WAAS for Australia – you heard it here first!
WRT the birds required for the NBN. Have they flown yet? If not, is it too late to reconfigure the package to install a bent pipe transponder? If so, then it will be the best $64,000,000.00 ever spent for all of Australia's benefit.
Can anyone give an installed price of the lowest cost RNP equipment available for retrofit in today's market? Does Garmin have anything available?
Under CASA's deeming provisions, even the old GNS430W is deemed to be equivalent down to RNP 1.0
So the lowest cost RNP equipment would be something TSO C146 like the GNS430W.
Unless you are referring to RNP-AR curved approaches which do require RNP 0.3 and then you are looking at FMS with INS/IRS etc.
Beg to differ, QFF. Vertical guidance is the issue. The CASA think they can meet their ICAO requirements by rolling out certifiable baro sources. To utilize baro you need a FMS to drive the profile.
A 430W needs WAAS.
A 430W needs WAAS.
Not disputing...just clarifying
QFF, RF legs are not limited to RNP0.3. You can do an RF leg on an RNP 1.0 approach or even an RNP 5 route segment. The criteria in PANS-OPS is just about to be updated to allow RF turns in basic RNAV(GNSS) approaches.
Yes, I am aware of limitations of the nav gear, in that they can't actually do RF yet, but it will come. When it does, we will be able to do RNAV(GNSS) at RNP 1.0 with RF turns.
Somebody also mentioned that RNP is ICAO speak for RNAV...pretty much nailed it. Under the approach naming convention coming the RNAV(GNSS) approach is to be renamed RNP APCH...no other changes required.
OZBUSDRIVER...spot on. I argued this a few years back. Make no mistake gentlemen, BARO VNAV is being pursued for a few stupid reasons;
1. They told ICAO they would be compliant wrt approaches with vertical guidance.
2. No one wants to spend any money on it.
3. They thought they could roll them out with relative ease (CASA proved that wrong)
It is irrelevant (CASA'a opinion) how many aircraft can fly them...the point is they would be available. The top 50 list of aerodromes that were the priority (except for the captial cities) were mainly services by aircraft that couldn't do BARO anyway
Alpha
QFF, RF legs are not limited to RNP0.3. You can do an RF leg on an RNP 1.0 approach or even an RNP 5 route segment. The criteria in PANS-OPS is just about to be updated to allow RF turns in basic RNAV(GNSS) approaches.
Yes, I am aware of limitations of the nav gear, in that they can't actually do RF yet, but it will come. When it does, we will be able to do RNAV(GNSS) at RNP 1.0 with RF turns.
Somebody also mentioned that RNP is ICAO speak for RNAV...pretty much nailed it. Under the approach naming convention coming the RNAV(GNSS) approach is to be renamed RNP APCH...no other changes required.
OZBUSDRIVER...spot on. I argued this a few years back. Make no mistake gentlemen, BARO VNAV is being pursued for a few stupid reasons;
1. They told ICAO they would be compliant wrt approaches with vertical guidance.
2. No one wants to spend any money on it.
3. They thought they could roll them out with relative ease (CASA proved that wrong)
It is irrelevant (CASA'a opinion) how many aircraft can fly them...the point is they would be available. The top 50 list of aerodromes that were the priority (except for the captial cities) were mainly services by aircraft that couldn't do BARO anyway
Alpha
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under the approach naming convention coming the RNAV(GNSS) approach is to be renamed RNP APCH...no other changes required.
Jeez......Jaba. That iPad/EFB is starting to look the duck's guts more n' more every day.
Dick, bad news is there is no cheap way. FMS required:-(
So the lowest cost RNP equipment would be something TSO C146 like the GNS430W.
Beg to differ, QFF. Vertical guidance is the issue.
If your're talking APV or LPV approaches then that's another ball of wax, then vertical guidance is the issue. You can have APV or LPV approaches without RNP.
There appears to be some lack of understanding of the navigation performance concept. RNAV and RNP are both navigation performance concepts within Performance Based Navigation See here; http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...bn-booklet.pdf
See also CAO 20.91
RNP performance is available with a TSO C129 navigator as a minimum. Baro VNAV approaches depend on having an aircraft with the certified capability BARO VNAV capability, broadcast QNH at the aerodrome and procedures designed with the vertical path data included in the nav data base in the GPS. Nothing to do with WAAS.
There is no requirement for FMS for any RNP specification up to and including RNP Approach (current RNAV(GNSS). The current terminology for the satellite navigation based approaches is incorrect but is the result of ICAO work in progress between the navigation and IAP working groups/panels. The whole exercise is dynamic! FMS is required for RNP AR but there aren't any GA operators involved in those yet as they require a new level of navigation and auto-pilot capability.
See also CAO 20.91
RNP performance is available with a TSO C129 navigator as a minimum. Baro VNAV approaches depend on having an aircraft with the certified capability BARO VNAV capability, broadcast QNH at the aerodrome and procedures designed with the vertical path data included in the nav data base in the GPS. Nothing to do with WAAS.
There is no requirement for FMS for any RNP specification up to and including RNP Approach (current RNAV(GNSS). The current terminology for the satellite navigation based approaches is incorrect but is the result of ICAO work in progress between the navigation and IAP working groups/panels. The whole exercise is dynamic! FMS is required for RNP AR but there aren't any GA operators involved in those yet as they require a new level of navigation and auto-pilot capability.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Blue Yonder
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NBNCo may add 3rd satellite
Some may say flogging the proverbial horse, but I still think this is the best chance Australia has at getting SBAS in the near future...
via talk Satellite!
via talk Satellite!
"The rural satellite and fixed wireless components of the NBN are currently subject to a separate top-level review following the release of a major review into the fixed component last week. We understand that options on the table include the potential need for additional satellite capacity - potentially a third satellite in the long term - and also the potential sale and lease back of the NBN Co satellite assets."
---- but there aren't any GA operators involved in those yet as they require a new level of navigation and auto-pilot capability.
There are quite a few more aircraft that could be certified, if the operators saw the need.
Tootle pip!!
It is worth reiterating....for $64,000,000.00 plus change, a bent pipe transponder could be fitted to either of the NBN birds. This is the critical link to supplying a WAAS signal across the whole continent. There are far more uses for WAAS than just aviation.
RNAV(GNSS) approach is to be renamed RNP APCH
One of the main problems with WAAS is that it has not been able to replace ILS - not because of accuracy issues - but because it has not been able to meet the 'time-to-alarm' specifications for a precision approach (1 second).
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the current WAAS coverage. Unless more SATs come online, AUS isnt covered.
There were 4 SATs online, but one went down, so the US shifted one over so they would have coverage. (you need 3 for LPV)
There are 2 ground monitoring stations required. Currently, these are located on each Coast of the US.
Each aircraft would then have to have a WAAS capable receiver.
There were 4 SATs online, but one went down, so the US shifted one over so they would have coverage. (you need 3 for LPV)
There are 2 ground monitoring stations required. Currently, these are located on each Coast of the US.
Each aircraft would then have to have a WAAS capable receiver.
First I have heard to need three WAAS birds for LPV.
Right now, we are 100% covered by the MTSAT. No space was available on the first NBN bird. Already have 28 ground stations and one uplink. Need another uplink on west coast or around Alice.
LPV was and is advertised as ILS like minimums.
Right now, we are 100% covered by the MTSAT. No space was available on the first NBN bird. Already have 28 ground stations and one uplink. Need another uplink on west coast or around Alice.
LPV was and is advertised as ILS like minimums.
OZBUSDRIVER
Correct, and the Baro VNAV thing is being done in NZ for the same reason.
You know full well that Baro VNav is just a cheap way for the CASA to honor it's agreement with the ICAO.
No it is because the airlines pushed CASA and the CAA to approve RNP AR approaches for Queenstown.
B737 and A320 are already approved for Baro VNAV and it is a known method of achieving approaches into terrain challenged airports in legacy jets.
The airlines don't need WAAS so will not willingly pay for it.
B737 and A320 are already approved for Baro VNAV and it is a known method of achieving approaches into terrain challenged airports in legacy jets.
The airlines don't need WAAS so will not willingly pay for it.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airlines don't need WAAS so will not willingly pay for it.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OZbusdriver,
Yes, you need 3 for LPV, 2 for LP...
You see thousands of LP/LPV APP procedures in the US, and a very large percentage of these are the more rural airports with no ILS.
Exactly, the ac have the system, and it is approved. You dont need to have the extensive the system requirements nor training to use RNP APCH as you do with AR, so virtually every airport I have noted in AUS has these designs, basically ILS overlays, or just the straight 'T' approach, hence the RNAV (GPS/GNSS) and RNP APCH nomenclature. (in reality, with enviro, that is all you get, a design on an existing flight corridor)
Remember that QANTAS spearheaded RNP in AUS, and paid for the RNP AR procedures. ASA and CASA are not prepared to setup or pay for the obstacle assessment requirement oversight, so QANTAS is paying for the obstacle assessment, NOTAM, and navdatabase oversight on their own...
You can only say so much about them using RNP and holding it close, unless others want to pay or ASA/CASA decide to provide this as well..
In the US there are several RNP APCH with a single coded turn to final...
There were 4 SATs online, but one went down, so the US shifted one over so they would have coverage. (you need 3 for LPV)
You see thousands of LP/LPV APP procedures in the US, and a very large percentage of these are the more rural airports with no ILS.
737 and A320 are already approved for Baro VNAV
Remember that QANTAS spearheaded RNP in AUS, and paid for the RNP AR procedures. ASA and CASA are not prepared to setup or pay for the obstacle assessment requirement oversight, so QANTAS is paying for the obstacle assessment, NOTAM, and navdatabase oversight on their own...
You can only say so much about them using RNP and holding it close, unless others want to pay or ASA/CASA decide to provide this as well..
In the US there are several RNP APCH with a single coded turn to final...
c100driver
If that's case then, why are Baro VNAV approaches being put into places that will never ever see a jet? It's solely to tick the box of meeting ICAO recommendations of approaches with vertical guidance.
No it is because the airlines pushed CASA and the CAA to approve RNP AR approaches for Queenstown.
B737 and A320 are already approved for Baro VNAV and it is a known method of achieving approaches into terrain challenged airports in legacy jets.
B737 and A320 are already approved for Baro VNAV and it is a known method of achieving approaches into terrain challenged airports in legacy jets.
Compared to Queenstown, there is not one instrument approach in this country I would put in the category of 'terrain challenged'. The idea that we need RNP-AR or BARO-VNAV to solve our terrain problems is quite frankly horse-s**t.
The argument for WAAS was run and lost many years ago. It is true that CASA signed up to the ICAO mandate and then had a coronary when they discovered the cost. The cheapest and best solution (according to them) was BARO. This was considered the best because Airservices would do it for free. Make no mistake there are about 90 BARO designs sitting on a desk in Airservices waiting to be published, the hold up is CASA as they cannot decide how to validate them for publication (lets ignore the fact that NZ does not validate theirs). The delivery of BARO approaches was to have been finished by now.
Now the focus shifts back to WAAS, a little less expensive than previously advised, but the big end of town are not equipped for WAAS, and they are primarily paying the bills.
In short WAAS would service a lot of aerodromes for the GA market, but they won;t pay and the big end of town don't go to these places. BARO/RNP_AR would service major airports but would not fulfill our agreement with ICAO and cannot be used by non FMS eqquipped acft.
QANTAS spearheaded RNP_AR because CASA was holding off for WAAS, and QANTAS knew it would never come. Unfortunately QANTAS main aim was efficiency and minima, the result was a stack of RNP_AR approaches that are basically useless in an ATM environment. I know this because Airservices has just been asked to replace them all with public AR criteria approaches that work. The first 3 public RNP_AR procedures on mainland Australia have just been published with more to come.
This statement is full inaccuracies....there is no extra obstacle oversight requirement for an RNP-AR beyond that which exists for any other approach.
My honest opinion....we won't be seeing WAAS anytime soon. The technology is already old, and the airlines won't pay for something they cannot use. What will we see? Its hard to know...
The argument for WAAS was run and lost many years ago. It is true that CASA signed up to the ICAO mandate and then had a coronary when they discovered the cost. The cheapest and best solution (according to them) was BARO. This was considered the best because Airservices would do it for free. Make no mistake there are about 90 BARO designs sitting on a desk in Airservices waiting to be published, the hold up is CASA as they cannot decide how to validate them for publication (lets ignore the fact that NZ does not validate theirs). The delivery of BARO approaches was to have been finished by now.
Now the focus shifts back to WAAS, a little less expensive than previously advised, but the big end of town are not equipped for WAAS, and they are primarily paying the bills.
In short WAAS would service a lot of aerodromes for the GA market, but they won;t pay and the big end of town don't go to these places. BARO/RNP_AR would service major airports but would not fulfill our agreement with ICAO and cannot be used by non FMS eqquipped acft.
QANTAS spearheaded RNP_AR because CASA was holding off for WAAS, and QANTAS knew it would never come. Unfortunately QANTAS main aim was efficiency and minima, the result was a stack of RNP_AR approaches that are basically useless in an ATM environment. I know this because Airservices has just been asked to replace them all with public AR criteria approaches that work. The first 3 public RNP_AR procedures on mainland Australia have just been published with more to come.
Remember that QANTAS spearheaded RNP in AUS, and paid for the RNP AR procedures. ASA and CASA are not prepared to setup or pay for the obstacle assessment requirement oversight, so QANTAS is paying for the obstacle assessment, NOTAM, and navdatabase oversight on their own...
My honest opinion....we won't be seeing WAAS anytime soon. The technology is already old, and the airlines won't pay for something they cannot use. What will we see? Its hard to know...