Flawed advice from Transport Minister McCormack’s office regarding SBAS
Regulation written with the blood of victims has no meaning in your world, I would guess.
Play the ball, not the man!!
Re. the above, you are quite wrong, and you know it. You well know I have long called for genuine and honest benefit/cost analysis for all matters aviation regulatory --- for the guidelines of the Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation to be mandatory for CASA.
Indeed, we almost got there, once, when Laurie Brereton, as Minister, issued a S.10 directive to observe the "then" conditions of the Legislative Instruments Bill as an Act, which in real terms meant full on genuine benefit/cost analysis.
So where are all the CFITs that will be prevented??
But nobody wants to take at tilt at the "why" of the present "trial", what does it tell us that we don't already know about a system that has been around for how long?? Almost 20 years??
Tootle pip!!
So where are all the CFITs that will be prevented??
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And when it does happen, the clock does not reset.
This is something operational managers who demand reliability standards of "many nines, five" fail to realise. When the system at 99.995 fails at 0200 in the air traffic centre it is the worst 26.5 minutes of the controllers long career of shifts.
In sympathising with the poor lad or lass after rectification, the manager must remember that tomorrow night the same thing can happen - and the reliability standard is still 99.995!
MJG
Been there done that - both Australian centers some years ago.
P.S. Some posters should be careful in selectively "remembering" discussions in the GIT in the 1990's. Some of us still have the minutes and papers on file.
This is something operational managers who demand reliability standards of "many nines, five" fail to realise. When the system at 99.995 fails at 0200 in the air traffic centre it is the worst 26.5 minutes of the controllers long career of shifts.
In sympathising with the poor lad or lass after rectification, the manager must remember that tomorrow night the same thing can happen - and the reliability standard is still 99.995!
MJG
Been there done that - both Australian centers some years ago.
P.S. Some posters should be careful in selectively "remembering" discussions in the GIT in the 1990's. Some of us still have the minutes and papers on file.
A sad story of CBAs. 12 Squadron RAAF, operators of the CH-47C Chinook...mothballed! The helicopter, known as the most effective medium lift helicopter ever...was too expensive to run. The RAAF is the only outfit ever to withdraw a Chinook from service. The means...the people doing the CBA loaded up the costs of running the entire base of Amberley on 12 Sqn...thats 1 and 6 Sqn, 9 Sqn 482 wing The three messes plus the ADGies plus the dogs....everyone was there only for 12 Sqn...not hard to work out that for every hour flown of 12 frames the cost of running an entire base just doesnt cut it...so the Chooks were mothballed. If DoD can do that...I do not trust anything with a vested interest.
So, Mr Leadsled, in front of everyone present. If a SBAS stacks up as a general benefit....do you oppose LPV in the GAFA? Because IT WILL SAVE LIVES!
So, Mr Leadsled, in front of everyone present. If a SBAS stacks up as a general benefit....do you oppose LPV in the GAFA? Because IT WILL SAVE LIVES!
Thread Starter
Would others like to comment on the “ financial analysis “. Is it accurate.?
I do not know the person who wrote it. It was sent to me as a private post through pprune!
Surely it shows that it would be more effective to subsidise the small number of Regional aircraft into BaroVnav?
I do not know the person who wrote it. It was sent to me as a private post through pprune!
Surely it shows that it would be more effective to subsidise the small number of Regional aircraft into BaroVnav?
What proportion of that cost is likely to paid for by aviation interests? 5%? !0%? Until that is established, who knows? The study assumes it will be 100%. Without providing any justification for that other than saying other industries already have solutions so won't be interested.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOT THE FIRST CBA FOR THIS TECHNOLOGY
As posted on 18 Mar 18 on the GA ILS training thread:
My project notes and review of the report show SBAS was certainly part of the study.
Wonder if the latest CBA authors took a look at the previous work - I'll bet not.
MJG
Getting plenty of memories looking back through my files.
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
Wonder if the latest CBA authors took a look at the previous work - I'll bet not.
MJG
Getting plenty of memories looking back through my files.
If a SBAS stacks up as a general benefit....do you oppose LPV in the GAFA? Because IT WILL SAVE LIVES!
Of course I don't "oppose" LPV, and nothing I have written on this thread suggests such a silly notion.
What I have continually asked is: "What is the catch??"
What is different, this time, in this trial, that the outcome will be different ---- why will it stack up this time, what "general benefit" when the benefits of SBAS/WAAS years ago didn't stack up, not even close, and many of the then non-aviation benefits are now already available --- have been for years.
A lot of money being spent to tell us what we already know.
"IT WILL SAVE LIVES"
If you look at the accident record, UFIT --- uncontrolled flight into terrain can be seen, in the circumstances having LPV would not have altered the outcome.
Two examples come to mind, the Citation that crashed out the back of Mareeba, and the Lockhart River Metro.
As to the latter, much has been written, there are many opinion, but I was involved in part of the investigation, including flying the whole sequence per the flight recorder trace in a simulator.
What the flight recorder showed (regardless of anything else) was an approach that was no where near conforming to the published letdown, and the approach was wildly unstable. If the PIC is going to demonstrate such "behavior" why would LPV make any difference. If the PIC had conformed to the published letdown, there would have been no crash.
So, back to my question: "What is the catch" ---- that millions of taxpayers $$$$ are being spent. Why are we going to learn anything new about a rather mature and well understood aid.
Tootle pip!!
The yank farmers are enjoying 90mm accuracy FOC from WAAS....with equiped machinery?
Our farmers are slowly taking up guidance. A huge drag is the ongoing cost of subscriptions. Setup and maintenance of a reference station for kinematic stations. Savings of 10 to 20% just in reducing overlap on each pass, longer, more accurate passes...even at up to 30km/hr...big differences in productivity.
Kondinan says only 20% uptake so, savings to those who have taken the plunge and possibilities of a five fold improvment in productivity if more uptake across the board
Am amazed the Nats havent listened to their constituents. However, as one CAD salesman said in an article I read...I never sold much software until the old school drafters started to retire...maybe the same for old school farmers.
Transport and logistics....really, these guys only need to know what road the load is on...however, what would be a killer app for SBAS in the centimetre accuracy range is accident investigation out on country highway/freeway situations. Kinematic information as well as where the vehicles are on the road deck dovetail with available software to give very accurate interpretation of the accident sequence....lots of money to be saved by eliminating common accidents and injuries...ask insurance companies about that. Not to mention, reducing the reliance on the recollections of witnesses.
One hour on google, access a few sites, download some pdf...and probably justified savings to Australia's economy in the billions. Productivity in the billions...alway for a general cost of...as reported..$216,000,000.... not even one quarter of a white elephant airport railway line.
Our farmers are slowly taking up guidance. A huge drag is the ongoing cost of subscriptions. Setup and maintenance of a reference station for kinematic stations. Savings of 10 to 20% just in reducing overlap on each pass, longer, more accurate passes...even at up to 30km/hr...big differences in productivity.
Kondinan says only 20% uptake so, savings to those who have taken the plunge and possibilities of a five fold improvment in productivity if more uptake across the board
Am amazed the Nats havent listened to their constituents. However, as one CAD salesman said in an article I read...I never sold much software until the old school drafters started to retire...maybe the same for old school farmers.
Transport and logistics....really, these guys only need to know what road the load is on...however, what would be a killer app for SBAS in the centimetre accuracy range is accident investigation out on country highway/freeway situations. Kinematic information as well as where the vehicles are on the road deck dovetail with available software to give very accurate interpretation of the accident sequence....lots of money to be saved by eliminating common accidents and injuries...ask insurance companies about that. Not to mention, reducing the reliance on the recollections of witnesses.
One hour on google, access a few sites, download some pdf...and probably justified savings to Australia's economy in the billions. Productivity in the billions...alway for a general cost of...as reported..$216,000,000.... not even one quarter of a white elephant airport railway line.
Driver is correct, agriculture and mining are the big winners with WAAS. The aviation argument is irrelevant because the savings are miniscule by comparison. We will probably get WAAS but CASA and Airservices, never to be proved wrong, will prohibit its use for aviation.
Sunfish, OZ,
I think you need to update with what Australian agriculture is doing, RIGHT NOW, perhaps pay a visit to the next AgQuip at Gunnedah.
Accurate (much better than most aviation applications) GPS positioning is already being used, has been for years. All the comments about SBAS/WAAS and transport/agriculture was true 15 or more years ago, but things have moved on.
Remember we had differential GPS available for surveying when?? Twenty five plus years ago, with a modern equivalent now. Have a look at the navigational accuracy that is available now, for safe transit of shipping through the Reef, Torres Straight etc.
Tootle pip!!
I think you need to update with what Australian agriculture is doing, RIGHT NOW, perhaps pay a visit to the next AgQuip at Gunnedah.
Accurate (much better than most aviation applications) GPS positioning is already being used, has been for years. All the comments about SBAS/WAAS and transport/agriculture was true 15 or more years ago, but things have moved on.
Remember we had differential GPS available for surveying when?? Twenty five plus years ago, with a modern equivalent now. Have a look at the navigational accuracy that is available now, for safe transit of shipping through the Reef, Torres Straight etc.
Tootle pip!!
OK, Leadsled...money...mouth...I know exactly how and what DGPS can do with RTK on civil jobs. A surveyor looks pretty bored on his own running around with his pancake. No rodman to yell at when things stuff up. Even ten years ago we had D11s with pancakes on each end of their blades carving out a freeway onramp without a survey peg or batter board in sight. All site specific and no more than 15000m range line of sight.
Care to let us all know what the penetration is on broadacre farming? Everything I am finding from within three years to the present is the farming community want in on the QZSS.
Care to let us all know what the penetration is on broadacre farming? Everything I am finding from within three years to the present is the farming community want in on the QZSS.
As much as I love reading anything put out by Sinclair Knight Merz...
ACILAllen Augmented GNSS
...seriously, we should pull every GPS out of every aeroplane..TODAY! How could we fly behind such wildly inaccurate devices...whats WAAS, no mention. No matter what system it all suffers from inaccuracies. Spend money on rolling out Continuously Operating Reference stations.
Rant over. This is what the government already have in front of them regarding augmented GNSS. The productivity gains are impressive.
ACILAllen Augmented GNSS
...seriously, we should pull every GPS out of every aeroplane..TODAY! How could we fly behind such wildly inaccurate devices...whats WAAS, no mention. No matter what system it all suffers from inaccuracies. Spend money on rolling out Continuously Operating Reference stations.
Rant over. This is what the government already have in front of them regarding augmented GNSS. The productivity gains are impressive.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpha Centauri, when you say I am incorrect about Air Services, did you mean they have already found a way to charge for LPV approaches?
It does amaze me that the rest of the developed world has gone SBAS , for years now, before ADSB, safety then efficiency. The benefits to all the various industries, particularly primary industries, have easily paid the system off several times by now But Australia knows better right!! We need Efficiency before safety.
The ADSB cost benefit was crap, I don’t know anyone who’s installation was even close to the estimates used, normally 2 to 3 times the cost, And I doubt the equipment meets the ICAO PBCS requirements, which came out last year and are now being implemented around the world. Equipment might be capable, but any current installation will need a re-assessment to confirm this, which equals $$$$.Thread drift, apologies.
It does amaze me that the rest of the developed world has gone SBAS , for years now, before ADSB, safety then efficiency. The benefits to all the various industries, particularly primary industries, have easily paid the system off several times by now But Australia knows better right!! We need Efficiency before safety.
The ADSB cost benefit was crap, I don’t know anyone who’s installation was even close to the estimates used, normally 2 to 3 times the cost, And I doubt the equipment meets the ICAO PBCS requirements, which came out last year and are now being implemented around the world. Equipment might be capable, but any current installation will need a re-assessment to confirm this, which equals $$$$.Thread drift, apologies.
OZ,
I could not find any date on that piece on the Japanese WAAS satellite, how old is it? Last I heard, negotiations to use that for aviation purposes over Australia fell over quite a while ago, and that system plays no part in the present so called "trial".
In isolation, everything in it is, of course, quite correct, but we are already doing all of those things, with "centimeter" or close to accuracy, now, that is the point I have been trying to make ---- it is not in the future, it is now. See one of my previous posts.
I can plot bore hole positions in surveying an ore body to 2-3 cm position right now, just like a survey I just had done of a hangar site for title purposes ---- on an aerodrome for which no acceptable survey was available.
EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT (in the absence of high speed trains) what new does SBAS/WAAS provide. That is why I said: Visit AgQuip at Gunnedah, see what's available right now. In the road transport business, for all navigation and fleet management purposes you don't even need SBAS, the average 3M accuracy of current non-aviation GPS is quite good enough. And 3M is quite good enough for parcel delivery.
For mine site management (not exploration) the preferred solution is company owned GBAS, because that gives the mining company complete control.
That is why I keep asking, what is the catch, what is different this time, given the services already available??
The whole McCormack press release, also available of the Geoscience Australia web site, only blathers on about aviation, NO OTHER USE of SBAS/WAAS GPS was mentioned.
So, as we all know the press release is a load of old bollocks, what is really going on. What is the catch??
Tootle pip!!
PS: Whoever suggested it would save large overlaps plowing/sowing/harvesting --- are you serious, I could and did (and so could everybody else) run right along the furrow of the last pass before I was old enough to legally drive, and that was when all equipment was towed, not the great gadgets now ---- with GPS aided steering. I don't have to sit half sideways in the seat any longer, and the speaker phone, air conditioning and stereo is great ---- and I don't have to hop off the tractor and get underneath if there is thunderstorm and big hail.
Perhaps you could read up on soil science, and see how it is now possible to map a paddock, and meter fertilizer and trace elements to individual parts of a paddock for maximum even yield --- all done with current GPS positioning.
I could not find any date on that piece on the Japanese WAAS satellite, how old is it? Last I heard, negotiations to use that for aviation purposes over Australia fell over quite a while ago, and that system plays no part in the present so called "trial".
In isolation, everything in it is, of course, quite correct, but we are already doing all of those things, with "centimeter" or close to accuracy, now, that is the point I have been trying to make ---- it is not in the future, it is now. See one of my previous posts.
I can plot bore hole positions in surveying an ore body to 2-3 cm position right now, just like a survey I just had done of a hangar site for title purposes ---- on an aerodrome for which no acceptable survey was available.
EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT (in the absence of high speed trains) what new does SBAS/WAAS provide. That is why I said: Visit AgQuip at Gunnedah, see what's available right now. In the road transport business, for all navigation and fleet management purposes you don't even need SBAS, the average 3M accuracy of current non-aviation GPS is quite good enough. And 3M is quite good enough for parcel delivery.
For mine site management (not exploration) the preferred solution is company owned GBAS, because that gives the mining company complete control.
That is why I keep asking, what is the catch, what is different this time, given the services already available??
“Having a complete understanding of how the aviation industry sector can fully benefit from SBAS technology is crucial to the success of this trial,” Mr McCormack said.
So, as we all know the press release is a load of old bollocks, what is really going on. What is the catch??
Tootle pip!!
PS: Whoever suggested it would save large overlaps plowing/sowing/harvesting --- are you serious, I could and did (and so could everybody else) run right along the furrow of the last pass before I was old enough to legally drive, and that was when all equipment was towed, not the great gadgets now ---- with GPS aided steering. I don't have to sit half sideways in the seat any longer, and the speaker phone, air conditioning and stereo is great ---- and I don't have to hop off the tractor and get underneath if there is thunderstorm and big hail.
Perhaps you could read up on soil science, and see how it is now possible to map a paddock, and meter fertilizer and trace elements to individual parts of a paddock for maximum even yield --- all done with current GPS positioning.
Leadsled:
You are deliberately disingenuous. Yes, you can have "centimeter accuracy" at present, with survey grade GPS, and post processing and perhaps DGPS but not at speed in real time everywhere provided by WAAS which is where the money is - drones and autonomous vehicles.
For mine site management (not exploration) the preferred solution is company owned GBAS, because that gives the mining company complete control.
This is BS. Mine sites currently have no choice but to use their own or subscription based high accuracy solutions. As for "3M being quite good enough" this is also BS.
Disengenuous again. "GPS aided steering" and fertilizer management has been around for at least fifteen years. What we are talking about is centimeter accuracy at speed in real time for the latest generation of autonomous tractors, seeders, sprayers and harvesters that have no human driver at all and rely on WAAS. Accuracy affects profits, do I need to explain that?
Then there is going to be the multitude of personal applications, including self driving cars, drones and others unimagined that will rely on ubiquitous WAAS.
Why the &*^& are you suggesting that Australia should again wall itself off from what is already world wide common consumer technology????? The bloody "not invented here" syndrome is killing this country.
In isolation, everything in it is, of course, quite correct, but we are already doing all of those things, with "centimeter" or close to accuracy, now, that is the point I have been trying to make ---- it is not in the future, it is now. See one of my previous posts.
I can plot bore hole positions in surveying an ore body to 2-3 cm position right now, just like a survey I just had done of a hangar site for title purposes ---- on an aerodrome for which no acceptable survey was available.
EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT (in the absence of high speed trains) what new does SBAS/WAAS provide. That is why I said: Visit AgQuip at Gunnedah, see what's available right now. In the road transport business, for all navigation and fleet management purposes you don't even need SBAS, the average 3M accuracy of current non-aviation GPS is quite good enough. And 3M is quite good enough for parcel delivery.
I can plot bore hole positions in surveying an ore body to 2-3 cm position right now, just like a survey I just had done of a hangar site for title purposes ---- on an aerodrome for which no acceptable survey was available.
EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT (in the absence of high speed trains) what new does SBAS/WAAS provide. That is why I said: Visit AgQuip at Gunnedah, see what's available right now. In the road transport business, for all navigation and fleet management purposes you don't even need SBAS, the average 3M accuracy of current non-aviation GPS is quite good enough. And 3M is quite good enough for parcel delivery.
For mine site management (not exploration) the preferred solution is company owned GBAS, because that gives the mining company complete control.
PS: Whoever suggested it would save large overlaps plowing/sowing/harvesting --- are you serious, I could and did (and so could everybody else) run right along the furrow of the last pass before I was old enough to legally drive, and that was when all equipment was towed, not the great gadgets now ---- with GPS aided steering. I don't have to sit half sideways in the seat any longer, and the speaker phone, air conditioning and stereo is great ---- and I don't have to hop off the tractor and get underneath if there is thunderstorm and big hail.
Perhaps you could read up on soil science, and see how it is now possible to map a paddock, and meter fertilizer and trace elements to individual parts of a paddock for maximum even yield --- all done with current GPS positioning.
Perhaps you could read up on soil science, and see how it is now possible to map a paddock, and meter fertilizer and trace elements to individual parts of a paddock for maximum even yield --- all done with current GPS positioning.
Then there is going to be the multitude of personal applications, including self driving cars, drones and others unimagined that will rely on ubiquitous WAAS.
Why the &*^& are you suggesting that Australia should again wall itself off from what is already world wide common consumer technology????? The bloody "not invented here" syndrome is killing this country.
Last edited by Sunfish; 22nd Apr 2018 at 21:44.
Sunfish,
Obviously, to you at least, I haven't made it clear enough that I have differentiated between stationary or slow moving sites, and fast moving.
That is why, in the last post I had "Except for aircraft" in capitals. The point is that all the benefits of SBAS/WAAS that we would have got years ago, we get now without it, EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT ---- and we don't have high speed trains.
That was the major point of the major study done by then DoTaRS and others years ago, that GPS developments -- WITHOUT SBAS/WAAS --- was going to give augmented levels of accuracy --- WITHOUT the augumentation, for stationary or slow moving receivers, and "slow moving" was put at less than 50km/hour at the time.
That is why the CBA was negative, in then future years, all the SBAS/WAAS "benefits" --- EXCEPT FOR AVIATION ---- would be achieved without SBAS/WAAS.
And aviation in Australia was and is so small, that governments were not going to put the system in for aviation, which, statistically compared to aviation in USA, is little more than a rounding error.
Are you in the mining business these days? For sites that want driverless vehicles, my mates who have been involved in the development tell be that GBAS is the preferred technical solution, "competition" is not an issue, "subscription" ie: Galileo, is not an issue, but possible disruption of SBAS very much is.
Do you really think you need to explain that to somebody whose family has been in the "farming" business since the Liverpool Plains was opened up to selectors? In a previous post I quoted lane accuracy possible now.
As for fertilizer use, thank you, you confirmed exactly what I said, we do it now, and have been doing it for quite a while, all without SBAS/WAAS.
"Please explain" why road transport services NOW and in the immediate future (which future will not include driverless B-Doubles or road trains in yours or my lifetime) needs better than 3m positioning.
BUT ----Get back to the Minister's statement, it was all about aviation, nothing else. So, how is SBAS/WAAS going to revolutionist aviation by lowering the minima for GNSS approaches marginally.
Remember the complex rules/costs for designing any instrument approach, particularly "semi" precision approaches, starting with only being available at certified or registered airfields, none of that helps the RFDS or similar at many of they places they go.
I ask again, what is the catch this time, what has changed for aviation??
Tootle pip!!
PS: The studies of driverless equipment in broad acre farming don't quite stack up like they do in an open cut mine site, and let's face it, BHP is not quite so gung ho as Rio Tinto on mine sites, despite the enthusiastic promotion of such developments by manufacturers of such equipment.
Obviously, to you at least, I haven't made it clear enough that I have differentiated between stationary or slow moving sites, and fast moving.
That is why, in the last post I had "Except for aircraft" in capitals. The point is that all the benefits of SBAS/WAAS that we would have got years ago, we get now without it, EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT ---- and we don't have high speed trains.
That was the major point of the major study done by then DoTaRS and others years ago, that GPS developments -- WITHOUT SBAS/WAAS --- was going to give augmented levels of accuracy --- WITHOUT the augumentation, for stationary or slow moving receivers, and "slow moving" was put at less than 50km/hour at the time.
That is why the CBA was negative, in then future years, all the SBAS/WAAS "benefits" --- EXCEPT FOR AVIATION ---- would be achieved without SBAS/WAAS.
And aviation in Australia was and is so small, that governments were not going to put the system in for aviation, which, statistically compared to aviation in USA, is little more than a rounding error.
Are you in the mining business these days? For sites that want driverless vehicles, my mates who have been involved in the development tell be that GBAS is the preferred technical solution, "competition" is not an issue, "subscription" ie: Galileo, is not an issue, but possible disruption of SBAS very much is.
Accuracy affects profits, do I need to explain that?
As for fertilizer use, thank you, you confirmed exactly what I said, we do it now, and have been doing it for quite a while, all without SBAS/WAAS.
"Please explain" why road transport services NOW and in the immediate future (which future will not include driverless B-Doubles or road trains in yours or my lifetime) needs better than 3m positioning.
BUT ----Get back to the Minister's statement, it was all about aviation, nothing else. So, how is SBAS/WAAS going to revolutionist aviation by lowering the minima for GNSS approaches marginally.
Remember the complex rules/costs for designing any instrument approach, particularly "semi" precision approaches, starting with only being available at certified or registered airfields, none of that helps the RFDS or similar at many of they places they go.
I ask again, what is the catch this time, what has changed for aviation??
Tootle pip!!
PS: The studies of driverless equipment in broad acre farming don't quite stack up like they do in an open cut mine site, and let's face it, BHP is not quite so gung ho as Rio Tinto on mine sites, despite the enthusiastic promotion of such developments by manufacturers of such equipment.
That was the major point of the major study done by then DoTaRS and others years ago, that GPS developments -- WITHOUT SBAS/WAAS --- was going to give augmented levels of accuracy --- WITHOUT the augumentation, for stationary or slow moving receivers, and "slow moving" was put at less than 50km/hour at the time.
Do you not understand the concept of time to market? Do you not understand that WAAS/ SBAS is a world industry standard right NOW!
I am sick of the marketers who promise a cheaper and better solution RSN (real soon now!). We need to adopt world standards for positioning NOW!
To put that another way, all your promised solutions are marketed as "almost as good as WAAS/SBAS". SBAS is the gold standard. Adopt it NOW!