Airservices trials show the promise of SBAS
Thread Starter
Airservices trials show the promise of SBAS
This article in Oz Aviation today shows ASA crowing over it's SBAS trials."An Airservices Australia trial has successfully demonstrated how Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) technology enables safer and more accurate approach guidance to regional and rural aerodromes in instrument meteorological conditions.“Our participation in the SBAS trial is just one example of our collaboration with other government agencies and industry to ensure Australia is at the forefront of aviation technology,” Airservices chief executive Jason Harfield said of the series of test flights on July 12 and 13 this year."
Really. Doesn't mention the fact that SBAS has been in existence in the USA as WAAS for at least 10 years if not longer. Forefront of aviation technology? How about 10 years behind the rest of the world.
Really. Doesn't mention the fact that SBAS has been in existence in the USA as WAAS for at least 10 years if not longer. Forefront of aviation technology? How about 10 years behind the rest of the world.
When I was first appointed to the CAA Board I suggested we send a small team around the world to copy the best. It had worked in making me a small fortune.
The proposal fell on deaf ears. The bureaucrats and most of my fellow Board members could not possibly envisage that we could learn anything from overseas.
Thats probably why we are re inventing the approaches. It’s probably a great surprise that this proven US system for nearly a decade works here. I wonder if we will get a different frequency to make it better?
The proposal fell on deaf ears. The bureaucrats and most of my fellow Board members could not possibly envisage that we could learn anything from overseas.
Thats probably why we are re inventing the approaches. It’s probably a great surprise that this proven US system for nearly a decade works here. I wonder if we will get a different frequency to make it better?
SBAS has been in existence in the USA as WAAS for at least 10 years if not longer
Baro VNAV is all well and good in some instances but relies on having an accurate Baro to put into the box. Whereas SBAS isn't restricted by the need for inputs like a Baro figure nor is it affected by the input of an incorrect Baro figure. If you ask me SBAS is a much better option than Baro VNAV.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking about the next steps for SBAS, Reynolds said: “Airservices is working with Geoscience Australia and CASA to deal with issues around certification, the owner-operator model, and we are working toward an operational SBAS for the aviation sector by 2023.”
Where's the baro information obtained from?
I presume you're aware of incidents where the wrong baro figure was entered to the box? Hearing or finger trouble. SBAS isn't hobbled by these types of issues.
Other than a few ground stations for the whole area it serves SBAS doesn't require ground base infrastructure at or near each airport.
I presume you're aware of incidents where the wrong baro figure was entered to the box? Hearing or finger trouble. SBAS isn't hobbled by these types of issues.
Other than a few ground stations for the whole area it serves SBAS doesn't require ground base infrastructure at or near each airport.
Folks,
From a recent post on another thread.
The starting price, under Australian regulations, for a GNSS approach is around $100,000, assuming the airfield is up to standard, including an obstacle survey. The $100,000 or thereabouts only covers the cost of design and approval, including test flying.
It is not as expensive in some other jurisdictions.
If you already had an ILS on that runway, it would be a bit cheaper, but then why would you need the GNSS approach.
Have Airservices figured out a way to slug us all for the availability of the "service", an "SBAS enabled airspace access charge" or some similar lunatic concept, to bolster revenue. In short, an airspace access tax, a pet project of some who I could have named a few years back, a "One Sky" potential spinoff.
Tootle pip!!
From a recent post on another thread.
The starting price, under Australian regulations, for a GNSS approach is around $100,000, assuming the airfield is up to standard, including an obstacle survey. The $100,000 or thereabouts only covers the cost of design and approval, including test flying.
It is not as expensive in some other jurisdictions.
If you already had an ILS on that runway, it would be a bit cheaper, but then why would you need the GNSS approach.
Have Airservices figured out a way to slug us all for the availability of the "service", an "SBAS enabled airspace access charge" or some similar lunatic concept, to bolster revenue. In short, an airspace access tax, a pet project of some who I could have named a few years back, a "One Sky" potential spinoff.
Tootle pip!!
I am fascinated by the current "official" enthusiasm for SBAS (aka WAAS) in Australia. I have been trying to figure out who gets the money --- as in "follow the money".
All the touted benefits to non-aviation uses of SBAS (agriculture, transport, rail and shipping) are ALREADY available, indeed have been for many years, from differential GPS. The proposed SBAS will NOT produce the same positional accuracy as now available to, say, a surveyor, close, but not equal to what is already here.
The advent of "GPS III", becoming available now, will produce differential or SBAS aided GPS accuracy for other than fast moving targets, without differential or SBAS corrections. As to "fast moving targets", there is not going to be high speed rail in Australia any time soon, so that leaves aircraft.
The ONLY aviation advantage is a bit lower minima on approach, everything else can be done with current systems. If any of you understand the cost of establishing a precision approach will appreciate, there is a huge $$$$$$ gulf between what an aircraft can theoretically do, and establishing the GNSS procedures to be able to take advantage of that capability.
Think licensed/certified aerodrome only, including necessary approach lighting, current obstacle survey, NOTAM service, met. ---- the $$$$, initial and ongoing really add up.
In short, the "ground costs" of supporting a GNSS approach to the (potentially) lower minima means that there will be very few places where you will be able to take advantage of your you beaut "WAAS enabled" gear. Because nobody will shell out the $$$$ to establish and maintain the GNSS procedure.
Tootle pip!!
All the touted benefits to non-aviation uses of SBAS (agriculture, transport, rail and shipping) are ALREADY available, indeed have been for many years, from differential GPS. The proposed SBAS will NOT produce the same positional accuracy as now available to, say, a surveyor, close, but not equal to what is already here.
The advent of "GPS III", becoming available now, will produce differential or SBAS aided GPS accuracy for other than fast moving targets, without differential or SBAS corrections. As to "fast moving targets", there is not going to be high speed rail in Australia any time soon, so that leaves aircraft.
The ONLY aviation advantage is a bit lower minima on approach, everything else can be done with current systems. If any of you understand the cost of establishing a precision approach will appreciate, there is a huge $$$$$$ gulf between what an aircraft can theoretically do, and establishing the GNSS procedures to be able to take advantage of that capability.
Think licensed/certified aerodrome only, including necessary approach lighting, current obstacle survey, NOTAM service, met. ---- the $$$$, initial and ongoing really add up.
In short, the "ground costs" of supporting a GNSS approach to the (potentially) lower minima means that there will be very few places where you will be able to take advantage of your you beaut "WAAS enabled" gear. Because nobody will shell out the $$$$ to establish and maintain the GNSS procedure.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 25th Aug 2018 at 08:19.
