Nav aids in Aus to be shut down?

[Up-into-the-air]

asa - aiservices and Profit

Yes QFF

It may be cheaper to keep the damn things going...

and:

ASA/ AirServices made a 100 MILLION dollar profit last year

There is plenty of money to keep these and keep us all safe.

[FlightPathOBN]

I know some of the ones being retired in AUS were on military bases that are being closed down. This is causing some grief with local airports that used them for nav as well.

It is not all that simple, the navaids are getting very expensive to maintain, and development around the airports causes too much interference. Many just have to be retired because they just cant tune out the interference anymore...
Air traffic is increasing, and with a tight queue, the surface navaids get disrupted as well.

GPS overlays are just that, and overlay of the existing ILS or ndb procedure, that provides waypoints for navigation. They do not require a navaid.

Overlays are a great way to get a procedure approved through environment, as technically, the procedure and corridor are already approved. I know that 'T' configurations were designed for all runway ends at YMML, but in operation, the tracks were too varied, and there were a lot of noise complaints, so on 16 and 27, they went back to straight in RNAV GPS from the NDB location. (the private RNP procedures have waypoints on the ndb location)
The RNP AR tracks for 16 and 27 are still on operation by Qantas.

The cost to maintain and calibrate a VOR or NDB is about $50K/year for each runway end.
A GBAS system is around $2 million to install for an entire airport with up to 26 runway ends....

[Clearedtoreenter]

The cost to maintain and calibrate a VOR or NDB is about $50K/year for each runway end.

Hummm... VORs look like they might be a tad complicated to maintain but NDBs? Mostly just a shed and a washing line! Is that not why the useful VORs went at MQD and MSO but the crappy NDBs were retained?

[FlightPathOBN]

Everything in Aviation is expensive!

The NDB system is no different, the electronics, keeping signal in spec, and mostly the location, and annual maintenance.

While the airport would love to own the property, that is frequently not the case.
Set up a building, especially one of the glass ones, and it all goes to hell on you real quick.

Not sure about MQD or MSO ....

[kalavo]

And those costs won't disappear with GBAS. Not a single GLS system in the world providing ILS-like minima, and plenty of obstacles to overcome before it gets there. Won't be suprised if it goes the way of MLS. But we can be the expensive guinea pigs and provide a different solution to the rest of the world so Airservices can charge for the ground equipment.

We could have had WAAS providing coverage for the entire country at a fraction of the cost to provide the same with GBAS but Airservices kept pointing to the first version of WAAS in the states "look how much it went overbudget" well duh, they spent a lot of money figuring out how to make it work. But guess what? Now they've figured it out, it works and easy to reproduce! In 2008 there were over 1333 WAAS approaches in the US, with a plan to add another 500 a year. Try doing that with GBAS on the same budget. The more recent systems have been much closer to on time and on budget with the exception of one failed satellite launch.

But no, we'll install GBAS at the capital cities so we can cover "97% of RPT passengers", which could have (and probably will be) covered at zero cost and zero return to Airservices with Baro-VNAV instead, while the 3% that would have been covered with WAAS and won't ever get Baro-VNAV capability miss out completely (not many Baro-VNAV capable 404s around the place!)

A real shame, if we'd tacked WAAS on to the NBN satellites, it would have cost less than one GBAS install.

[FlightPathOBN]

Kalavo,

I have RNP transitions to CAT 3 Autoland with GBAS....

You tout the WAAS procedures numbers, like you are with the FAA, but in reality, there are NO or very, very few, WAAS procedure plates. The only ones I know of are helo ops in the Gulf.
I would love to hear from anyone who has a commercial AC is certified to use WAAS, has used WAAS IFR, or even, where in the hell they used it in the US!

Obviously, you have NO idea what it takes to certify an AC for WAAS. It is a different antennae system, different MMR, and different requirement for crew training.

I will certainly agree with you WAAS, SBAS, LAAS, etc, are a waste of money...

Do you understand that WAAS is an augmentation system, that it just broadcasts a correction factor through a sat? GBAS does exactly the same thing, just through a ground based receiver, at the airport you are flying to?
Why spent the $2 billion floating a sat for WAAS, when you can spend $2 million for a GBAS, and have better accuracy?

I also suppose you also werent aware that ASA is a 50% owner of the GBAS system....

[OZBUSDRIVER]

FlightPathOBN...tell the whole story!

GBAS is a separate PROPRIATORY VHF transmission system. WAAS or the augmentation thereof is solely within the SBAS system at NO EXTRA CHARGE.

GBAS does give CAT III approach capability EDIT with the addition of ground transmission infrastructures etc...but...at a penny or three.

A very big part of the reason Australia does not buy in to provide the ground based monitoring system to provide the augmentation signal for the WAAS aleady available from the Japanese MTSAT....user pays!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

AC 20-138C

Lot of reading..but...basic TSO146c class Delta euipment with Barro and you are well on your way in the US to LPV approaches

A telling quote

Although GPS/SBAS does not have an equipment limitation for other navigation systems onboard the aircraft, the receiver manufacturer’s operating instructions should encourage operators to retain back-up navigation systems to guard against outages or interference events.

5Hz update rate...

To date there are 100 LPV and 55 LP published approaches in the US. Considering the FAA's business model calls for 8300 LP/LPV approaches, lots of work ahead!

[FlightPathOBN]

OZ,

The GBAS signal is proprietary? That is not correct, both GBAS, WAAS and other systems are based on the standard ARINC 424.

WAAS will still have the same limitations as GPS or GBAS because it is still based from a sat. Its just a correction factor of the GPS sat signals, its just, sat based, where GBAS is ground based.

WAAS certified aircraft system is completely different than the GPS system.
It is different receivers, different antennae, and, same as GPS, must have at least 2 systems for certification.

WAAS needs quite the infrastructure to operate. Currently in the US, there are about 25 ground reference stations positioned across the United States that monitor GPS satellite data. Two master stations, located on either coast, collect data from the reference stations and create a GPS correction message. This correction accounts for GPS satellite orbit and clock drift plus signal delays caused by the atmosphere and ionosphere. The corrected differential message is then broadcast through one of two geostationary satellites, or satellites with a fixed position over the equator. So its not free by any means. AUS would have to set up similar system around the Country if they wanted the same accuracy results.

Virtually no commercial aircraft have been WAAS certified. While there are WAAS certified stand alone units, a WAAS coupled unit requires the certification of the aircraft, including flight test. Manufacturers or the airlines, do not want to switch to the system.
Currently, there are 2 WAAS sats for the US, so even one partially degraded, puts the whole system down. Like GBAS, the WAAS aircraft must have the WAAS artificial horizon for guidance.
You must still check RAIM, and monitor RAIM inflight.

So all that, and there are how many procedures available to use?

The GBAS signal broadcasts the approach procedure, That is why it is far better, as WAAS just giving a corrected GPS algorithm. The GBAS is broadcasting the same correction factor, its just ground based, AT the airport you are going to.
Here is an example of the GBAS signal, which the aircraft will use, just like the ILS beam, for approach. But, unlike the ILS beam, the GBAS is a signal which isnt interrupted by infrastructure or other aircraft.
As you can see, there is some great features, such as broadcast of multiple GPA, from which the pilot can select, and currently curved approach procedures are being tested:

"RX_WEEK";"RX_TOM";"GBAS_ID";"FAS_VAL";"FAS_LAL";"OPTYP";"SB AS_ID";"AIRPORT_ID";"RW_NO";"RW
_LTR";"APP_DESIG";"ROUTE_IND";"RPDS";"RPID";"LTP_LAT";"LTP_L ON";"LTP_H";"DFPAP_LAT";"DFPAP
_LON";"TCH";"GPA";"C_WIDTH";"RW_LEN_OFFSET";"CRC_OK"
1634;303799.437500;"TATM";10.000000;40.000000;0;0;"EDVE";26; 0;1;"Z";21;"G26A";52.31964167;
10.56400556;131.300000;-0.00098056;-0.01751667;15.240000;3.000000;80.000000;0;1

1634;303800.437500;"TATM";10.000000;40.000000;0;0;"EDVE";26; 0;1;"Y";22;"G26B";52.31964167;
10.56400556;131.300000;-0.00098056;-0.01751667;15.240000;3.200000;80.000000;0;1

As far as AUS buying in, ASA is a 50% business owner of SmartPath. SmartPath is already CAT I certified, and CAT III autoland is being certified, but already in use in some countries by their military aircraft.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Looks like you need some learning! Why do you think the 50% business owner cannot get a purchase within their own country?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Actually, to be more precise. Do you think AirServices will pay for all the infrastructure at all our major aerodromes so the airlines can get CAT III for free? Do not forget, GBAS still requires a network of reference stations to calculate the correction to be transmitted to SUBSCRIBER aircraft. The device may be ARINC and TSO but it still requires access...controlled by discrete codes or whatever. It will not be free!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I'm still too harsh. A GBAS system installed will be way too expensive to be of benefit to any aviation outside heavy iron or mil ops.

If it was my say so on provision of GPS infrastructure, I would take the same view as the US. GPS is an enabler of commerce, that is to say it returns far more to the economy than what it costs to run. Considering the expensive bit is already up there with the capability already operational, all that is required are the monitoring stations linked up to the reference uplink already in Canberra and we have WAAS over the entire continent via the MTSAT. Considering there is already 28 surveyed in ADS-B sites evenly distributed across the country...already talking to mummy...makes you just wonder about the possibilities for the nation in general. Considering the landing accidents over the years from non precision approaches in marginal wx, what cost is a life?

This argument has already been had. The Feds take a narrow view of cost recovery. We are never likely to see any government of any colour do such a thing ever again in this country.

[FlightPathOBN]

OZ,

That is not correct, the GBAS system has the 3 to 4 ref antennae at the airport. , which gather the sat GPS signal, and correct algorithm for the actual location. That correction, along with the final approach path, is sent to the aircraft. GBAS can also be used for dpartures, and a runway can be used for arrival and departures from the same end. Cant do that with ILS or VOR.

All WAAS does is correct the GPS signal. While the claim is lower minima, to 200', I doubt if you will ever see anything less than 250' in use, as that glass basement is the FAA mantra. You may see it on the charts, but permission to use...well.

As far as costs, if you have more than 2 runway ends, the GBAS cost is even with the VOR. More than that, and the $2 million to put in the GBAS is amortized very quickly.
For the airlines, the equipment on the both Boeing and Airbus new aircraft are GBAS capable, and doesnt cost anymore for you to tell them to flip that switch.
I have not seen a WAAS certified commercial system avilable or installed on a commercial aircraft.

As far as I know, there are aircraft using the GBAS at Sydney, with no extra cost.

I just dont see very much in the way of advantages of WAAS, its just a more accurate GPS system, with all of the same issues as GPS.

[Capn Bloggs]

I'm siding with OZBusdriver: WAAS would be better because it would support low minimums over the whole country. Wouldn't that be of benefit to non-RNP capable aircraft (given the heavy iron can already go to ~250ft without GBAS using RNP-AR)?

[FlightPathOBN]

Well, I look at it this way, all new Boeing and Airbus aircraft are GBAS enabled, with the Dreamliner touting full GBAS certification.

The FAA is basically providing WAAS, so they can get rid of the VOR and NDB's.

Currently, the WAAS program is kinda screwed here in the US. We have the 2 WAAS sats, CRW and CRE, basically west and east. CRW is failing. The single sat over Japan POR, will be repositioned and will be able to cover about 1/3 of the west coast of the US. How this will effect the signal on the East Coast of the US is still being worked on.

Current coverage: Note lack of WAAS coverage in AUS

Here is what the colors on the map relate to:

The POR sat is a single, and provides somewhat of a signal over the northern half of AUS. Due to signal strength, and lack of a second sat, I doubt if you will really ever see WAAS in AUS (unless you want to spent a few Billion to float another sat!)
Here is what the WAAS coverage the US will have with the failure of CRW and adding POR and AMR (new, not yet launched) update AMR launch has happened and POR has moved, restoring coverage to AK)

[FlightPathOBN]

WAAS certified AC. Looks like a very specific target audience. Given there are 60 approach procedures at airports in Alaska with WAAS LPV, that figures the 737-200 with gravel kits...

[OZBUSDRIVER]

FlightPathOBN, POR was moved to the West Coast around 2007. If you look at your map there is a little green dot that covers Japan and as we know, WAAS is transmitted from a Geosynchronous orbiting satellite. The Japanese Ministery of Transport MTSAT! Australia only has to put in the monitoring infrastructure.

I am looking at the benefit of the entire continent. WAAS is more suited than GBAS, you have to admit that. If you are purely talking Autoland capability then by all means GBAS is a far better proposal than a purely ground based CAT III system....as long as someone is willing to pay for it.

As for your list? Not many B58s or PA31s running Proline is there?

[FlightPathOBN]

Well, they just got the WAAS coverage to Alaska in Dec 2011, so I dont know when it moved. This was dated Sep2010, and the move was just proposed. Unless you have 2 sats, you are not going to get LPV anyways...
I suppose all of the ground monitoring stations, coupled with 2 data centers would be free?
Note that in the US, it costs over $50 million dollars a year to operate, plus $50,000 PER procedure....Startup costs? well, you can just imagine...Wide Area Augmentation System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WAAS Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance (LPV) approaches with 200-foot minimums will not be published for airports without medium intensity lighting, precision runway markings and a parallel taxiway. Smaller airports, which currently may not have these features, would have to upgrade their facilities or require pilots to use higher minimums.

Well, I am not going to agree that WAAS is better, perhaps for GA aircraft, but for commercial, it is a step backwards. What a commercial aircraft would have to do to be certified to fly WAAS, just isnt worth the time or effort. As you can see from the FAA's list, very few aircraft are certified to fly the WAAS, even after all of these years.

In reality, WAAS is only meant to replace CAT I ILS in areas where the government didnt want to keep paying for the navaid, so that is all one can hope from it.

[Flying Binghi]

.


...and still yer gotta wonder about those who base a bussiness around something they dont own or control or have any garantee of continued 'free' use.. ...at least withNDB/VOR we own and control the system.


There will be other 'backup' GPS out there some say... I see the US airforce covered shooting down Galileo satellites if the europeans wont turn them off when required..


What we got now... about 40 odd terrorist groups tinkering with UAV/UAS... once they work out how to use a cheap GPS based targeting system we will lose civvy GPS.....








.

[notaplanegeek]

Don't think so... do you know how easy it is to jam GPS signals? Have a look at what North Korea has been up to.