WAAS for Australia you heard it here first!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airlines should be contributing to every bit of aviation infrastructure whether they directly use it or not. They take their pilots from GA & numerous other qualified people. They get customers from regional airports etc. it's time they shut their continual f@cking whinge & stump up. I pay tax for a whole range of services I don't use. Shut your moaning & contribute.
The airlines should be contributing to every bit of aviation infrastructure whether they directly use it or not. They take their pilots from GA & numerous other qualified people. They get customers from regional airports etc. it's time they shut their continual f@cking whinge & stump up. I pay tax for a whole range of services I don't use. Shut your moaning & contribute.
Looks like you have a bad hangover from yesterday, was it celebrations or commiserations??
As for the suggestions, ain't gunna happen, as you well know.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
It does not seem logical. Are you telling me that a newly manufactured Boeing or Airbus flying in the USA or Europe where WAAS currently operates can make no use of this system?
Did the Europeans then put in their own WAAS system just for GA?
Even the cheapest GPS hand helds use WAAS so why wouldn't it be included in the GPS engines installed in Airline aircraft?
Did the Europeans then put in their own WAAS system just for GA?
Even the cheapest GPS hand helds use WAAS so why wouldn't it be included in the GPS engines installed in Airline aircraft?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leady, no hangover! A little tired of the moaning though 
I know it ain't a chance of happening! (and I am of the liberal/national persuasion, so cautious, mild celebration!)
I know it ain't a chance of happening! (and I am of the liberal/national persuasion, so cautious, mild celebration!)
It does not seem logical. Are you telling me that a newly manufactured Boeing or Airbus flying in the USA or Europe where WAAS currently operates can make no use of this system?
These airlines don't generally go to places where SBAS really helps them plus they have other technology not generally available to GA to augment their on board systems.
Last edited by 27/09; 8th Sep 2013 at 10:58.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does not seem logical. Are you telling me that a newly manufactured Boeing or Airbus flying in the USA or Europe where WAAS currently operates can make no use of this system?
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why they "spent the money"?
Why they spent the money?
While once, years ago, WAAS may have been a reasonable idea (I even originally supported WAAS back in the days when we had 100m 2D RMS capability related to 21+3, with SA ON, and with little prospect of civil assurance)...
BUT, ...after SA was turned off, and we had 30+ SVs, and GLS on the way,... and Galileo on the way, and low cost inertial, and simple low cost Kalman filtering, the answer as to why WAAS wasn't "dumped" by FAA as unnecessary and totally obsolete was simply:
Politics... misguided conceptual understanding, ...special interest advocacy... lack of technical knowledge, ...lack of vision, ...marginally or unqualified non-aviation [real] experienced specialists,... unqualified managers, ...inertia,... bad advice,.. and eventually the need to amortize failed poor human interface GPS nav units being sold to unwary GA buyers, and to small airplane OEMs, who sadly didn't know any better. Where would you like to stop?
While once, years ago, WAAS may have been a reasonable idea (I even originally supported WAAS back in the days when we had 100m 2D RMS capability related to 21+3, with SA ON, and with little prospect of civil assurance)...
BUT, ...after SA was turned off, and we had 30+ SVs, and GLS on the way,... and Galileo on the way, and low cost inertial, and simple low cost Kalman filtering, the answer as to why WAAS wasn't "dumped" by FAA as unnecessary and totally obsolete was simply:
Politics... misguided conceptual understanding, ...special interest advocacy... lack of technical knowledge, ...lack of vision, ...marginally or unqualified non-aviation [real] experienced specialists,... unqualified managers, ...inertia,... bad advice,.. and eventually the need to amortize failed poor human interface GPS nav units being sold to unwary GA buyers, and to small airplane OEMs, who sadly didn't know any better. Where would you like to stop?
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is NOT different for GA !!
It is NOT different for GA. They don't need WAAS/EGNOS any more either. WAAS is now a complete waste of money, even for GA. Instead, GA operators can get everything they need, and more, for LESS COST, WITHOUT any need forWAAS/EGNOS, by simply moving forward toward ICAO's global foundation standard RNP, just as the global airlines knew a decade ago, and are doing now for all present production and future large jet transportaircraft. Further, LPV is even a very bad idea because it unnecessarily wastes airspace (it is angular in criteria and only straight-in). Whereas RNP(and GBAS/GLS too) could provide ALL the benefits that GA needs, and more, without the unnecessary wasted cost of sustaining an obsolete redundant system, and without wasting valuable congested airspace, if the Jurassic small airplane (e.g.,GPS) avionics vendors would just finally realize they've been "sold a billof goods" by a few authorities, lobby groups, and ANSPs, and instead fully embrace the RNP andGLS/GBAS NAV foundation for the future.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@rjtjrt: It isn't pie-in-the-sky at all. We have all the accuracy and integrity we need for most GA applications ... right now. Further with a decent filter design, low cost inertial (e.g., a simple PIPA or PIGA or gyro is inertial), and GPS+Galileo, Baro VNAV, and perhaps even benefitting from an RA floor, we could even be using RNP toward Cat III minima in GA. I can cite safe and successful RNP .1 approaches and departures for GA that could be flown even by a C172, that with appropriate criteria modernization at authorities, such as the application of [properly implemented] FOSA, could easily be IFR/IMC qualified for minima at least as good as any LPV minima, and without the airspace wasting straight-in angular restrictions of LPV. Hence, WAAS/EGNOS/SBAS is an idea whose time has come, and gone, just like MLS. It will just take some additional time for GA operators and small airplane manufacturers to realize it. Movement toward recognition of fully allocated costs, and asking those who still want WAAS to pay for it, will only accelerate the inevitable SBAS phase out.
Tom your posts are very hard to read when you make them one big long paragraph and doubly hard to read when you use small text.
I'm not sure if you're right or wrong with some of your assertions. You make a lot of comments without backing then up with facts. How available is this gear for GA aircraft? or When will it be available to GA use? How much does it cost?
In the case of GBAS it is very localised and I suspect many remote places will not be able to take advantage of it. I also understand that Baro VNAV isn't the B all and end all either.
I'm not sure if you're right or wrong with some of your assertions. You make a lot of comments without backing then up with facts. How available is this gear for GA aircraft? or When will it be available to GA use? How much does it cost?
In the case of GBAS it is very localised and I suspect many remote places will not be able to take advantage of it. I also understand that Baro VNAV isn't the B all and end all either.
Last edited by 27/09; 8th Sep 2013 at 22:17.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the hard to read paragraphs and text size.
RNP and GLS will be readily available in bizAv, small GA aircraft, sport aircraft, UAVs, and even for small model airplanes that someday want to fly in sensitive airspace, ....when the user community finally realizes that RNP is key to the success of the entire future global INAS, at affordable cost, and that both SBAS and LPV are now obsolete, dead end, wastes of money.
The RNP transition is already slowly starting in the higher end BizAv new avionics offerings (albeit poorly implemented and at snail speed). It is only a matter of time until deployed RNP based procedures and operational need for their use dictate adaptation in avionics for smaller FAR 23, and even sport aircraft.
RNP isn't just for SIAPS. RNP is needed any time separation needs to be assured, takeoff to landing, whether IFR, IMC, VFR, VMC, or someday EFR (electronic flight rules), which are inevitable, ...if any of us will be able to afford to still fly in the next decades.
The supporting data is readily available, but well beyond the scope of this forum. Suffice it to say that both the large global jet transport aircraft manufacturers and ICAO, as well as most leading technically savvy airlines have wisely committed to RNP, well over a decade ago, for very good reasons. And it wasn't to waste money going bankrupt, down dead end obsolete paths, like SBAS/WAAS and LPV.
RNP and GLS will be readily available in bizAv, small GA aircraft, sport aircraft, UAVs, and even for small model airplanes that someday want to fly in sensitive airspace, ....when the user community finally realizes that RNP is key to the success of the entire future global INAS, at affordable cost, and that both SBAS and LPV are now obsolete, dead end, wastes of money.
The RNP transition is already slowly starting in the higher end BizAv new avionics offerings (albeit poorly implemented and at snail speed). It is only a matter of time until deployed RNP based procedures and operational need for their use dictate adaptation in avionics for smaller FAR 23, and even sport aircraft.
RNP isn't just for SIAPS. RNP is needed any time separation needs to be assured, takeoff to landing, whether IFR, IMC, VFR, VMC, or someday EFR (electronic flight rules), which are inevitable, ...if any of us will be able to afford to still fly in the next decades.
The supporting data is readily available, but well beyond the scope of this forum. Suffice it to say that both the large global jet transport aircraft manufacturers and ICAO, as well as most leading technically savvy airlines have wisely committed to RNP, well over a decade ago, for very good reasons. And it wasn't to waste money going bankrupt, down dead end obsolete paths, like SBAS/WAAS and LPV.
Folks,
I agree generally with Tom.
I have been involved in number of updates to higher end GA airframes, where an end result is RNP certification to RNP 0.5, with a capability to get down to RNP 0.1 eventually.
In a complimentary operation, we are involved in RNP procedure design, which is making life in places like Borneo, PNG and West Papua much easier.
As I have noted in previous posts, for other than aviation, Generation III GPS will produce WAAS accuracies, for all but fast moving traffic, without augmentation.
However, as for the bulk of GA, I am less convinced about the availability of high accuracy RNP certification, it is not just initial fit and finish, very big $$$$, but ongoing certification. If you don't have an operational need to justify the $$$$, you need to be Dick.
Alas, if GA is the only potential user of WAAS/GNSS here, I don't think we are going to see it, even given the much reduced costs of the infrastructure, compared to the early days Airservices "off the planet" estimates designed to frighten pollies away from the idea --- which is why the satellite that originally provided coverage of Australia was moved east to provide addition capacity for the Americas.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Qantas has been into en-route RNP (before it was even called RNP) for what must be close to 20 years, and Qantas operations in and out of Queenstown, NZ, provide an excellent example of commercial exploitation of RNP arrivals and departures.
I agree generally with Tom.
I have been involved in number of updates to higher end GA airframes, where an end result is RNP certification to RNP 0.5, with a capability to get down to RNP 0.1 eventually.
In a complimentary operation, we are involved in RNP procedure design, which is making life in places like Borneo, PNG and West Papua much easier.
As I have noted in previous posts, for other than aviation, Generation III GPS will produce WAAS accuracies, for all but fast moving traffic, without augmentation.
However, as for the bulk of GA, I am less convinced about the availability of high accuracy RNP certification, it is not just initial fit and finish, very big $$$$, but ongoing certification. If you don't have an operational need to justify the $$$$, you need to be Dick.
Alas, if GA is the only potential user of WAAS/GNSS here, I don't think we are going to see it, even given the much reduced costs of the infrastructure, compared to the early days Airservices "off the planet" estimates designed to frighten pollies away from the idea --- which is why the satellite that originally provided coverage of Australia was moved east to provide addition capacity for the Americas.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Qantas has been into en-route RNP (before it was even called RNP) for what must be close to 20 years, and Qantas operations in and out of Queenstown, NZ, provide an excellent example of commercial exploitation of RNP arrivals and departures.
Last edited by LeadSled; 9th Sep 2013 at 14:56.
Thread Starter
Are minima's in the USA for GA fitted with WAAS lower than Australia?
With the stock standard Garmin 1000 does WAAS allow fully vertical coupled approaches in the USA?
With the stock standard Garmin 1000 does WAAS allow fully vertical coupled approaches in the USA?
Are minima's in the USA for GA fitted with WAAS lower than Australia?
With the stock standard Garmin 1000 does WAAS allow fully vertical coupled approaches in the USA?
Last edited by 27/09; 9th Sep 2013 at 10:48.
Tom,
You make a lot of statements without providing any hard information as to how the things you talk of will be made available to GA.
P.S. WAAS nor any other augmentation isn't needed for RNP. A TSO 129 GPS can do RNP, in fact most GNSS approaches are already RNP 0.3
You make a lot of statements without providing any hard information as to how the things you talk of will be made available to GA.
P.S. WAAS nor any other augmentation isn't needed for RNP. A TSO 129 GPS can do RNP, in fact most GNSS approaches are already RNP 0.3
Last edited by 27/09; 9th Sep 2013 at 10:52.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Blue Yonder
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baro VNAV?
Leady,
I presume this solution uses Baro-VNAV?
And the ongoing costs of certification is related to the aerodrome infrastructure (weather stations) and equipment calibration?
RNP certification to RNP 0.5, with a capability to get down to RNP 0.1
And the ongoing costs of certification is related to the aerodrome infrastructure (weather stations) and equipment calibration?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick, you would need to have your own RNP approaches, and I doubt you will want to fund that exercise.
This is part of the problem with getting an SBAS in Australia is something that everyone wants, except Qantas. Qantas went down the RNP path and now want to exclude all others from competing by them having a WAAS/SBAS service in Australia allowing US style vertical guidance approaches.
The simple solution here would be to lobby the government to ignore the bleating by AJ and co, and get the damn job done. Not to mention how the rest of Australian industry might also benefit.
I have no proof but where there is smoke there is fire ..QF are partly behind the stalling / obstructions to us having an SBAS.
This is part of the problem with getting an SBAS in Australia is something that everyone wants, except Qantas. Qantas went down the RNP path and now want to exclude all others from competing by them having a WAAS/SBAS service in Australia allowing US style vertical guidance approaches.
The simple solution here would be to lobby the government to ignore the bleating by AJ and co, and get the damn job done. Not to mention how the rest of Australian industry might also benefit.
I have no proof but where there is smoke there is fire ..QF are partly behind the stalling / obstructions to us having an SBAS.