WAAS in Australia

[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

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 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

[swh]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 |

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!

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

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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...