ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
The system broadcasts this correction factor, as well as the code for the final approach for the ac to use
Likewise Galileo, the most accurate signals will only be available to subscribers.
The US Gen 3 GPS is free to users.
Tootle pip!!
Hempy,
I do not profess to k now the technicalities, either for how you can limit access to either GBAS (LAAS) signals or the precision Galileo signals, only that it can be done.
A significant factor in financing Galileo apparently revolves around this feature, and much $$$$ argument amongst European governments about what happens if the revenue is not up to expectations --- this is part of the reason for the long delays in getting Galileo satellites up.
I am not certain even whether the arguments about which signals will be freely available, or whether all will be available free is yet settled. Galileo is way behind schedule.
At least third Generation GPS only involves the politics of one single government.
Tootle pip!!
I do not profess to k now the technicalities, either for how you can limit access to either GBAS (LAAS) signals or the precision Galileo signals, only that it can be done.
A significant factor in financing Galileo apparently revolves around this feature, and much $$$$ argument amongst European governments about what happens if the revenue is not up to expectations --- this is part of the reason for the long delays in getting Galileo satellites up.
I am not certain even whether the arguments about which signals will be freely available, or whether all will be available free is yet settled. Galileo is way behind schedule.
At least third Generation GPS only involves the politics of one single government.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on now.
This is a complicated issue in some respects.
When the US turned off SA, it meant that the GPS signal to a certain accuracy would not be blocked. ie the key code to the algorithm that a civilian GPS uses, would not be blocked.
So, actually, all of the GPS broadcasts have been encoded, it is your receivers algorithm that can decode the signal to a certain level.
The GPS signals have always had higher levels of accuracy.
Given that,,
There is no way for ASA to limit any GPS broadcast, because first off, they do not own the broadcast, nor do they have any way to add a restriction in the equipment.
Next, the GBAS system is a worldwide standard, the broadcast uses ARINC 424 standards, there is no specific encoding in the signal that is available for restriction.
As far as a subscriber base, the ability to use GBAS, if they wanted funding for it, would be based on the clearance to use the procedure, not the ability to receive a signal.
The GBAS procedure itself could be subscriber limited, much the same as tailored RNP is now, you dont pay for the procedure, or are not cert, it is not in your box...there are plenty of RNP, and RNP to GBAS final approach procedures that are not in the public realm, but are used by the airlines/entities that have paid for them.
As an example, I have designed many tailored RNP-AR procedures ARR and DEP, for YMML and others airports in AUS, that are not avail as public charts, but are used on a daily basis by the airlines that have paid for them.
This is a complicated issue in some respects.
When the US turned off SA, it meant that the GPS signal to a certain accuracy would not be blocked. ie the key code to the algorithm that a civilian GPS uses, would not be blocked.
So, actually, all of the GPS broadcasts have been encoded, it is your receivers algorithm that can decode the signal to a certain level.
The GPS signals have always had higher levels of accuracy.
Given that,,
There is no way for ASA to limit any GPS broadcast, because first off, they do not own the broadcast, nor do they have any way to add a restriction in the equipment.
Next, the GBAS system is a worldwide standard, the broadcast uses ARINC 424 standards, there is no specific encoding in the signal that is available for restriction.
As far as a subscriber base, the ability to use GBAS, if they wanted funding for it, would be based on the clearance to use the procedure, not the ability to receive a signal.
The GBAS procedure itself could be subscriber limited, much the same as tailored RNP is now, you dont pay for the procedure, or are not cert, it is not in your box...there are plenty of RNP, and RNP to GBAS final approach procedures that are not in the public realm, but are used by the airlines/entities that have paid for them.
As an example, I have designed many tailored RNP-AR procedures ARR and DEP, for YMML and others airports in AUS, that are not avail as public charts, but are used on a daily basis by the airlines that have paid for them.
Meanwhile on another thread, the US "WAAS of the future" might eclipse the whole thing.
[URL=www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/mobileAll/WAASoftheFuture.pdf[/URL]
Read this briefing from the FAA and ask yourself when the last time was that you read something this cogent or this far sighted from CASA
[URL=www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/mobileAll/WAASoftheFuture.pdf[/URL]
Read this briefing from the FAA and ask yourself when the last time was that you read something this cogent or this far sighted from CASA
Underfire,\
I am not referring to GNSS/RNP procedures that are proprietary to a company.
Google a few articles on the funding models for Galileo, that may help.
The technicalities are beyond the level of my knowledge of Galileo, but I have seen enough articles on the subject over many years.
It (and GBAS charging) was discussed in the early days of ASTRA.
Tootle pip!!
I am not referring to GNSS/RNP procedures that are proprietary to a company.
Google a few articles on the funding models for Galileo, that may help.
The technicalities are beyond the level of my knowledge of Galileo, but I have seen enough articles on the subject over many years.
It (and GBAS charging) was discussed in the early days of ASTRA.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled,
There are typically 3 ways to fund this.
The first is thru the cert process.
Second is paying to have the procedure in the box.
Third is to charge when cleared to use the procedure.
In reality, the first option is what has to happen anyways, cert the airline to use the procedures.
Paying to have it in the box is tough, partly because of the third, getting clearance to use it.
Of course, #3, getting clearance. Unless everyone is on the procedure, ATC has a tough time managing those that are with those that are not, so in a multi-variant tight queue, you are not going to get clearance.
The best bang for the buck is when the conditions or vis are challenged, and those without the procedure and capability are in a hold, while you are free to land.
As far as restrictions on the GPS signal, while that may have been talked about, I really cant see a viable method to do that. The aircraft has a tough enough time with the signal as it is!
There are typically 3 ways to fund this.
The first is thru the cert process.
Second is paying to have the procedure in the box.
Third is to charge when cleared to use the procedure.
In reality, the first option is what has to happen anyways, cert the airline to use the procedures.
Paying to have it in the box is tough, partly because of the third, getting clearance to use it.
Of course, #3, getting clearance. Unless everyone is on the procedure, ATC has a tough time managing those that are with those that are not, so in a multi-variant tight queue, you are not going to get clearance.
The best bang for the buck is when the conditions or vis are challenged, and those without the procedure and capability are in a hold, while you are free to land.
As far as restrictions on the GPS signal, while that may have been talked about, I really cant see a viable method to do that. The aircraft has a tough enough time with the signal as it is!
Folks,
From AW&ST Feb 3/10, p43.
I have edited out references to non-aviation uses of Galileo :
"Like GPS, Europe's planned 30 satellite constellation will feature an open service available free of charge. With a budget of E6.3 billion through 2020, it is expected to allow users to know their exact position in time and space, but with greater precision and reliability than the GPS system of today.
However, unlike other timing and navigation constellations, Galileo will deliver commercial services to key sectors, notably to airlines for positioning and navigation ------- .
In exchange for encrypted and guaranteed signals that deliver a higher data throughput rate and accuracy, users will be charged a fee."
Further on, in typical EU fashion, it is reported that there are EU plans to "imbed" requirements in other EU legislation to mandate the use of Galileo , thus guaranteeing a revenue stream. Example given were train control and other transport positioning. I do hope the 4m by 2m demonstrated accuracy of Galileo does not become a critical issue in control of high speed trains, wouldn't the 10M MPP of current GPS be good enough for "where is the 19.23 from Paddington?"
Tootle pip!!
From AW&ST Feb 3/10, p43.
I have edited out references to non-aviation uses of Galileo :
"Like GPS, Europe's planned 30 satellite constellation will feature an open service available free of charge. With a budget of E6.3 billion through 2020, it is expected to allow users to know their exact position in time and space, but with greater precision and reliability than the GPS system of today.
However, unlike other timing and navigation constellations, Galileo will deliver commercial services to key sectors, notably to airlines for positioning and navigation ------- .
In exchange for encrypted and guaranteed signals that deliver a higher data throughput rate and accuracy, users will be charged a fee."
Further on, in typical EU fashion, it is reported that there are EU plans to "imbed" requirements in other EU legislation to mandate the use of Galileo , thus guaranteeing a revenue stream. Example given were train control and other transport positioning. I do hope the 4m by 2m demonstrated accuracy of Galileo does not become a critical issue in control of high speed trains, wouldn't the 10M MPP of current GPS be good enough for "where is the 19.23 from Paddington?"
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wouldn't the 10M MPP of current GPS be good enough for "where is the 19.23 from Paddington?"
a train typically works with a platform clearance of 15mm so they are a tad more precise nowadays than back in the steam era.
on mine sites they use augmentation to give half millimetre precision I'm told which allows for all sorts of automated positioning.
automated braking to stops would be facilitated by really precise position information. (of course not in underground stations.)
anti collision systems would be another use I would think.
power supply switching on electric rail another.
are you sure that is what it is used for?
Don't you recognise "tongue in cheek" when you see it.
a train typically works with a platform clearance of 15mm so they are a tad more precise nowadays than back in the steam era.
on mine sites they use augmentation to give half millimetre precision
There are plenty of precision uses of GPS already, GPS Generation 3 will be a big improvement, except if the receiver is moving, ie: aircraft or high speed trains.
I hope I am around long enough to see whether the Galileo subscription model gets any customers, except customers compelled by EU law to use it ---- just another disguised tax.
Tootle pip!!
ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
Heard that CZ302 went through Aust airspace last night at FL280 SYD-CAN trying to dodge the weather it should have been able to clear at cruise level. ADS-B failed on inbound flight. I'm sure attending to malfunctioning ADS-B equipment was high on their list when trying to turn the aircraft around in SYD and get out before the curfew. How accessible is the unit? Can it just be unplugged and replaced in a jiffy? Is there a component that is the most likely cause that can easily be fixed?
Thread Starter
Now we have had a couple of months since this regulation came in could a friendly ATC advise if there have been any aircraft flying above FL290 in the non radar airspace without transmitting the correct ADSB signal?
That is military aircraft or airline aircraft with a faulty unit?
If so was it a huge safety issue?
That is military aircraft or airline aircraft with a faulty unit?
If so was it a huge safety issue?
Thread Starter
If I was a professional ATC I would not want to be told I had to force some aircraft to operate at low levels in more adverse wx conditions when I knew I could give a safer service if I was allowed to.
And history shows that some of the blame for any resultant accident will be placed on the ATC .
And history shows that some of the blame for any resultant accident will be placed on the ATC .
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I can say I have aircraft operating in "adverse weather conditions" because they were too heavy to climb above, (so Airlines Responsible for Deaths?) and others because the aircraft was incapable of climbing above (so Aircraft Manufacturers Responsible for Deaths?).
Dick, you are in the wrong battle....advocate for FAA reg alignment...advocate for a lifetime security check(my passport lasts ten years what not ASIC?)...do something other than push for what suits you and you will find quite rapidly that you have support.
Stop the name calling and false accusations.
Stop the name calling and false accusations.
You blew it Dick.
By choosing such a silly thread title, then being too egotistical to admit it was a mistake, you torpedoed any chance you had of support here.
Man up and admit it was a mistake.
By choosing such a silly thread title, then being too egotistical to admit it was a mistake, you torpedoed any chance you had of support here.
Man up and admit it was a mistake.
Thread Starter
The thread title was created to ensure some controversy
It worked!
It was clearly half tongue in cheek .
So how about an answer to the question. If Canadian controllers can cope with non ADSB aircraft in their mandatory ADSB non radar airspace why can't Aussie controllers?
It worked!
It was clearly half tongue in cheek .
So how about an answer to the question. If Canadian controllers can cope with non ADSB aircraft in their mandatory ADSB non radar airspace why can't Aussie controllers?