Flawed advice from Transport Minister McCormack’s office regarding SBAS
Logically, the Japanese government would have talked to the Australian government went they first indicated they were going to launch a geobird with capability for SBAS prior to 1999....any surveyor or engineer would have informed the bureaucrats this would be a good thing to get on board. Remembering, this was in the days of SA. Engineers at my old school at QIT were studying the Navstar signal with the intent of defeating SA..an augmented signal would do exactly that!
The Japanese government, once again have involved Australia with the development of the QRSS. I am at a loss trying to understand the mindset.
Interesting, first MTSAT crashes on launch. there is a loss of met coverage so the US move one of theirs here in 2003 and then move it back after 2005. Isn't that about the same time we had the first "trial"
The bottom line? The argument remains the same, except it is now asking for an answer nearly twenty years down the track. Australian industry could have had WAAS decades ago. Imagine the technology that could have been developed on such a scaffold?
What is the catch?
The Japanese government, once again have involved Australia with the development of the QRSS. I am at a loss trying to understand the mindset.
Interesting, first MTSAT crashes on launch. there is a loss of met coverage so the US move one of theirs here in 2003 and then move it back after 2005. Isn't that about the same time we had the first "trial"
The bottom line? The argument remains the same, except it is now asking for an answer nearly twenty years down the track. Australian industry could have had WAAS decades ago. Imagine the technology that could have been developed on such a scaffold?
What is the catch?
Disingenuous again , "was going to give" says it all. WAAS/SBAS gives us that accuracy right $#@%ing NOW! Without waiting for some peculiar Australian solution. Without waiting for the next generation of gadgets that "might' get built.
Do you not understand the concept of time to market? Do you not understand that WAAS/ SBAS is a world industry standard right NOW!
Do you not understand the concept of time to market? Do you not understand that WAAS/ SBAS is a world industry standard right NOW!
You really do surprise me, for a long time, your posts have been common sense and seldom have I disagreed with you, but you seemed to be completely unhinged about SBAS/WAAS. You don't seem to be able to recognize what is available, right now, in Australia, not some time in the future.
None of the things I have mentioned involve "peculiar Australian solutions", and there is nothing "peculiarly Australia" about DGPS, which we have been using for years.
I did dig up the executive summary of the Cth 2011 SBAS/WAAS assessment, it made virtually all the same points I have made in one or another posts here.
Yet again, JUST FOR YOUR BENEFIT, I make the point that the present "trial" is ALL ABOUT AVIATION ----- not other well known and understood benefits of GBAS/WAAS.
So, what is the catch, why is the end result going to be any different this time for aviation, compared to 2003 (or thereabouts) and 2011, after all, this is hardly "new" technology.
Where is the REVOLUTION for aviation???
One of the interesting things you will find out, if you do a bit of homework, is that GPS III, using all the new signal channels, is more accurate, for terrestrial applications, that current GPS/WAAS, and the quite wide variety of receivers available for GPSIII often have provision for processing Glonass and other systems. All predicted years ago, and a major factor in Australia not taking up SBAS/WASS, but using GBAS for particular solutions, INCLUDING aviation.
Given the subscription model of Galileo, I can't see it having a big market around here, given the availability models of DGPS that we have RIGHT NOW, and have had for years.
You mention "time to market", sadly for aviation, it will be some time before certified equipment is available that has the capability to take advantage of CURRENT GPS technology. As far as I can see, the TSOs haven't even been published yet, but I did only have a very quick look.
Tootle pip!!
PS: You seem unable to contemplate the idea that others here, beside yourself, have serious high level experience in industries beyond aviation. Everything I have mentioned here is based on my practical experience.
Leadsled:
DGPS is an old maritime system, powered by coastal radio stations, there is no coverage inland and its accuracy according to the website is only "better than 10 metres".
You obviously have never worked with high technology otherwise you would have learned the hard way to distinguish between marketing "spin" and actual available, cheap working technology.
The technology industry does its best to forstall purchase of a competitors technology by promising the imminent release of a cheaper and much better product RSN ("real soon now") this is often achieved by a demonstration of a prototype or mockup termed "smoke and mirrors".
Given the Australian Governments appalling record in implementing technology solutions, the last thing this country needs is to wait for a pie in the sky leading edge solution that doesn't yet exist GPSIII for which there are no consumer electronics available and instead implement a turnkey WAAS solution that is available NOW! As used by the rest of the world.
I am sick and tired of the technical prophets of Australia stuffing up what works for the rest of the world. This goes for communications like NBN, military procurement like Seasprite and so on. We have a proud record of being late, delivering substandard solutions, if we deliver anything, at great cost. In every case the folk like me who say"buy off the shelf, turnkey solutions" are howled down by the idiots who want unique or cutting edge solutions that don't exist now. WAAS is ubiquitous in the rest of the world. Use it.
None of the things I have mentioned involve "peculiar Australian solutions", and there is nothing "peculiarly Australia" about DGPS, which we have been using for years.
One of the interesting things you will find out, if you do a bit of homework, is that GPS III, using all the new signal channels, is more accurate, for terrestrial applications, that current GPS/WAAS, ...............
............it will be some time before certified equipment is available that has the capability to take advantage of CURRENT GPS technology. As far as I can see, the TSOs haven't even been published yet,
............it will be some time before certified equipment is available that has the capability to take advantage of CURRENT GPS technology. As far as I can see, the TSOs haven't even been published yet,
The technology industry does its best to forstall purchase of a competitors technology by promising the imminent release of a cheaper and much better product RSN ("real soon now") this is often achieved by a demonstration of a prototype or mockup termed "smoke and mirrors".
Given the Australian Governments appalling record in implementing technology solutions, the last thing this country needs is to wait for a pie in the sky leading edge solution that doesn't yet exist GPSIII for which there are no consumer electronics available and instead implement a turnkey WAAS solution that is available NOW! As used by the rest of the world.
I am sick and tired of the technical prophets of Australia stuffing up what works for the rest of the world. This goes for communications like NBN, military procurement like Seasprite and so on. We have a proud record of being late, delivering substandard solutions, if we deliver anything, at great cost. In every case the folk like me who say"buy off the shelf, turnkey solutions" are howled down by the idiots who want unique or cutting edge solutions that don't exist now. WAAS is ubiquitous in the rest of the world. Use it.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Aust.
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've mentioned it before in another thread , but here goes .... again !
Precision GPS works perfectly well in the aviation environment , Aerial Agriculture has been using it for decades now at 140kt plus , and with for those with even a basic understanding how GPS systems function , it is easy to comprehend that mach 5 wouldn't concern it in the slightest .
We used to use satellite differential to correct the dither with two correction stations in Australia at the time ( yes subscriptions were expensive ! ) and achieved 5cm accuracy , since S.A was turned off we no longer require any Diff as we still achieve sub 20cm which is fine for our purpose .
Sure ground based systems for tractors require cm accuracy which is provided by B-line etc. utilising ground based differential ... nothing to do with speed ... simply higher levels of precision for the task .
As always aviation is miles behind the technology curve..... actually I will rephrase that , aviation has always had it's share of innovators , it's the Regulator who is miles behind the curve !
Precision GPS works perfectly well in the aviation environment , Aerial Agriculture has been using it for decades now at 140kt plus , and with for those with even a basic understanding how GPS systems function , it is easy to comprehend that mach 5 wouldn't concern it in the slightest .
We used to use satellite differential to correct the dither with two correction stations in Australia at the time ( yes subscriptions were expensive ! ) and achieved 5cm accuracy , since S.A was turned off we no longer require any Diff as we still achieve sub 20cm which is fine for our purpose .
Sure ground based systems for tractors require cm accuracy which is provided by B-line etc. utilising ground based differential ... nothing to do with speed ... simply higher levels of precision for the task .
As always aviation is miles behind the technology curve..... actually I will rephrase that , aviation has always had it's share of innovators , it's the Regulator who is miles behind the curve !
Last edited by airag; 25th Apr 2018 at 08:44. Reason: Addition
Sunfish,
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.
You are not even close as to the DGPS available, and what position accuracy I can get, pretty much anywhere in Australia, RFN.
Tomorrow, from Australian retailers, I can buy now what I regard as quite an amazing range of ready made circuit boards, from a range of manufacturers, some of whom, I am please to say, are Australia, that are not only GPSIII all signals capable, but can simultaneously process Glonass and Galileo signals. They meet their specification, not marketing hype.
Indeed, if I was in the drone commercial business, ( as a good mate if mine is, if you are in NSW, you are benefiting from his airborne infrared fire mapping) from the same sources I can also buy comparable AHRS systems, giving me the core of a complete flight control system. And, if 3m positioning for commercial transport operations is not good enough, these will easily produce 3-4 cm. Amazon parcel delivery??
BUT, ALL THE WAY THROUGH, you are completely missing the point, we all (or most of us) know what SBAS/WAAS can do, some of us know what alternative currently available systems will do, but this "revolution" is ONLY about aviation, and so, I say again: "What is the catch".
Tootle pip!!
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.
You are not even close as to the DGPS available, and what position accuracy I can get, pretty much anywhere in Australia, RFN.
Tomorrow, from Australian retailers, I can buy now what I regard as quite an amazing range of ready made circuit boards, from a range of manufacturers, some of whom, I am please to say, are Australia, that are not only GPSIII all signals capable, but can simultaneously process Glonass and Galileo signals. They meet their specification, not marketing hype.
Indeed, if I was in the drone commercial business, ( as a good mate if mine is, if you are in NSW, you are benefiting from his airborne infrared fire mapping) from the same sources I can also buy comparable AHRS systems, giving me the core of a complete flight control system. And, if 3m positioning for commercial transport operations is not good enough, these will easily produce 3-4 cm. Amazon parcel delivery??
BUT, ALL THE WAY THROUGH, you are completely missing the point, we all (or most of us) know what SBAS/WAAS can do, some of us know what alternative currently available systems will do, but this "revolution" is ONLY about aviation, and so, I say again: "What is the catch".
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speculation here: when the idea of SBAS was pitched to the government, their first question most likely was; “Who will benefit and who is going to pay for it?” Farming yes, but the union won’t let their members be charged for it, union is too strong. Same for the trucking association. Ok, increased rego charges for all vehicles? Political suicide. Maritime? Maybe. Aviation? Absolutely, and ASA offer to recoup the installation and running costs via their Nav charges process, plus a small percentage for themselves.
okay then, the argument is made that aviation is the major beneficiary and should therefore pay for the system.
Speculation at this time, but I’ve seen this exact process before to justify a pre determined decision
okay then, the argument is made that aviation is the major beneficiary and should therefore pay for the system.
Speculation at this time, but I’ve seen this exact process before to justify a pre determined decision
Leadsled:
I don't want "circuit boards", I want a ready made product that works out of the box in an aircraft, car or boat for a few hundred dollars. WAAS already owns that territory globally. I can drive into town and pick up a WAAS enabled gadget in ten minutes for a few dollars. Dynon makes an $800 WAAS enabled receiver that meets the FAA ADSB mandate the equivalent Australian solution is at least $5000 or $10000 if I want a certified GPS navigator. If history is any guide, WAAS enabled technology is only going to get cheaper, Grand Rapids EFIS has announced the ability to construct synthetic LPV approaches and, for better or for worse, the days of the $10000 GPS navigator are numbered.
Australia has a simply shocking record of technology implementation. Look at the disaster that is NBN. So when a Minister has a rare bout of sanity and says " lets use a complete off the shelf positioning solution - WAAS" , the usual idiots come out; "Its too expensive!", "We don't need it!", "Something better is just around the corner!" It's not, we do and it isn't.
You are not even close as to the DGPS available, and what position accuracy I can get, pretty much anywhere in Australia, RFN.
Tomorrow, from Australian retailers, I can buy now what I regard as quite an amazing range of ready made circuit boards, from a range of manufacturers, some of whom, I am please to say, are Australia, that are not only GPSIII all signals capable, but can simultaneously process Glonass and Galileo signals. They meet their specification, not marketing hype.
Tomorrow, from Australian retailers, I can buy now what I regard as quite an amazing range of ready made circuit boards, from a range of manufacturers, some of whom, I am please to say, are Australia, that are not only GPSIII all signals capable, but can simultaneously process Glonass and Galileo signals. They meet their specification, not marketing hype.
Australia has a simply shocking record of technology implementation. Look at the disaster that is NBN. So when a Minister has a rare bout of sanity and says " lets use a complete off the shelf positioning solution - WAAS" , the usual idiots come out; "Its too expensive!", "We don't need it!", "Something better is just around the corner!" It's not, we do and it isn't.
Australia has a simply shocking record of technology implementation. Look at the disaster that is NBN. So when a Minister has a rare bout of sanity and says " lets use a complete off the shelf positioning solution - WAAS" , the usual idiots come out; "Its too expensive!", "We don't need it!", "Something better is just around the corner!" It's not, we do and it isn't.
SBAS/WAAS ---- JUST FOR AVIATION ----- has failed benefit/cost twice now, what do you think had changed ---- to justify it??
Unlike years ago, there is no pressing need for non-aviation use, but given what else is IN PLACE,now, and mostly has been for years (note Airag's comment) and the advent of GPSIII. And it is GPS III, then in the future, now a fact, that, along with other augmentation, has effectively eliminated WAAS for other than aviation use. That is fact, whether you accept it or not.
So, how it is SBAS/WAAS going to revolutionist Australian aviation???
Given the costs, and the relatively few airfields in Australia that have OR CAN HAVE an IAP (and decreasing) where, all of a sudden, is the big benefit. There isn't one, period.
I am certain you understand, the FAA had thousands of ILS IAP, where they could simply publish "overlay" approaches, no such thing in Australia.
The majority of runways in Australia are at airfields that are neither certified or registered, so no IAP of any kind ----- so much for helping the RFDS. The majority of certified/registered airfields only have non-precision approaches, so marginal at best minima reductions only. It is not needed for general aircraft navigation.
So, once again, I ask the question, what is the catch, what had changed to create this flurry of activity.
"Follow the money" ----- so where is the smart money on this one, because the "study" cannot tell us anything we do not already know ----- is it rights/patent holders for SBAS/WAAS trying to preserve a market against GPSIII??? In this case, at the Australian taxpayer's expense.
Nobody on this thread has yet come up with a supportable reason for what is going on.
Tootle pip!!
Leadsled,
Have you been to GA website and read the "..supportable reason for what is going on." ?
Here let me google that for you; www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/positioning-navigation/positioning-for-the-future.
The Australian Govt body charged with advising on national positioning infrastructure, has identified that there may be a need for a WAAS. As such they are running a trial to see whether that hypothesis is correct.
This trial has nothing to do with aviation, but just so happens that if the correct signal is commissioned then there are existing avionics that can benefit.
The cost proposal for aviation includes funding from the Federal Govt for design, validation and publication of SBAS app at all eligible airfields.
So far as I can see, none if the major costs of SBAS implementation are being borne by the Aviation sector. This is a Federal Govt initiative and so will be funded by all taxpayers (if the cost benefit analysis proves its worth)
You keep asking what has changed? Whats changed is that previously Aviation sector were the only proponent for SBAS in times when no one else knew what SBAS was. Now GA are driving this for a different purpose, Aviation may benefit.
I say may because GA are trialling an SBAS II signal and there are no aviation avionics that can use SBAS II. If SBAS II gets implemented, aviation will get nothing.
Have you been to GA website and read the "..supportable reason for what is going on." ?
Here let me google that for you; www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/positioning-navigation/positioning-for-the-future.
The Australian Govt body charged with advising on national positioning infrastructure, has identified that there may be a need for a WAAS. As such they are running a trial to see whether that hypothesis is correct.
This trial has nothing to do with aviation, but just so happens that if the correct signal is commissioned then there are existing avionics that can benefit.
The cost proposal for aviation includes funding from the Federal Govt for design, validation and publication of SBAS app at all eligible airfields.
So far as I can see, none if the major costs of SBAS implementation are being borne by the Aviation sector. This is a Federal Govt initiative and so will be funded by all taxpayers (if the cost benefit analysis proves its worth)
You keep asking what has changed? Whats changed is that previously Aviation sector were the only proponent for SBAS in times when no one else knew what SBAS was. Now GA are driving this for a different purpose, Aviation may benefit.
I say may because GA are trialling an SBAS II signal and there are no aviation avionics that can use SBAS II. If SBAS II gets implemented, aviation will get nothing.
Apparently the problem is that “the majority of Australians can position to only 5 metres accuracy with current technology” and the solution is to implement “ground infrastructure to enhance accuracy to 3-5 centimetres”.
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with that.
There’d only be something wrong with that if:
1. it is not true that the majority of Australians can position to only 5 metres accuracy with current technology; or
2. it is true, but either:
a. the majority of Australians don’t need 3 to 5 centimetre accuracy; or
b. the benefits of achieving that accuracy do not outweigh the costs of achieving it.
There’d only be something wrong with that if:
1. it is not true that the majority of Australians can position to only 5 metres accuracy with current technology; or
2. it is true, but either:
a. the majority of Australians don’t need 3 to 5 centimetre accuracy; or
b. the benefits of achieving that accuracy do not outweigh the costs of achieving it.
AlphaC,
On multiple occasions I have referred to the Minister's statement re. SBAS/WAAS being a "revolution" for aviation, all my comments are directed at that.
As for terrestrial use, all the claims for use of SBAS/WAAS are as true now as they were almost 20 years ago.
The big difference is that GPS III is now fact, not something in the near future, while SBAS/WAAS is, as it always was, a solution to the errors of the single channel civil GPS.
And I would suggest that, with what we already have, better than 3-5cm is available now, but, of course, we are getting to the situation of: How do you measure the order of accuracy??
Without going into the mathematics applicable, funnily enough, we are back to a "most probable position" from multiple readings, just like when I first did astro-nav, but now the circle of uncertainty is just a tad smaller.
Tootle pip!!
On multiple occasions I have referred to the Minister's statement re. SBAS/WAAS being a "revolution" for aviation, all my comments are directed at that.
As for terrestrial use, all the claims for use of SBAS/WAAS are as true now as they were almost 20 years ago.
The big difference is that GPS III is now fact, not something in the near future, while SBAS/WAAS is, as it always was, a solution to the errors of the single channel civil GPS.
And I would suggest that, with what we already have, better than 3-5cm is available now, but, of course, we are getting to the situation of: How do you measure the order of accuracy??
Without going into the mathematics applicable, funnily enough, we are back to a "most probable position" from multiple readings, just like when I first did astro-nav, but now the circle of uncertainty is just a tad smaller.
Tootle pip!!
Yes, but the signal GPS III uses cannot be read by current avionics or other devices. Which means when it is introduced new avionics are going to have to be released to support it. The manufacturers are based in the US.....they have WAAS......do you really think they will jump in first to release new avionics? That will lead us to the ADSB mandate issues all over again.
I think I can say I am agree-ance with you regarding a cost/benefit for SBAS as it relates to aviation. The numbers don't stack up, never did. But if we just happen to geta ccess to a WAAS signal due to other Government initiatives, shouldn't we jump on board?
If GA thought GPS III was a potential solution wouldn't they also be looking at that as well? Perhaps they are? As I mentioned previously GA are looking at many different future solutions. SBAS is just one.
I think I can say I am agree-ance with you regarding a cost/benefit for SBAS as it relates to aviation. The numbers don't stack up, never did. But if we just happen to geta ccess to a WAAS signal due to other Government initiatives, shouldn't we jump on board?
If GA thought GPS III was a potential solution wouldn't they also be looking at that as well? Perhaps they are? As I mentioned previously GA are looking at many different future solutions. SBAS is just one.
Alpha C,
Firstly, as I understand it, all current GPS that work on the US GPS system will be backwards compatible with GPS III, as the primary channel remains the same. Clearly, they will not receive all the new channels/signals of GPS III. I assume, but I do not know, because I have not done any checking, that SBAS/WAAS will still be applicable on the “legacy” signal.
What I do know is GPS III is here now, not “in the future” as it was years ago, when SBAS/GBAS was the “new technology” to improve the accuracy of then GPS to enable, amongst other things, quasi-precision approaches to Cat. 1 ILS minima, with Cat. II/III held out as the future. Which future signalled the end of “microwave” approach systems like Interscan ( is the research antenna still sitting in the middle of Tullamarine?). Read again the post of AirAg.
I will repackage my comments: WHY IS AUSTRALIA SUDDENLY APPARENTLY HELL BENT ON PLANNING TO IMPLEMENT A 20 YEAR OLD VIRTUALLY SUPERSEDED TECHNOLOGY, THAT, APART FROM A MINOR BENEFIT TO AVIATION IN AUSTRALIA, PROVIDES NO NEW CAPABILITY, AND NO CAPABILITY THAT IS NOT ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH EXISTING TECHNOLOGY, SUCH EXISTING TECHNOLOGY NOW INCLUDING GPS III. GPS III ACCURACY WILL BE FREE TO USERS.
GPS III receivers are widely available for non-aviation use, many of them also process GLONAS and GALILEO signals, with current high speed processors that were not available when the original velocity limits were estimated for GPS III, it will be interesting to see what is possible, given how much better than “theory” “traditional” GPS has been made to perform. I am pleased to see that some of the most technically advanced GPS III gear is Australian made, and being incorporated into Australia made rotary and fixed wing drones.
As a matter of interest, we have reached an interesting situation with position accuracy, whether it is 5/3/2 cm etc. Without going into the mathematics, it reminds me of when I first did astronavigation, with multiple fixes reduced to a “most probable position”, but the “circle of uncertainty” is now just a tad smaller than the “good old days”.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
Sunfish,
As I recall, you are building a amateur built experimental ---- are you expecting to be operating to Cat. 1 ILS minima??
Or, put another way, how is SBAS/WAAS going to make any major difference to you and most of GA.
Firstly, as I understand it, all current GPS that work on the US GPS system will be backwards compatible with GPS III, as the primary channel remains the same. Clearly, they will not receive all the new channels/signals of GPS III. I assume, but I do not know, because I have not done any checking, that SBAS/WAAS will still be applicable on the “legacy” signal.
What I do know is GPS III is here now, not “in the future” as it was years ago, when SBAS/GBAS was the “new technology” to improve the accuracy of then GPS to enable, amongst other things, quasi-precision approaches to Cat. 1 ILS minima, with Cat. II/III held out as the future. Which future signalled the end of “microwave” approach systems like Interscan ( is the research antenna still sitting in the middle of Tullamarine?). Read again the post of AirAg.
I will repackage my comments: WHY IS AUSTRALIA SUDDENLY APPARENTLY HELL BENT ON PLANNING TO IMPLEMENT A 20 YEAR OLD VIRTUALLY SUPERSEDED TECHNOLOGY, THAT, APART FROM A MINOR BENEFIT TO AVIATION IN AUSTRALIA, PROVIDES NO NEW CAPABILITY, AND NO CAPABILITY THAT IS NOT ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH EXISTING TECHNOLOGY, SUCH EXISTING TECHNOLOGY NOW INCLUDING GPS III. GPS III ACCURACY WILL BE FREE TO USERS.
GPS III receivers are widely available for non-aviation use, many of them also process GLONAS and GALILEO signals, with current high speed processors that were not available when the original velocity limits were estimated for GPS III, it will be interesting to see what is possible, given how much better than “theory” “traditional” GPS has been made to perform. I am pleased to see that some of the most technically advanced GPS III gear is Australian made, and being incorporated into Australia made rotary and fixed wing drones.
As a matter of interest, we have reached an interesting situation with position accuracy, whether it is 5/3/2 cm etc. Without going into the mathematics, it reminds me of when I first did astronavigation, with multiple fixes reduced to a “most probable position”, but the “circle of uncertainty” is now just a tad smaller than the “good old days”.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
Sunfish,
As I recall, you are building a amateur built experimental ---- are you expecting to be operating to Cat. 1 ILS minima??
Or, put another way, how is SBAS/WAAS going to make any major difference to you and most of GA.
LS:
I would have thought that was obvious; ADSB without fitting anything bigger or more expensive than an $800 puck on the roof, as opposed to a $4000(?) free flight 1202 GPS or $10000 ++ Navigator. Dynon has their ADSB solution accepted by FAA and CASA already has a project that may do the same here as a way of increasing the underwhelming take up of ADSB.
Then there is the possibility in the event of a disastrous mistake by me that the autopilot GPS and system might allow me to survive a VFR into IFR event.
Then of course there is the next generation of AI assisted flight systems relying on WAAS which can't be too far away.
Then as Alphcentauri pointed out, the need for cheap centimetric positioning for the rest of the Australian public to take advantage of new products; self driving cars, robots of all sorts, etc. No subscriptions, cheap GPS units. Then there is the productivity gains in increased accuracy; my $150 Garmin Fortrex 201 is WAAS enabled and htat will give me better than 3m accuracy 95% of the time with WAAS that translates into, among other things on the farm, better purchasing of fencing wire and ag pipes. less digging and broken lines, etc., etc. Accuracy improves productivity in many ways.
Or, put another way, how is SBAS/WAAS going to make any major difference to you and most of GA.
Then there is the possibility in the event of a disastrous mistake by me that the autopilot GPS and system might allow me to survive a VFR into IFR event.
Then of course there is the next generation of AI assisted flight systems relying on WAAS which can't be too far away.
Then as Alphcentauri pointed out, the need for cheap centimetric positioning for the rest of the Australian public to take advantage of new products; self driving cars, robots of all sorts, etc. No subscriptions, cheap GPS units. Then there is the productivity gains in increased accuracy; my $150 Garmin Fortrex 201 is WAAS enabled and htat will give me better than 3m accuracy 95% of the time with WAAS that translates into, among other things on the farm, better purchasing of fencing wire and ag pipes. less digging and broken lines, etc., etc. Accuracy improves productivity in many ways.
Sunfish,
You have me really puzzled, why is WAAS plus GPS needed for the above, as I asked, do you anticipate Cat. 1 or lower precision approaches??
You don't need WAAS for ADS-B. Why is WAAS going to make any difference to the GPS coupled to your autopilot??
As for the last paragraph of your last post, I do earnestly suggest you acquaint yourself with the characteristics of GPS III, which does everything that "legacy" GPS plus SBAS/WAAS does, and much more. And more reliably.
As I have tried to get across to you, I have been in the farming and mining business for most of a lifetime, longer than aviation, I really do know what is possible RFN, and I am looking forwards to the major benefit to most of us, saving some fees, and perhaps a small increase in accuracy, compared to what we have now. But for most of us, 1-2 cm versus 2-3 cm is not going to make a lot of difference.
You have me really puzzled, why is WAAS plus GPS needed for the above, as I asked, do you anticipate Cat. 1 or lower precision approaches??
You don't need WAAS for ADS-B. Why is WAAS going to make any difference to the GPS coupled to your autopilot??
As for the last paragraph of your last post, I do earnestly suggest you acquaint yourself with the characteristics of GPS III, which does everything that "legacy" GPS plus SBAS/WAAS does, and much more. And more reliably.
As I have tried to get across to you, I have been in the farming and mining business for most of a lifetime, longer than aviation, I really do know what is possible RFN, and I am looking forwards to the major benefit to most of us, saving some fees, and perhaps a small increase in accuracy, compared to what we have now. But for most of us, 1-2 cm versus 2-3 cm is not going to make a lot of difference.
Leadsled....how about explaining to the plebs what a GPS block III satellite will provide, what it is compatible with and whether it needs ground based signal error correction. How long before at least 21 satellites are transmitting and what accuracies are talked about...including the safety of life signal. AND what other satellites are already doing in our neck of the woods....Then, for encore, maybe an insight into how long we will have to wait for all this tech to make it onto an avionics circuit board.
leadsled:
Disingenuous again. At present for ADSB you require a certified TSO 145 or better GPS source. This costs a minimum of $4000 plus installation for a "dumb" one (Freeflight 1201) and takes up cockpit real estate. The alternative is a GPS navigator starting at around $10,000.
Dynon has released an $800 WAAS enabled receiver puck that is not TSO'd but accepted as an ADSB source for American use by the FAA. There are bound to be similar WAAS enabled products in the pipeline.
WAAS enabled products are cheap and available solutions right NOW, not some circuit boards or gold plated survey solutions or pie in the sky GPSIII.
You didn't have anything to do with the development of NBN did you? Your comments regarding what Australia "needs" as opposed to what the rest of the developed world already has reminds me of that same mindset. You continually say we need something less than the international standard so we always suffer from a 10 to 20 year technology gap.
You don't need WAAS for ADS-B.
Dynon has released an $800 WAAS enabled receiver puck that is not TSO'd but accepted as an ADSB source for American use by the FAA. There are bound to be similar WAAS enabled products in the pipeline.
WAAS enabled products are cheap and available solutions right NOW, not some circuit boards or gold plated survey solutions or pie in the sky GPSIII.
You didn't have anything to do with the development of NBN did you? Your comments regarding what Australia "needs" as opposed to what the rest of the developed world already has reminds me of that same mindset. You continually say we need something less than the international standard so we always suffer from a 10 to 20 year technology gap.