More damage to Aussie GA – ILS training
So, for those following at home, here are the current ILS's (ILSii?!? 
) as listed in the current revision of the DAH.
) as listed in the current revision of the DAH.- Adelaide
- Alice Springs
- Amberley
- Avalon
- Brisbane
- Cairns
- Cantberra
- Darwin
- East Sale
- Edinburgh
- Essendon
- Gladstone
- Hobart
- Launceston
- Melbourne
- Nowra
- Oakey
- Pearce
- Perth
- Richomnd
- Sydney
- Tamworth
- Tindal
- Townsville
- Wagga
- Williamtown
And how many of them are easily accessible to GA aircraft?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That bit of history prompted me to look back in my "Completed Projects" folder where I found the Report dated 2 October 2002, "STUDY REPORT
Global Navigation Satellite Systems Technical Audit and Cost Benefit Analysis
Australian Air Traffic Management Infrastructure Working Group".
Interesting reading, particularly after some of the technology I saw in Madrid at WATM week before last. Amazing the foresight we had in hindsight these days.
Guess that report and the Benefits of Surveillance in Airspace report got filed in the bottom drawer of the same filing cabinet at CASA.
MJG
Back in my outdoor office at the George Hotel Betio
Global Navigation Satellite Systems Technical Audit and Cost Benefit Analysis
Australian Air Traffic Management Infrastructure Working Group".
Interesting reading, particularly after some of the technology I saw in Madrid at WATM week before last. Amazing the foresight we had in hindsight these days.
Guess that report and the Benefits of Surveillance in Airspace report got filed in the bottom drawer of the same filing cabinet at CASA.
MJG
Back in my outdoor office at the George Hotel Betio
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
".................
I sure can. There is currently an SBAS signal being transmitted across the entire country. It started in JUN 17 and will run until JUN 19. However it has been deemed not to be used for operational purposes and so the safety of life message has been set to '0'. This means that all certified hardware is ignoring the signal. The safety of life message needs to be set to '1' for you to receive the signal. All 'un-certified' hardware (ie smartphones, satnav, hand held units) can read and use the signal. At the moment this only seems to be impacting aviation applications but I am sure there are others.
I sure can. There is currently an SBAS signal being transmitted across the entire country. It started in JUN 17 and will run until JUN 19. However it has been deemed not to be used for operational purposes and so the safety of life message has been set to '0'. This means that all certified hardware is ignoring the signal. The safety of life message needs to be set to '1' for you to receive the signal. All 'un-certified' hardware (ie smartphones, satnav, hand held units) can read and use the signal. At the moment this only seems to be impacting aviation applications but I am sure there are others.
rjtjt,
I did a bit of googling.....
Is the 660 manufactured to a TSO? (145/146 for eg) I don't think it is, because the 660 is only meant for VFR navigation. Therefore, you may be receiving the signal.
On page 6 of your manual there is a blurb on satellite information. Next time you turn it on have a look at the satellite numbers it is using to determine position. If there is a satellite number outside of, or way off sequence than the usual numbers then that could be the Aus SBAS satellite and you system is at least detecting it and could be receiving/using a signal from it.
I don't know the specific PRN number allocated to our SBAS trial.
I did a bit of googling.....
Is the 660 manufactured to a TSO? (145/146 for eg) I don't think it is, because the 660 is only meant for VFR navigation. Therefore, you may be receiving the signal.
On page 6 of your manual there is a blurb on satellite information. Next time you turn it on have a look at the satellite numbers it is using to determine position. If there is a satellite number outside of, or way off sequence than the usual numbers then that could be the Aus SBAS satellite and you system is at least detecting it and could be receiving/using a signal from it.
I don't know the specific PRN number allocated to our SBAS trial.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpha
Indeed it is a non TSO unit.
Saw the same info in the manual. As you say maybe a new PRN number but no satellite PRN outside the 01-32 or 33-64 for WAAS, and 65-99 for GLONASS is shown.
Not important I guess, but would be nice to know.
When I look up the “Accuracy” displayed says 10ft, so I guess not receiving SBAS correction at present.
Indeed it is a non TSO unit.
Saw the same info in the manual. As you say maybe a new PRN number but no satellite PRN outside the 01-32 or 33-64 for WAAS, and 65-99 for GLONASS is shown.
Not important I guess, but would be nice to know.
When I look up the “Accuracy” displayed says 10ft, so I guess not receiving SBAS correction at present.
Interesting reading, particularly after some of the technology I saw in Madrid at WATM week before last. Amazing the foresight we had in hindsight these days.
As the redheaded one would say:" Please explain".
Also, I am not clear, which satellite is providing the present trial signals?
Are these a trial to replace the existing differential GPS services that we use for precision positioning and ship navigation, ie: AMSA or Omnistar services?
Tootle pip!!
PS: Having had a quick scrute, I see it is Inmarsat providing the satellite payload, I can only assume that somebody has worked out it might be cheaper than the current differential GPS we have had, in one form or another, for a long time.
Oh dear oh dear, this thread is about to spin out of control!
Mandate WAAS?? How many people have lost their lives to a botched approach to BN, SY or ML? How many people might have been saved if their pilot(s) had access to a WAAS provided LPV at Lockhart River, Mt Hotham, or Benalla? Mandate indeed!
L1/L5 benefits everyone. We get LPV, Transport gets even closer to autonomous(I hope, never!) Agriculture gets the accuracy they can use and industry can access millimeter accuracy for civil works without need of setting up a DGPS constellation. The bloody thing is already up there. The ground constellationis already in place(never knew that) all that needs be done is for the Australian government to pony up for the rent of the bentpipe transponder.
Mandate WAAS?? How many people have lost their lives to a botched approach to BN, SY or ML? How many people might have been saved if their pilot(s) had access to a WAAS provided LPV at Lockhart River, Mt Hotham, or Benalla? Mandate indeed!
L1/L5 benefits everyone. We get LPV, Transport gets even closer to autonomous(I hope, never!) Agriculture gets the accuracy they can use and industry can access millimeter accuracy for civil works without need of setting up a DGPS constellation. The bloody thing is already up there. The ground constellationis already in place(never knew that) all that needs be done is for the Australian government to pony up for the rent of the bentpipe transponder.
Bit more scrutiny, this Inmarsat bird is about Long 143E. Good for east coast and NZ, not west coast. Need to get access to a bird around 127E for excellent coverage of west coast and approaches...talk to the Japanese?
Not a perfect outcome yet.
Not a perfect outcome yet.
"Blah blah blah eyes roll back in my head".Has to be the quote of the thread. Thank god im not a military pilot anymore as i well remember the swinging dick quizzes like most ofnthis thread trying to prove who knew the most about obscure references to things that ultimately made little difference to anyone. Nothing else worthwhile to do. It looks like it has become even worse. Software in the aircraft when updated does its job just fly the approach for the aircraft type. Why are pilots, who you would think are free spirits, so prone to tedious chat that would do career public servants proud. (Some).
Last edited by extralite; 18th Mar 2018 at 09:00.
It depends what training/app endorsement CessnaPete holds as to whether it is actually a problem.
I have spoken to professional pilots who aren't confused. Again it depends on the training received by these professional pilots of yours and what approaches they are qualified to fly.
Doesn't really matter if some believe WAAS (which is actually one of a few SBAS service providers) is in Australia, we don't have charts published with LPV minima and the acft avionics wont work if they tried to fly LPV functionality in Oz anyway, so it is irrelevant.
If you started with a clean-sheet design for GPS approaches to today's capability would you design it they way it is now - probably not. However GPS approaches have evolved over 20 odd years so it has been constrained within the ability of exisiting avionics and autoflight systems to evolve with the increased capability.
I think of it differently - pre-GPS approach days you achieved your entry level instrument approach capability with NBD, and if it was real smick you had an RMI instead of fixed card. Some people could even fly VOR approaches! If you then wanted the really good capability you trained to fly ILS approaches. This certainly wasn't a transition without learning challenges.
I think of RNAV NPA as the entry level capability (like NDB/VOR app but better), LNAV/VNAV as the next level capability (note quite CAT I ILS), and LNAV LPV as ILS CAT I. Yes, the fact that you now effectively have 3 different capabilities within the same system does add initial understanding complexity - it just takes some effort to learn. You had similar learning challenges moving from NDB, to VOR, to ILS in the old days.
This evolution of GPS approach capability is not unique to Australia, in fact the evolving terminology is an effort to align terminology across the world. Short term disruption for longer term gain given the capability evolution over 20 years. The FAA is going through similar terminology/nomenclature changes.
You state ILS is simple - true if flying to CAT I only. Definitely not simple if you wish to extract the full ILS capability and fly to CAT II, or CAT IIIA / IIIB with AL and rollout.
I would equate your 'simple ILS' to flying RNAV NPA's only - pretty simple if you don't want to train and qualify to fly the enhanced GPS approach capability. Don't worry about anything other than the LNAV minima box, monitor the intermediate step heights, and don't bust the MDA.
(Dick - I will get back to you on the immediate post above, gotta step out - but its an LNAV NPA - with the avionics providing the internally generated GP, the approach is not designed with a 3 deg GP, its the acft's avionics effectively automating the DME/ALT scale. One of the documents I referred you to mentions Lnav+V, I will need to look again).
I have spoken to professional pilots who aren't confused. Again it depends on the training received by these professional pilots of yours and what approaches they are qualified to fly.
Doesn't really matter if some believe WAAS (which is actually one of a few SBAS service providers) is in Australia, we don't have charts published with LPV minima and the acft avionics wont work if they tried to fly LPV functionality in Oz anyway, so it is irrelevant.
If you started with a clean-sheet design for GPS approaches to today's capability would you design it they way it is now - probably not. However GPS approaches have evolved over 20 odd years so it has been constrained within the ability of exisiting avionics and autoflight systems to evolve with the increased capability.
I think of it differently - pre-GPS approach days you achieved your entry level instrument approach capability with NBD, and if it was real smick you had an RMI instead of fixed card. Some people could even fly VOR approaches! If you then wanted the really good capability you trained to fly ILS approaches. This certainly wasn't a transition without learning challenges.
I think of RNAV NPA as the entry level capability (like NDB/VOR app but better), LNAV/VNAV as the next level capability (note quite CAT I ILS), and LNAV LPV as ILS CAT I. Yes, the fact that you now effectively have 3 different capabilities within the same system does add initial understanding complexity - it just takes some effort to learn. You had similar learning challenges moving from NDB, to VOR, to ILS in the old days.
This evolution of GPS approach capability is not unique to Australia, in fact the evolving terminology is an effort to align terminology across the world. Short term disruption for longer term gain given the capability evolution over 20 years. The FAA is going through similar terminology/nomenclature changes.
You state ILS is simple - true if flying to CAT I only. Definitely not simple if you wish to extract the full ILS capability and fly to CAT II, or CAT IIIA / IIIB with AL and rollout.
I would equate your 'simple ILS' to flying RNAV NPA's only - pretty simple if you don't want to train and qualify to fly the enhanced GPS approach capability. Don't worry about anything other than the LNAV minima box, monitor the intermediate step heights, and don't bust the MDA.
(Dick - I will get back to you on the immediate post above, gotta step out - but its an LNAV NPA - with the avionics providing the internally generated GP, the approach is not designed with a 3 deg GP, its the acft's avionics effectively automating the DME/ALT scale. One of the documents I referred you to mentions Lnav+V, I will need to look again).
I hold an Instrument Rating, thats all thats required to fly any IFR approach in IMC in the UK.
GNSS approaches need to be initially endorsed, and then checked on the normal yearly Rating renewal flight.
alphacentauri
I don't know why me flying an LPV approach to near Cat I limits "scares the crap" out of you!!
Apologies, I did not realise there is no WAAS augmentation available yet in Australia, so you are not able an LPV GNSS approach.
But my simple Garmin 430W ( The W showing upgrade status for LPV. £2500 plus new aerial and coax upgrade from the basic G430) in my C182, is certainly cleared for LPV approaches to those limits, with suitable training, at suitable airfields, in USA and here in Europe.
Just looking for example in my Jepps.
Le Bourget Paris LFPB. LPV limit Rwy27 800m RVR. DA(H) 366ft (200 Ft QFE)
I don't know why me flying an LPV approach to near Cat I limits "scares the crap" out of you!!
Apologies, I did not realise there is no WAAS augmentation available yet in Australia, so you are not able an LPV GNSS approach.
But my simple Garmin 430W ( The W showing upgrade status for LPV. £2500 plus new aerial and coax upgrade from the basic G430) in my C182, is certainly cleared for LPV approaches to those limits, with suitable training, at suitable airfields, in USA and here in Europe.
Just looking for example in my Jepps.
Le Bourget Paris LFPB. LPV limit Rwy27 800m RVR. DA(H) 366ft (200 Ft QFE)
Last edited by cessnapete; 18th Mar 2018 at 20:26.
OZ,
Looks like this time around, somebody has figured out that SBAS (aka WAAS) will be (maybe) cheaper than the existing differential GPS in providing precision positioning systems.
A considerable saving to AMSA, but who pays??
The obvious benefit to aviation will be a welcome but very much second order outcome.
Tootle pip!!
Cessnapete,
Nothing in Australian aviation regulation is clear, concise, and straightforward.
Looks like this time around, somebody has figured out that SBAS (aka WAAS) will be (maybe) cheaper than the existing differential GPS in providing precision positioning systems.
A considerable saving to AMSA, but who pays??
The obvious benefit to aviation will be a welcome but very much second order outcome.
Tootle pip!!
Cessnapete,
Nothing in Australian aviation regulation is clear, concise, and straightforward.
We have a different problem re GNSS in the UK. We have all the satellite visibility and WAAS type augmentation in place. But very few approaches in place mainly LNAV, very few LPV.
Initially our CAA very anti anything GPS. Most of the regulators non pilot or ex Military Navs.!
We now have the situation that the CAA requiments for an IAP and drawing up a letdown are too expensive for the airfields operators. There is no State financing. Reportedly £50000 plus design fees. Ridiculous requirements for full ATC, not allowed at air/ ground comm airfields, and runway/ app lighting needed.
So we are denied the increased safety for a Nav aid that requires no ground infrastructure, because of cost/ and red tape.
The first few LNAV approaches even required a mandatory NDB as part of the approach!!
Initially our CAA very anti anything GPS. Most of the regulators non pilot or ex Military Navs.!
We now have the situation that the CAA requiments for an IAP and drawing up a letdown are too expensive for the airfields operators. There is no State financing. Reportedly £50000 plus design fees. Ridiculous requirements for full ATC, not allowed at air/ ground comm airfields, and runway/ app lighting needed.
So we are denied the increased safety for a Nav aid that requires no ground infrastructure, because of cost/ and red tape.
The first few LNAV approaches even required a mandatory NDB as part of the approach!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Aust.
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerial Agriculture in Australia was using satellite based Differential Correction for years until S.A. was switched off ... even now sub 20 cm accuracy is achieved .
And ILS training in Melbourne basin is hopeless between the booking system and EN hardly available leaving AV to carry everyone !
Oh , and love your work Extralite lol
And ILS training in Melbourne basin is hopeless between the booking system and EN hardly available leaving AV to carry everyone !
Oh , and love your work Extralite lol
Last edited by airag; 19th Mar 2018 at 09:21.
Australia learned a lot from the ‘efficiency’ of the British bureaucracy.
A study of the original government of Hong Kong is a very instructive insight into what happens when ‘crazy’ people with independent views decide not to impose ‘wisdom by British government’. Had the poms known what their unsupervised bureaucrats were up to, Hong Kong could have been regulated into an economic backwater.
A study of the original government of Hong Kong is a very instructive insight into what happens when ‘crazy’ people with independent views decide not to impose ‘wisdom by British government’. Had the poms known what their unsupervised bureaucrats were up to, Hong Kong could have been regulated into an economic backwater.