would have thought that this is more important (cost-saving) to Australian pilots than the use of lower approach minima, given our weather conditions most of the time. It will be even more important when Airservices gets around to de-commissioning many of the local NDBs.

But this is likely to be addressed by receivers simultaneously using Galileo and GPS Block III signals within the next ten years. (More satellites to choose from, and receiving on two or three frequencies simultaneously.) So as a tax payer I'd question the wisdom of developing a network of SBAS reference stations at this stage.

[Old Akro]

WAAS is a form of differential GPS (DGPS), nothing more, nothing less. It improves accuracy by a) proving an accurate ground based position, b) improving error checking of other satellites and c) importantly for instrument approaches, it allows triangulation from a low reference to give better vertical location. Trying to triangulate from overhead satellites results in triangles with very acute angles which has poor precision. You can have as many satellites as you want does not improve vertical accuracy. You can already buy handheld GPS units that will receive GPS, GLONASS and Galileo satellites. I think that gives access to maybe more than 60 satellites. How many do you need?

Without knowing the costs, I don't believe WAAS stations would be expensive. The money would be in the building, antennae, UPS, etc. The technology of the WAAS transmitter is cheap. It will, however, require ASA to create a bunch of new certified approaches. Maybe that is the real stumbling block?

[Jack Ranga]

Is it not correct that only one or two ground stations are required for the Australian continent for WAAS? If that is the case, there is NO excuse for it not being available.

[blacknight]

Surely with the savings in maintenance requirements on the NDB's and VOR's that are shut down (or will be shut down in the near future) the cost of this new technology would be covered.
GPS/RNAV is all we will have to play with in crook weather west of the sandstone curtain so there would be a significant safety aspect to consider. Any vertical guidance to possible lower minimums would be a real plus. Alternate requirements, while most important, are a real pain when there is a need to carry heaps of fuel because of the distance to the nearest alt.

[Old Akro]

The US has 25 stations which gives total Nth American coverage. They area only required near airports, so you'd think that maybe 10 would do Australia. Just my guess.

[duncan_g]

Actually the location and number of stations has little to do with airports - the station density is required to generate a sufficiently detailed map of the ionosphere so that local corrections can be calculated by the SBAS receiver. The more stations you have, then the more ionospheric measurements you have, which means you can have a higher resolution map of the ionosphere.

So the number of stations required to cover the whole of Australia would be roughly the same as the U.S.

edit: I should clarify by saying that I think a level of performance can be achieved with a smaller number of stations, but the vertical integrity required for APV approaches might not be achieved with sufficient availability...

edit: replace WAAS with SBAS.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

AUSTRALIAN STRATEGIC PLAN FOR GNSS (http://www.crcsi.com.au/getattachment/4e4d9bcc-1173-4a22-92ed-e0d7f22fd326/.aspx)

Some applications of GPS, such as aviation, require a much higher level of guaranteed service (referred to as “integrity”) compared to standalone or enhanced accuracy services. A Space Based Augmentation
System (SBAS) is an example of a service which, in addition to broadcasting corrections to improve the accuracy of position, delivers GPS integrity
information to users, essential for mission critical applications. An SBAS consists of one or more geostationary satellites which transmit position
and integrity information to users, derived from a permanent ground-based reference station network.

An advantage of an SBAS for aviation users over a system using a terrestrial communications link is that it would provide nation-wide (and possibly
regional) coverage. Aviation is the primary application for enhanced
integrity GPS services. This capability is particularly important to support the implementation of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) and Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV) (Australian Government, 2009b). APV is vital in mitigating Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) incidents such as those which occurred at Lockhart River, Queensland, 2005 (15 fatalities) and Kokoda, Papua New Guinea, 2009 (13 fatalities) (Civil Aviation Safety Authority,
2010). APV approaches, such as those enabled by SBAS, are some eight times safer than non-APV approaches. Australia has supported an International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) resolution that commits the nation to adoption of APV by 2016. To date no firm plans exist to build and operate an Australian or regional SBAS, though discussions are taking place within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

We need to see what is out there before we start asking about what we need. Quick read of this paper shows the bofins stuck on centimetric accuracy with a huge array of constant monitoring netwroks which just will not work....BUT....note the date....2016 to adopt APV...CASA is talking to Japan and India. Maybe a few letters to the CASA to look at the idea of economic fitout using existing infrastructure. The bofins see SBAS as too inaccurate for intended purposes...read that as similar to automatic unmanned control of heavy mining equipment.

Here is our go to man-
Dirk Noordewier Air Transport Inspector, Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation, Civil Aviation Safety Authority ([email protected])

Here is the plan (http://www.icao.int/safety/pbn/PBNStatePlans/Australia%20PBN%20plan.pdf) as of 2010.

General note- This industry needs someone to keep tabs on what is actually happening with regards to regulation and implimentation. These studies have been going on since 2007 and over subjects that have been broached on this forum and have been deemed as too expensive or not here because we want to charge users for it.

EDIT- The cop out is implimentation of Baro-VNAV for APV...methinks a concerted nudge with some well placed advocacy may change the CASAs tune if they have signed up to implimentation by 2016. IFF SBAS/WAAS available thru MTSAT...AirServices designs the approaches, those companies with a need get their equipment certified for LPV and we have CAT I like approaches on our regional RPT networks...saving lives! LHR or YHOT or YBLA need never happen again....EVER!

[duncan_g]

Airservices had a plan; it was called Ground-based Regional Augmentation System (GRAS). Basically SBAS but without the 'Satellite' - the GPS corrections being broadcast via VHF data transmitters. Bill Ely's thesis is a great overview of the history, and can be found by google search. Unfortunately despite substantial effort by individuals within AsA, that plan did not come to fruition.

The biggest drawback to SBAS for Australia has been the cost of the satellites to host the SBAS transmitters - but hey, guess what we're getting with the NBN... NBN Satellites For Remotest towns (http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/620m-nbn-satellites-to-connect-remotest-towns-20120208-1rbbu.html) :ok:

[swh]

The US has 25 stations which gives total Nth American coverage. They area only required near airports, so you'd think that maybe 10 would do Australia. Just my guess.

Geoscience Australia already has 50 ground stations in service. Japan in comparison has 10.

[27/09]

I think you don't have to look to far past ASA to find the reason WAAS hasn't happened. It's the same reason why it hasn't happened in this side of the Tasman either. ASA and Airways NZ haven't found a way to obtain revenue from WAAS or other SBAS systems as they are basically free to air, plus as has been mentioned the big guys don't need it.

How many dollars did ASA spend on their GBAS system that they tried to develop with Honeywell. Ground Based Augmentation System | GBAS | (http://www.jetcorpaustralia.com/content_common/pg-ground-based-augmentation-system.seo)

What happened to this? Was supposed to be up and running in 2009.

I suspect their motivation for such a system is so that they can develop a revenue stream out it.

[27/09]

OZBUSDRIVER
EDIT- The cop out is implimentation of Baro-VNAV for APV...methinks a concerted nudge with some well placed advocacy may change the CASAs tune if they have signed up to implimentation by 2016. IFF SBAS/WAAS available thru MTSAT...AirServices designs the approaches, those companies with a need get their equipment certified for LPV and we have CAT I like approaches on our regional RPT networks...saving lives! LHR or YHOT or YBLA need never happen again....EVER!

I agree, Not a truer word written in this subject.

[alphacentauri]

How do you think we feel!!?? The procedure designers at AsA have been tasked with rolling out Baro-VNAV to an industry which doesn't want them because 90% of you can't/won't be able to fly them.

We have so many other things we need to be focusing on right now,but unfortunately Baro gets all the attention. The only reason being, we are running behind in the roll out program and CASA might not be able to meet their ICAO obligations. There are a few managers kpi's linked to this as well.

Sometimes its just embarrassing


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[rjtjrt]

Ozbusdriver wrote "...read that as similar to automatic unmanned control of heavy mining equipment"

If there was some way mining could use an SBAS/WAAS to reduce costs of running mines (a hot topic at the moment) this would be a powerful ally to have in the advocacy for Australia implementing a SBAS/WAAS.

[Capn Bloggs]

It's the same reason why it hasn't happened in this side of the Tasman either. ASA and Airways NZ haven't found a way to obtain revenue from WAAS or other SBAS systems as they are basically free to air, plus as has been mentioned the big guys don't need it.

The Kiwis have APV ie LNAV/VNAV already without SBAS or WAAS:

http://www.aip.net.nz/pdf/NZAA_70.25Y.pdf

I wonder if the 2016 CASA target is only for our charts to be redone for LNAV/VNAV?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

EDIT- The cop out is implimentation of Baro-VNAV for APV...methinks a concerted nudge with some well placed advocacy may change the CASAs tune if they have signed up to implimentation by 2016. IFF SBAS/WAAS available thru MTSAT...AirServices designs the approaches, those companies with a need get their equipment certified for LPV and we have CAT I like approaches on our regional RPT networks...saving lives! LHR or YHOT or YBLA need never happen again....EVER!

:confused::confused::confused::confused: LHR happened because the flight crew did not follow the approach as it was written. People continue to prang off ILS approaches because they do not follow the procedure as it is written. How is VNAV going to change that?

Dr :8

[Capn Bloggs]

Doctor, VNAV (in any form) reduces the potential for crews to get vertically lost on the approach, esp those @#$%^ GPS NPAs that have a waypoint in the guts of the critical portion.

Follow the VNAV and monitor it as opposed to working it out yourself. Trust me. VNAV is goooood.

[Sunfish]

How many dollars did ASA spend on their GBAS system that they tried to develop with Honeywell. Ground Based Augmentation System | GBAS |

There is a pervasive trap in the adoption of new technology that snares almost all businesses and governments at some time.

That is the phenomenon of the good being rejected in favour of the pursuit of the mythical perfect.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in Australia. Let me give you a simple example that illustrates this completely:

I have a friend who at one time imported Nolan motorcycle helmets. These are and always have been at the very edge of state of the art in the field and they are also made in the worlds most advanced helmet factory in Europe and meet or exceed both European and American standards.

...Except they hadn't been tested to Australian standards had they? They couldn't be sold in this country without that little Standards Australia mark on the label. In Australia the heads and necks are more fragile and the bitumen harder than in Europe. or so we are lead to believe. The factory was incredulous - you want us to do these stupid tests and jump through Australian hoops? OK, but it is going to cost you. What a waste of time and money to keep some Australian bureaucratic prick in a make work job.

These days evey box of cornflakes comes with a WAAS enabled GPS in it. Has Australia adopted WAAS? Nope. Instead it pursued its own purpose built system that not only is expensive, but it cannot be sold to the rest of the world.

The country is littered with examples of purpose built Australian technology or "customised" technology (read unuseable anywhere else) when something off the shelf from Europe or America would do almost as well - and at a fraction of the cost. The case of the entire avaition regulation suite is a case in point. Why don't we adopt the FAA rules?

If I was dictator, I would mandate that any time a DIN anr UL standard existed for something that met 90% of Australias needs it must be adopted. The same with any communications or transport technology. Keep australian standards for things that are totally unique to Australia - like Koala enclosures.

[reynoldsno1]

The procedure designers at AsA have been tasked

... at the rate they are resigning, they will soon be an endangered species.:oh:

[ollie_a]

On the plus side, lots of jobs available for trainee or qualified designers.

[alphacentauri]

... at the rate they are resigning, they will soon be an endangered species.:oh:

Mate, I'd say we already are...

[baswell]

Sunfish: It's not just bikie necks and craniums; the same goes for those of infants and thus we get a very small selection of overpriced seats with poor ergonomics design. And you get fined if you don't anchor them to the boot because the seatbelt it is also attached to, rated to hold 150 KG blokes in a head-on collision, isn't capable of saving your little bundle of joy. :ugh:

And don't get me started on the quality of electrical wiring done by those "licensed cablers" I find in all the houses I have lived in. Wiring I can't touch (not even change a light fitting) because I have not taken a 4 year apprenticeship.

But every hoon can soup up their cars and tinker with the brakes. :ok:

Well done Australian Standards - and the sparky union/lobby.

(as much as this is off-topic, it goes to show a systematic problem in government, not limited to aviation)

[Oktas8]

The Kiwis have APV ie LNAV/VNAV already without SBAS or WAAS:

The Kiwis also don't necessarilyrequire an alternate if your destination is served only by a GPS approach. Mucho cost saving in remote areas, although unusual by worldwide standards. Their laws around use of VNAV are quite restrictive for GA, so it's not quite as great as that AA approach plate indicates.

SBAS also removes the alternate requirement, and it seems likely Galileo will have similar availability and integrity, using the same concept as the military P-channel on GPS. It'll be a game changer I think, although not so much perhaps for the airlines locked into using ancient FMS equipment.

[baswell]

If there was some way mining could use an SBAS/WAAS to reduce costs of running mines (a hot topic at the moment) this would be a powerful ally to have in the advocacy for Australia implementing a SBAS/WAAS.
Having done a short stint at BHP a few years ago, I can assure you they are not waiting for anyone. The plan is to survey their own locations around the mine, get off-the-shelf GBAS equipment and get on with it.

Probably costs them a couple of million, but as they are saving millions each year by using autonomous vehicles, it's a no-brainer.

[baswell]

it seems likely Galileo will have similar availability and integrity, using the same concept as the military P-channel on GPS. It'll be a game changer I think, although not so much perhaps for the airlines locked into using ancient FMS equipment.
I am not convinced.

Galileo is certainly capable, but I don't see any current TSO c145/146 GPS manufacturers jumping on it.

It's optimistically called "GNSS" instead of GPS to make it sound generic, but I am skeptical it will work that way in practice.

I see a lot of obstacles before a Galileo (or hybrid Galileo/GPS/GLONAS) unit is the considered the equal of a c145 GPS by CASA.

Be nice to see it this side of 2025, but I doubt it...

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Sound like our old mate Bloggs has finally found an aircraft with LNAV/VNAV capabilities, which many of us in Australia have been using since the mid-1980's

Our mates across the Tasman are a bit quicker off the mark than Australia, having introduced a FMS/ILS approach, and STAR FMS arrival routes many years (at least 12) ago. They were intended to be flown LNAV/VNAM until established on final, where approach could be selected to couple to the ILS.

Absent the ILS, the FMS approach (as it was called at the time) had a minima the same as a VOR/DME minima.

The approach design was base on an FAA AC, it all worked very well, I used it in up to 60 kt. X-winds joining RW 23 in NZAA, worked a treat every time.

There is nothing (except some dopy company policies) to stop you using LNAV/VNAV where it is possible, without WAAS equivalent accuracy, as long as you monitor raw data from the appropriate nav aids (see you AFM limitations)or the profile for a GNSS approach, and gain a large proportion of the benefits of FMS based VNAV.

Bas,
Re. the mines etc., the new generation GPS will provide the same accuracy as present GPS/WAAS, without the WAAS. The differential GPS that has been available for yonks in Australia provides centimeter accuracy --- but only for stationary or slow moving receivers.

Tootle pip!!

[baswell]

the new generation GPS will provide the same accuracy as present GPS/WAAS
And unlike aviation, the miners won't need a decade long certification and approval process. Once enough Galileo birds are up, they can use it the next day.

[Capn Bloggs]

And unlike aviation, the miners won't need a decade long certification and approval process. Once enough Galileo birds are up, they can use it the next day.
Maybe not you, but I want any new-fangled technology tested properly. BHP rolls a truck off a track because the GPS was out? Who cares.

Fare-paying pax are a different matter.

[Oktas8]

but I want any new-fangled technology tested properly.

In this corner of the world I think Galileo-only receivers will be as rare as hen's teeth. Dual receiver units will be the big seller for aviation at least, or so my tea leaves say... Also, bear in mind the two services use the same technology, so it's not revolutionary.

Makes for good fail-safes if the Germans switch off the Greek & Spanish satellites for non-payment of bills. :O

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Given the ongoing financial turmoil surrounding Galileo, I wouldn't be developing any business plans based on its availability.
Don't forget, Galileo was in financial strife before the GFC, recession in Europe only makes a final decision to genuinely support is even more protracted, perhaps even unlikely.

Bloggs, old mate, fear not, the new generation GPS will have little to no impact on aviation.

Tootle pip!!

[baswell]

Maybe not you, but I want any new-fangled technology tested properly.
Well, they still allow NDB approaches with fare paying passengers. :rolleyes:

So given the option of that versus a fresh out of the box first-gen Garmin consumer Galileo handheld - I know which one I regard the safer one! :ok:

[27/09]

Capn Bloggs
Doctor, VNAV (in any form) reduces the potential for crews to get vertically lost on the approach, esp those @#$%^ GPS NPAs that have a waypoint in the guts of the critical portion.

Follow the VNAV and monitor it as opposed to working it out yourself. Trust me. VNAV is goooood.

Precisely, and until all GPS approaches (most particularly those with a waypoint half way down the approach) have VNAV then more LHR type accidents are only a matter of time.

Baro VNAV isn't available for everyone. WAAS solves the VNAV issues nice and simply for everyone.

As for Galileo, how long has it been coming for now? It wouldn't surprise me if it never saw the light of day.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

A SPACE BASED AUGMENTATION SYSTEM FOR AUSTRALIA (http://www.crcsi.com.au/getattachment/2a89c330-42b3-4907-98ee-d535e03a425d/.aspx)

Read this and it will make you cry...$60million that is all it would have cost!

Even joining with regional systems will cost an upfront of $30million for the ground ref stations.

If only space was made available on the NBN birds:{

[OZBUSDRIVER]

BARO-VNAV....in case nobody explains it...if your a/c is fitted with a FMS and you can receive a reliable barometric data stream your system can derive an altimeter aided LNAV approach...So...no FMS no BARO-VNAV! and THAT is in the realm of million dollar fitouts!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Precisely, and until all GPS approaches (most particularly those with a waypoint half way down the approach) have VNAV then more LHR type accidents are only a matter of time.

Nah sorry, can't follow your logic! LHR happened because the crew did not follow the procedure as it is writ - simple as that. Time has proven that the @#$%wits will always find new ways to kill themselves, and unfortunately, unsuspecting others!

Dr :8

[Jabawocky]

I have to agree 100% with the Dr.

That is like saying a LOC is dangerous Vs an ILS. no it is not, it is just different and if flown as published is safe.

The FACT is with a LPV WAAS approach, there will be far more effective landings from approaches in crap weather. Safety may not be different if flown by the book. but the results as far as landings will improve.

The biggest benefit is for not just folk like me, who would be better off having lower minima, by just getting in, but for the RFDS, regional airlines and other corporate folk who waste millions of dollars in jet fuel doing several approaches or diverting all for the sake of 300 feet.

WAAS is in my opinion more important than some stupid NBN.....we want aircraft landing in the bush and regional centres....not faster porn!

The sooner the pollies get this fact the better.:ugh:

[T28D]

What is wrong with high quality Porn delivered at acceptable speeds, I thought this is an Aviators Site, porn ( soft nose art ) comes with the territory.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Agree Jab and Dr. However, in all cases described, if pilot flying had a GS to monitor as opposed to procedure or the assumption of performance whether intentional or accidental...well...I firmly believe there would have been a different outcome.

Now that I have read a few government papers and quietly curse the lack of advertising of intent, I am appalled, that for so little funds,in what would have resulted in the most desired outcome, at this result.

[baswell]

That is like saying a LOC is dangerous Vs an ILS. no it is not, it is just different and if flown as published is safe.
Complexity is the mother of all stuff-ups. Make it less complex and it will be safer.

Not having read the report, surely their intention was to fly it as published but failed to do so?

[27/09]

FTDK

Nah sorry, can't follow your logic! LHR happened because the crew did not follow the procedure as it is writ -

It's a given they didn't follow the procedure as writ. IIRC there was a theory they been referencing their profile off the incorrect waypoint i.e using the wrong GPS distance.

Most GPS approaches count down 5,4,3,2,1,FF,5,4,3,2,1,MAP. In the heat of the moment, on a dark ****ty night, it would be very easy to look at the wrong No. 5 or 4 or 3 etc and attempt to fly the profile 5 miles low with disastrous results.

One any other approach (NDB,VOR,LOC,ILS) there isn't two sets of count down distances, they count down 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,MAP. Therefore making a profile check mistake very unlikely.

Hope you now follow my logic.

[Flying Binghi]

via rjtjrt #01;

With the next federal election in the foreseeable timeframe, is it time for industry and all other interested groups to start to very actively lobby for an Australian program to install ground stations to utilise Japanese MSAS/MTSAT satellites?
This could presumably partly utilise the ADS-B infrastructure and thus it would be cheaper than a de-novo system.
Surely now is the time for interested parties to join together, get the media involved, and lobby the politicians for support in the lead up to the election (when politicians and parties are more amenable to lobbying).




via LeadSled #45;

...Given the ongoing financial turmoil surrounding Galileo, I wouldn't be developing any business plans based on its availability.
Don't forget, Galileo was in financial strife before the GFC, recession in Europe only makes a final decision to genuinely support is even more protracted, perhaps even unlikely...




Interesting how there are some who want Australia's airspace to become even more reliant, perhaps totally reliant, on a GPS based navigation system that Australia neither owns nor controls...:hmm:

I wonder what the legal liability is for Airservices/CASA if the GPS based airspace system that is being further introduced and mandated with expensive equipment requirements for aircraft owners is suddenly lost....






.

[Shagpile]

Most GPS approaches count down 5,4,3,2,1,FF,5,4,3,2,1,MAP. In the heat of the moment, on a dark ****ty night, it would be very easy to look at the wrong No. 5 or 4 or 3 etc and attempt to fly the profile 5 miles low with disastrous results.

I also have difficulty reading these and find it confusing where I am. Granted I'm using a crappy centuries old GPS hand flying but none the less it can be misread.

Also the numbers count backwards depending which way along the page it's written. Eg if the final profile is drawn right-left the numbers will try to match the profile. Can be confusing if not familiar with which way they go.

I think it should definitely be published as 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 however probably too hard to change GPS's which only provide distance to next WP and don't show dist to threshold.

[Oktas8]

I think it should definitely be published as 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 however probably too hard to change GPS's which only provide distance to next WP and don't show dist to threshold.

Yes & yes. A pseudo glideslope would certainly make life safer for the punters. Not at all removing responsibility from captains to take care, as the fork-tailed one is quite right. But, looking at long term statistical accident rates for different approaches, if an approach is easier to interpret and easier to notice errors from, it's going to be safer in terms of lives lost per 1000 approaches.

Interesting how there are some who want Australia's airspace to become even more reliant ... on a GPS based navigation system that Australia neither owns nor controls.

Goodness me Flying Bingi. Who makes & supports the radars that Airservices use? Who makes & supports the airliners that we all fly in? Who makes the back-office IT infrastructure that the entire airspace system relies on? I do think it's a little late for the "if we don't control it then we won't use it" argument.

I'm always sorry to see the legal liability threat being raised. Far too much of that already from CASA. If there is a genuine risk of GPS being shut down, by all means promote it with evidence and robust analysis.

[Flying Binghi]

.


Hmmm... my last post disappeared. Bit of a mystery..:confused:


Seems "promote it with evidence and robust analysis" is not wanted around here - stick head in sand and toe the party line perhaps..:hmm:






.

[Capn Bloggs]

Hmmm... my last post disappeared. Bit of a mystery..
Bombed out eh Binji??

[Frank Arouet]

I don't know why I do this. (contribute to a wankathon), Boredom perhaps, but;

Given Australlian land mass 7.5 million sq kilometers.

x 500 ft intervals to 20,000 ft = 40 x 7.5 = 300,000,000 (million) sq kilometers. Some of you bokes want to "own" this all, because an Auster with a turbocharger might bite you on the bum. Whats the odds you gamblers? I met a Chinaman at the casino the other day that will give odds. Worked out pretty much in his favour but.

Stick to the "J" curve if you must, but leave us in the boonies alone.

Space travellers excluded of course.

Above FL 200, do your own thing.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis.....wrong thread, mate!:hmm:

[Frank Arouet]

Apologies, I thought this was about wide area augmentation system to facilitate a space sponsored ADSB like system that would inpact upon people like me in "the boonies" who fly VFR from paddock to paddock and simply don't give a toss about people mucking about in clouds in class C airspace and don't want to be made to pay to make other peoples perceived safety threats meet the new CASA standards.

Safe sky's are empty sky's, even in Ralmadel.

[Flying Binghi]

via Capn Bloggs;
Bombed out eh Binji??


I'll take that as a dorethy dixer..:)


Interesting yer bring up "bombed out" there Capn Bloggs

Few years back i did make mention on occasion of the potential fer terrorists to use GPS guided drones (UAV/UAS) as very precise bombs. There were many derogertary comments about it at the time... Bingy's buzz bombs ah think they were called by some..:hmm:

Seems all the research i did at the time of the literature and blog commentators suggesting the potential for terrorists using GPS for bomb drone guidence is coming to be as has been proven by the recent Hezbollah GPS guided drone (UAV/UAS) flight into Israel. (The latest is apparently the sixth known UAV flight and it appears it were unarmed)

Bringing WAAS and simular into the equation with enhanced 'vertical' GPS the terrorists should be able to 'deliver' a bomb drone to a cubic metre of airspace.


GPS - the best tool for terrorists ever invented...








.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, the argument is how we missed out on getting an enhanced GPS system for feckall dollars. There were certain among us who espoused an amount that was a figure too big to jump over. I was inclined to believe them because I did not have accurate information to disprove them...so...no argument from me. And now, we find that figure was in accurate by a factor of at least 50, do you think I am not happy? $60million, this prigs spend more on shuttling refugees around the country. NOT HAPPY, JAN!

[Frank Arouet]

Yes well, when you put it that way..................

All the best for Christmas.;)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

A little bit of info dug up by a wily old dog:ok:

Ground based GPS backup system to cover White Sands Missile Range (http://www.flyingmag.com/news/ground-based-gps-backup-system-cover-white-sands)
Interesting!

An Australian Company! (http://www.locatacorp.com/)

Ground based backup system that is DGPS accurate. The issue will be if these guys are willing to jump through all the TSO hoops. Hope they do.

Does not require satellite input! (http://www.locatacorp.com/2012/12/locata-press-release-usaf-awards-locata-contract/)

Nunzio Gambale on Radio National 2010 (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/australian-locator-technology-challenges-gps/2970006#transcript)

Article Canberra Times (http://m.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/new-act-gadget-to-access-all-areas-with-wifi-20120719-22d7o.html)

[baswell]

Ground based backup system that is DGPS accurate. The issue will be if these guys are willing to jump through all the TSO hoops. Hope they do.
And be able to convince Garmin, etc, to make their receivers compatible.

[27/09]

And be able to convince Garmin, etc, to make their receivers compatible. That is very unlikely to happen. Why? Where is Garmin's biggest market? Does that market need another augmentation system?

[Sunfish]

Flying bing hi. Gps is very easy to jam. Try using one near a US warship with its "gear" turned on.

Frank, the trouble with your " big skies " theory is that most people fly point to point, and if they are navigating via GPS and using aerodrome reference points as waypoints then you can guarantee they will track identically and you had better pray for sufficient quadrantal altitude discipline.

I've had that happen to me, which is why I now " fly all over the sky" and always offset from recognized waypoints.

I guess we will get WAAS when car drivers and miners need it.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Broad acre farmers, exploration crews, transport,....any need for better than first order tachyometry.

Locatacorp may classify as a propitiatory GBAS system. However it shows the technology available.

[Oktas8]

Locatacorp may classify as a propitiatory GBAS system.

Ah, a GBAS system that appeases the angry GPS gods. Very important when navigating near Mt Olympus and Valhalla. Some say that a propitiatory system also atones for sins against the lesser CASA deities, but this has been demonstrated to be heresy.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Bludy apple phones Propriatory...:ugh:

Howabout I try.....proprietary....:{

[baswell]

TSO c145 compliance is pretty much impossible without licensing patents. (Don't get me started!)

As much as I hate it, I see the next generation of this sort of stuff being proprietary. Best we can hope for is the requirement that it be licensed under reasonable terms if adopted by government.

This has been the norm in the US with a lot of technologies for a long time, most prominently TV and radio.

[Oktas8]

If you're talking about software and hardware implementation at the user level, well, you're absolutely right, no argument. There are some very clever proprietary algorithms in use even now to get more & more accuracy out of the basic signal.

I think it's helpful that the GPS space and control segments are operated by the USA for national security purposes. The technology is owned by a very public-spirited, dare I say generous, govt. The next iteration of civil technology is likely to use multiple frequencies to generate a fix currently only available to P (military) code users, so will continue to be free to all.

[LeadSled]

Frank, the trouble with your " big skies " theory is that most people fly point to point, and if they are navigating via GPS and using aerodrome reference points as waypoints

That is certainly a problem, hence the recommendation to always fly 1 nm right of track --- you will find it somewhere in the AIPA.
This procedure (long used in international ops --- in some parts of the world we flew 5R on the doppler, due local ATC, back in B707 days) is now formal, despite the long and loud objections of the AFAP. In those days it wasn't legal, but being alive beats legal any day.

Better still, with GPS, VFR, why track via areas of possible traffic. IFR, direct tracking where possible, and stick with 1R

Remember the definition of ATC: "A system whereby a small number of aircraft, in a vast and empty sky, are all concentrated over one point, greatly increasing the collision risk, thereby justifying air traffic control".

Merry Christmas, all!!.

Tootle pip!!

[Jack Ranga]

lol :D :D

You're a stupid prick if ever there was one! lol

Happy Christmas Leadie :ok:

[LeadSled]

Jack,
Such kind words for Christmas.
Why am I reminded of an old saying: "It takes one to know one"
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

hence the recommendation to always fly 1 nm right of track --- you will find it somewhere in the AIPA.

Hey Leedie, give us a Christmas present for a change; give us a reference! :8

[rjtjrt]

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/517250-virgin-aircraft-emergency-landing.html

This is another reason why the aviation industry should push for Australia to implement a WAAS equivalent.
Virgin (and QANTAS) caught above Mildura with airport navaids inadequate to the weather conditions, and diminishing options.
Public safety is a powerful argument for industry lobbying, and the approaching election is the time to do it.

[Flying Binghi]

via rjtjrt:
This is another reason why the aviation industry should push for Australia to implement a WAAS equivalent.
Virgin (and QANTAS) caught above Mildura with airport navaids inadequate to the weather conditions, and diminishing options.
Public safety is a powerful argument for industry lobbying, and the approaching election is the time to do it.

"...Public safety is a powerful argument..."

The aircraft has safely landed. SOP,s worked as advertised. Whats the drama about ?






.

[rjtjrt]

Hardly SOP's.
See

Investigation: AO-2013-100 - Weather related operational event involving B737s VH-YIR and VH-VYK at Mildura Airport, Victoria on 18 June 2013 (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-100.aspx)

As I said, public safety is a powerful arguement for Australia adopting a SBAS, equivalent to WAAS. It would make a much deeper layer of safety for multiple ops around Australia. It would have assisted significantly in this incident, where minima had to be compromised.

[macpacheco]

The big limitation about SBAS today (WAAS, MSAS, EGNOS) is the iono grid.
You need lots of reference stations to calculate a precise enough iono grid.
That's why there are no LPV approaches in Hawaii, even if the FAA were to add one station in every major island plus one in Guam, the Marshall Islands, still the iono grid calculation wouldn't be good enough.
But all of this ends with dual frequency GNSS.
Dual frequency receivers calculate iono corrections locally, more precisely than a centralized grid broadcast. For aviation that means L1 and L5 bands (the dual frequency pair).
Once that is true, it would take just 4 MSAS stations in Australia (perhaps one in New Zealand) to have full LPV coverage for the whole region.
All you need is one station in the extreme SW, NW, SE and NE corners of the region and you're done. While to do single frequency MSAS you would need a dozen stations for full coverage. The sole reason you need more stations is so satellites coming in view over antartica (that aren't in view of stations in Japanese soil) can be tracked properly, and have their ephemeris and clocks corrected. For that you need to do the reverse of what the GPS receiver does (get the signal on 4 stations with good geometry and compare where the satellite says it is vs where it actually is).
Finally, having MSAS support for Galileo will be a big part of this, cause they come with the L5 signal standard, while GPS is very slowly launching new satellites with L5 support. It's likely dual frequency SBAS will become doable mostly due to Galileo, as full dual frequency GPS coverage (at least 24 satellites) is expected to take at least until mid 2020s (if you use actual launch rates instead of the US Air Force way too optimistic schedules).
But with half GPS L5 coverage plus full Galileo coverage it would be arguably possible to even go CAT II approaches with SBAS.
Using full Galileo + incomplete GPS L5 support, enough coverage could be in place by late 2017 (assuming about 24 months delays over the current Galileo schedule).

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Looked at L2 a few years back. Yes, birds are now ordered and start flying 2016. All operational with 24 birds by 2026. Looks good for precisely your comment on ionispheric distortions, macpacheco.

Wish those other characters would post here instead of the Smith thread:ugh:

edit-http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/mobileAll/WAASoftheFuture.pdf

[rjtjrt]

Macpacheco

Thanks for the information. Very interesting and detailed points.

It seems there is a viable and reasonably economical path to implement this for us, and I think many would use and benefit from it, not just the aviation community.

John

[Old Akro]

Nice FAA document. Thanks OZBUSDRIVER. Wish the CASA stuff was as clear.

It makes you think that the current PBN plans based on WAAS will be a stopgap and that it might be eclipsed by L2 in the early 2020's.

[Nose_Wheel]

I was told a few months back that there was consideration for rnp lnav/vnav approaches into essendon, Moorabbin, Avalon etc.

Trying to find some more detail about it but can't seem to find anything current.

Closest thing I could see is this doc. http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/media/pbn-plan.pdf which covers plans for sbas until Multi feed gps units and satellites become available and no need for sbas.

What do we need to get sbas operational?

Would it allow for LPV approaches into these aerodromes?

What sort of equipment would you need in the aircraft?

[Oktas8]

In order:

Money, yes, and a TSO C146 series GPS receiver.

[Nose_Wheel]

So doing some firther reading Australia might implement sbas as an interim to dual channel gps which isn't scheduled until 2020.

In other words we will need to wait until 2020.

Are there any gps precision approaches in Australia yet? Looking at the latest DAPs there are rnp approaches into some of the major airports but not sure how it's done? GBAS or SBAS? I know we don't have WaaS as it requires 25 ground stations to work in Australia.

They are labeled as rnp approaches which as I understand is just the new name for the RNAV (GNSS) approaches.

Can't seem to see on the plate if it has a vertical guidance or not.

[27/09]

WAAS is SBAS. SBAS is the overarching name for the various regional systems.

WAAS is the US SBAS system, there's others as well like EGNOS in Europe, GAGAN in India, MSAS in Japan, SDCM in Russia. China are bringing one on line too I think.

Interestingly Australia and New Zealand are about the only two places in the world outside of Africa and South America that don't have an SBAS system or at least an SBAS system in development. I hear there is a push at the moment to get a system in this part of the world. Not before time if you ask me.

RNP doesn't require any augmentation systems like GBAS or SBAS.

As I understand it under PBN, RNP ops require on board integrity monitoring systems i.e. RAIM and allow ops outside of controlled (radar) airspace whereas RNAV ops don't require on board integrity monitoring and are therefore conducted inside controlled airspace, the integrity being provided by the radar controller.

Both RNP and RNAV ops can use a variety of nav sensors to calculate the nav solution. i.e. INS, VOR/DME, DME/DME, GNSS.

The plate will either say LNAV for just lateral guidance, or VNAV for vertical guidance. Baro VNAV is another option using a baromertic input to the nav computer to give vertical guidance, this is pretty well only available on the like of an FMS system and not available for pure GNSS ops.

The plate labeling (i.e. LNAV or VNAV)will be beside the minima info for that approach.

If you're looking at a GNSS approach without the availablity of SBAS it's very unlikely there'll be any reference to VNAV, there might be a Baro VNAV option.

Then you have RNP AR approaches which do have curved segments and vertical guidance, but they're only available to operators who have approval (hence the AR tag). Right gear on board the aircraft with appropriate crew training.

[c100driver]

Although not a specific Aussie reference the NZ CAA has published a draft version of what and how to comply with PBN. It is quite detailed but easy to navigate.

It details the specific differences for a Part 91 operation v a part 119 operation i.e. Private ops v commercial ops.


http://www.caa.govt.nz/Advisory_Circulars/Draft_Advisory_Circulars/AC91-21_draft.pdf

[Nose_Wheel]

So what was the media release at Sydney airport about them implementing GBAS. I thought this was so vertical guidance could be given without the need for an ILS. My thoughts were that Sydney had this capability as a precision approach?

The media release from a year or so ago said the new GBaS system was capable of handling a 100 simultaneous approaches in a 40nm area. Does anyone know if this actually exists?

[Capn Bloggs]

If you're looking at a GNSS approach without the availablity of SBAS it's very unlikely there'll be any reference to VNAV, there might be a Baro VNAV option.
The Kiwis have had LNAV/VNAV approaches for some time eg:

AIP New Zealand (http://www.aip.net.nz/pdf/NZAA_70.5Y.pdf)

[Nose_Wheel]

To me this looks like Australia has now implemented its own version of SBAS but using a ground based system?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLvZu3TTz70


Is this just as an interim or are we expecting to see more of these around the country? By the looks of it you will also need to have some very specific equipment in your aircraft.


Does anyone have any official word on the development of SBAS within AU? It looks like it will cost approx. 60M?


Anyone from airservices here who can help explain why we have implemented such a specialised bit of hardware in YSSY and not used something that will allow for national coverage?

[Oktas8]

Sydney does have GBAS, on an approval-required basis.

If you want to fly to precision approach minima on a GPS derived position fix, the GPS data has to be augmented ("corrected for errors").

You can do this from space (SBAS / WAAS, wide area, expensive to run but cheap to use).

You can do it over a region (can't remember acronym), say 100nm x 100nm, but AFAIK no-one does.

You can do it for a terminal area (GBAS) with a base station and VHF data link to participating aircraft (small area, cheap to run and moderate expense to use).

In all cases the principle is the same. Laptop bolted to the ground assesses GPS position, compares it to true position. Uplinks error correction to satellite or participating aircraft. If satellite, correction is re-broadcast to participating aircraft.

There are other benefits too, such as real-time re-broadcasting of satellite health and integrity to a better standard than RAIM.

[Nose_Wheel]

Thanks oktas8 and 27/09. Makes much more sense now.

I think I get it.. For the GA guys and gals we are going to have to wait for multi frequency or dual channel gps which allows for multiple gps constellations to provide data to a single gps unit. This would mean a hardware change but essentially you would be receiving two gps feeds. Therefore the unit could do its own error correction.

From all my reading it doesn't seem to be something that will be deployed in the near future. 2020 onwards I think.

[Flying Binghi]

:confused::confused::confused:

What happened to me previous post at #97.. ?











.

[27/09]

Nose_WheelI think I get it.. For the GA guys and gals we are going to have to wait for multi frequency or dual channel gps which allows for multiple gps constellations to provide data to a single gps unit. This would mean a hardware change but essentially you would be receiving two gps feeds. Therefore the unit could do its own error correction.

No I don't think you're going to have to wait for new GPS units. It is my understanding that it's likely (though not guaranteed at this point) that SBAS will come to the South Western Pacific area i.e. Australia and New Zealand and surrounds within a year or three.

There's been plenty of obfuscation around SBAS. The installation costs have been wildly exaggerated.

There also seems to have been a reluctance from some quarters to advance the introduction of SBAS, why I'm not sure when it makes a lot of sense to have it. I suspect in some cases there might be ulterior motives. For one, the ANSP (Air Services or Airways) cannot charge for the use of the service unlike they could for a GBAS service.