Rotting ADF / VOR facilities
"Or the GPS is jammed (the military can do this and have done it regularly in the past)
Or the aircraft GPS receiver goes U/S. This frequently occurs due to antenna failure."
Akro, please quantify 'regularly' and 'frequently' and then show us the statistical proof that these events are more unsafe than the other options. Thanks in advance.
Or the aircraft GPS receiver goes U/S. This frequently occurs due to antenna failure."
Akro, please quantify 'regularly' and 'frequently' and then show us the statistical proof that these events are more unsafe than the other options. Thanks in advance.
Thread Starter
"Or the GPS is jammed (the military can do this and have done it regularly in the past)
Or the aircraft GPS receiver goes U/S. This frequently occurs due to antenna failure."
Akro, please quantify 'regularly' and 'frequently' and then show us the statistical proof that these events are more unsafe than the other options. Thanks in advance.
Or the aircraft GPS receiver goes U/S. This frequently occurs due to antenna failure."
Akro, please quantify 'regularly' and 'frequently' and then show us the statistical proof that these events are more unsafe than the other options. Thanks in advance.
Some GPS data that I'm reviewing for a court case at the moment has a 12 tonne Motorhome doing over 160 km/h for 100 seconds. This is from a professional GPS data logger, not a consumer device. I was driving it and it wasn't. Clearly we have 100 seconds of corrupt GPS signal. Most probably it was a disturbed signal from building reflection or tree cover. The area of this disturbance was on the Princes Highway near Pakenham VIC. It doesn't affect my evidence in this instance, but does serve to illustrate the fragility of GPS.
Thread Starter
There used to be regular notams about it. Common sites were near Hamilton in VIC & Woomera in SA. GPS is a relatively simple broadcast at relatively weak levels. My understanding is that it is very easy to jam and that all military's have the ability to conduct localised jamming.
Some GPS data that I'm reviewing for a court case at the moment has a 12 tonne Motorhome doing over 160 km/h for 100 seconds. This is from a professional GPS data logger, not a consumer device. I was driving it and it wasn't. Clearly we have 100 seconds of corrupt GPS signal. Most probably it was a disturbed signal from building reflection or tree cover. The area of this disturbance was on the Princes Highway near Pakenham VIC. It doesn't affect my evidence in this instance, but does serve to illustrate the fragility of GPS.
Some GPS data that I'm reviewing for a court case at the moment has a 12 tonne Motorhome doing over 160 km/h for 100 seconds. This is from a professional GPS data logger, not a consumer device. I was driving it and it wasn't. Clearly we have 100 seconds of corrupt GPS signal. Most probably it was a disturbed signal from building reflection or tree cover. The area of this disturbance was on the Princes Highway near Pakenham VIC. It doesn't affect my evidence in this instance, but does serve to illustrate the fragility of GPS.
By the way, if you are asking why it is less superior than other options, you have completely missed the point.
The pint is that GPS has fallibilities and reliability like other electronic nanvigation AIDS. It requires a back up alternative like other electronic navigation aids.
I've had a GPS antennae fail twice on an aircraft. I've never had an ADF fail.
Thread Starter
Interestingly, another PPRUNE forum quotes the installed price of a new NDB beacon as between about GBP 30,000 & GBP 40,000 depending on the if power is already available to the site. The equipment component is about GBP 10,000. Thats about $42,000 - $70,000 Aussie installed with antennae towers, the lot! Another commercial company I found in the UK (NATS) conducts annual NDB monitoring that is compliant to the UK CAA requirements for GBP500 or $800 Aussie.
What is AsA's cost? If the UK can have private companies doing this function more cost effectively, why can't we?
What is AsA's cost? If the UK can have private companies doing this function more cost effectively, why can't we?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK (NATS) conducts annual NDB monitoring that is compliant to the UK CAA requirements for GBP500 or $800 Aussie.
The 12 month flight inspection requirements are driven by ICAO Annex 10/Doc 8071, not Airservices Australia "gold plating" the process.
Maybe you could get a service that monitors when the signal goes down for $800, but a flight inspection capable aircraft and crew? No way.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder what it is costing to rename all these places they are ripping ground based aids out of...reprinting charts and all the other doc's that go with it.
Sydney is now TESAT....what the hell was wrong with SY...Mudgee, Walget, Jacobs well, etc etc., what the hell was wrong with just leaving them named as they were, at least they were relevant to the place? Is there a prize in ASA for dreaming up the most bizarre names, It even confuses controllers.
No doubt tens of thousands of dollars pissed up against the wall, probably enough to keep a few ground aids going for a few more years.
Bureaucracy and its waste at its best.
Sydney is now TESAT....what the hell was wrong with SY...Mudgee, Walget, Jacobs well, etc etc., what the hell was wrong with just leaving them named as they were, at least they were relevant to the place? Is there a prize in ASA for dreaming up the most bizarre names, It even confuses controllers.
No doubt tens of thousands of dollars pissed up against the wall, probably enough to keep a few ground aids going for a few more years.
Bureaucracy and its waste at its best.
Interestingly, another PPRuNe forum quotes the installed price of a new NDB beacon as between about GBP 30,000 & GBP 40,000 depending on the if power is already available to the site. The equipment component is about GBP 10,000. Thats about $42,000 - $70,000 Aussie installed with antennae towers, the lot! Another commercial company I found in the UK (NATS) conducts annual NDB monitoring that is compliant to the UK CAA requirements for GBP500 or $800 Aussie.
Wonder what it is costing to rename all these places they are ripping ground based aids out of...reprinting charts and all the other doc's that go with it. Sydney is now TESAT
TESAT has been in for some years. At the time the SY VOR was decommissioned the new ID chosen by Airservices at the same coordinates was going to be "SYVOR" for simplicity.
However CASA objected to that, requiring an unrelated waypoint name to be used, hence TESAT.
Don't blame Airservices for everything. CASA has had their sticky fingers over everything. Their Office of Airspace Regulation assesses changes and approves by legislative instruments all air routes and various airspace types each chart and document release.
Because CASA's opinion, always trumps the defendants knowledge of the rules.
The reason why VORSY/SYVOR was not permitted was because someone at CASA had the opinion that a poor, English as second language despatcher, may confuse the waypoint name with the fact that the VOR was still there. This reason was then wheeled out again as the reason for not keeping the navaid id's as the waypoint identifiers.
Of course this is a ridiculous opinion, but after CASA's view has been presented you must now prove it wrong. Never mind the fact that they don't need to prove it correct. And this my friends is why we have a backwater regulator, we have regulation by kneejerk reaction and opinion, we don't have regulation on international guidelines and fact.
Zanthrus.....have you actually told anyone from CASA to f**k off? How did that work out for you?
The reason why VORSY/SYVOR was not permitted was because someone at CASA had the opinion that a poor, English as second language despatcher, may confuse the waypoint name with the fact that the VOR was still there. This reason was then wheeled out again as the reason for not keeping the navaid id's as the waypoint identifiers.
Of course this is a ridiculous opinion, but after CASA's view has been presented you must now prove it wrong. Never mind the fact that they don't need to prove it correct. And this my friends is why we have a backwater regulator, we have regulation by kneejerk reaction and opinion, we don't have regulation on international guidelines and fact.
Zanthrus.....have you actually told anyone from CASA to f**k off? How did that work out for you?
AC I haven't as I am, (like you I imagine) subject to their oversight.
ASA is not since their divorce from Department of Aviation in the late eighties.
Just sayin' CASA are not Gods and they are not always right. They need to told so every now and then as it is the truth.
ASA is not since their divorce from Department of Aviation in the late eighties.
Just sayin' CASA are not Gods and they are not always right. They need to told so every now and then as it is the truth.
Thread Starter
I find this hard to believe.
The 12 month flight inspection requirements are driven by ICAO Annex 10/Doc 8071, not Airservices Australia "gold plating" the process.
The 12 month flight inspection requirements are driven by ICAO Annex 10/Doc 8071, not Airservices Australia "gold plating" the process.
My reading of the ICAO Annex is that for NDB's a) it doesn't specify that ALL NDB's must be subject to the review and b) its not at all clear that flight testing is required annually. It actually seems very vague on the recurrent period of flight testing (as opposed to ground monitoring).
So, yes. In my opinion, it does appear that AsA has taken a gold plating approach which has led to unnecessary ground based navaid closure that does compromise flight safety.
And for the poster that doubted GPS jamming. Here is a fresh advisory from the FAA on GPS jamming trials:
https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/0...the-west-coast
Old Akro you clearly have too much time on your hands.
Instead of wading through ICAO, FAA and CAA documents, try CASA's CASRs and MOS.
You are aware that CASA is the regulator and Airservices is simply a service provider authorised by CASA for various functions, and subject to close scrutiny and audits?
It's CASA regs & MOS's Airservices must comply with, so any "gold plating" you perceive is due to those regs & MOS's.
Rest assured - and logically - Airservices wouldn't be likely to be doing any more or any less than the regs & various MOS's require.
Instead of wading through ICAO, FAA and CAA documents, try CASA's CASRs and MOS.
You are aware that CASA is the regulator and Airservices is simply a service provider authorised by CASA for various functions, and subject to close scrutiny and audits?
It's CASA regs & MOS's Airservices must comply with, so any "gold plating" you perceive is due to those regs & MOS's.
Rest assured - and logically - Airservices wouldn't be likely to be doing any more or any less than the regs & various MOS's require.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rest assured - and logically - Airservices wouldn't be likely to be doing any more or any less than the regs & various MOS's require.
YUP, and boy don't we pay for it.
Bit like renewable energy. Greenies will not be happy till we are all living in caves struggling to stay warm with a wood fire and animal furs......Oh sorry we are not allowed to cut down trees, besides burning wood releases greenhouse gasses, and killing animals for food and fur is cruel.
YUP, and boy don't we pay for it.
Bit like renewable energy. Greenies will not be happy till we are all living in caves struggling to stay warm with a wood fire and animal furs......Oh sorry we are not allowed to cut down trees, besides burning wood releases greenhouse gasses, and killing animals for food and fur is cruel.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Akro, the backup for a GPS is another GPS. There is lots of interest in keeping the satellites functioning by lots of users, many not even anything to do with aviation.
Your example on the ground isn't a good one. There aren't multiple reflections from nearby buildings when you are flying... I hope.
Glider pilots have been using data loggers for the last 20 years for contest scoring. These use simple commercial grade GPS receivers and usually don't have a to[ of aircraft mounted antenna. I'm not aware of any widespread failures or unhappiness. Most gliders carry two units.
If you are worried, have a second GPS. If worried about the GPS satellite constellation be assured that you can easily get combined GPS/Glonass receivers and even now combined GPS/Glonass/Beidou/Galileo/QZSS/WAAS receivers and if you want precision navigation Differential GPS. Ask any broad acre farmer about that. The commercial chips that do this sell for under $20. You'll soon have about 100 satellites from several independent constellations to do your navigation with.
I only fly day VFR but I have at least 4 GPS units on board. A panel mounted one, two iPads running AvPlan, a phone running Avplan and there are a couple of neat apps that simulate VOR and NDB locations as well as a ILS. These all use GPS data on your phone.
Your example on the ground isn't a good one. There aren't multiple reflections from nearby buildings when you are flying... I hope.
Glider pilots have been using data loggers for the last 20 years for contest scoring. These use simple commercial grade GPS receivers and usually don't have a to[ of aircraft mounted antenna. I'm not aware of any widespread failures or unhappiness. Most gliders carry two units.
If you are worried, have a second GPS. If worried about the GPS satellite constellation be assured that you can easily get combined GPS/Glonass receivers and even now combined GPS/Glonass/Beidou/Galileo/QZSS/WAAS receivers and if you want precision navigation Differential GPS. Ask any broad acre farmer about that. The commercial chips that do this sell for under $20. You'll soon have about 100 satellites from several independent constellations to do your navigation with.
I only fly day VFR but I have at least 4 GPS units on board. A panel mounted one, two iPads running AvPlan, a phone running Avplan and there are a couple of neat apps that simulate VOR and NDB locations as well as a ILS. These all use GPS data on your phone.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the U.S government site:
Selective Availability (SA) was an intentional degradation of public GPS signals implemented for national security reasons.
In May 2000, at the direction of President Bill Clinton, the U.S government discontinued its use of Selective Availability in order to make GPS more responsive to civil and commercial users worldwide.
The United States has no intent to ever use Selective Availability again.
In September 2007, the U.S. government announced its decision to procure the future generation of GPS satellites, known as GPS III, without the SA feature. Doing this will make the policy decision of 2000 permanent and eliminate a source of uncertainty in GPS performance that had been of concern to civil GPS users worldwide
Selective Availability (SA) was an intentional degradation of public GPS signals implemented for national security reasons.
In May 2000, at the direction of President Bill Clinton, the U.S government discontinued its use of Selective Availability in order to make GPS more responsive to civil and commercial users worldwide.
The United States has no intent to ever use Selective Availability again.
In September 2007, the U.S. government announced its decision to procure the future generation of GPS satellites, known as GPS III, without the SA feature. Doing this will make the policy decision of 2000 permanent and eliminate a source of uncertainty in GPS performance that had been of concern to civil GPS users worldwide
via fujii:
at the direction of President Bill Clinton...
...The United States has no intent to ever use Selective Availability again.
In September 2007, the U.S. government announced its decision to procure the future generation of GPS satellites, known as GPS III, without the SA feature. Doing this will make the policy decision of 2000 permanent and eliminate a source of uncertainty in GPS performance that had been of concern to civil GPS users worldwide
at the direction of President Bill Clinton...
...The United States has no intent to ever use Selective Availability again.
In September 2007, the U.S. government announced its decision to procure the future generation of GPS satellites, known as GPS III, without the SA feature. Doing this will make the policy decision of 2000 permanent and eliminate a source of uncertainty in GPS performance that had been of concern to civil GPS users worldwide
BBC News | World | Hillary Clinton defends her husband
Now that we've established the credibility of that 'no intent' at this time, perhaps we can get some facts...
Do we have actual proof of claim ?
Do ASA/CASA have a written guarantee from the U.S that those cargo cult GPS signals will continue to rain down free on Oz airspace ?..
And why do the Chinese GPS system have selective availability if the yank system supposedly don't ? What do the astute Chinese know that we don't ?
.