Folks,
Sound like our old mate Bloggs has finally found an aircraft with LNAV/VNAV capabilities, which many of us in Australia have been using since the mid-1980's

Our mates across the Tasman are a bit quicker off the mark than Australia, having introduced a FMS/ILS approach, and STAR FMS arrival routes many years (at least 12) ago. They were intended to be flown LNAV/VNAM until established on final, where approach could be selected to couple to the ILS.

Absent the ILS, the FMS approach (as it was called at the time) had a minima the same as a VOR/DME minima.

The approach design was base on an FAA AC, it all worked very well, I used it in up to 60 kt. X-winds joining RW 23 in NZAA, worked a treat every time.

There is nothing (except some dopy company policies) to stop you using LNAV/VNAV where it is possible, without WAAS equivalent accuracy, as long as you monitor raw data from the appropriate nav aids (see you AFM limitations)or the profile for a GNSS approach, and gain a large proportion of the benefits of FMS based VNAV.

Bas,
Re. the mines etc., the new generation GPS will provide the same accuracy as present GPS/WAAS, without the WAAS. The differential GPS that has been available for yonks in Australia provides centimeter accuracy --- but only for stationary or slow moving receivers.

Tootle pip!!

And unlike aviation, the miners won't need a decade long certification and approval process. Once enough Galileo birds are up, they can use it the next day.

Maybe not you, but I want any new-fangled technology tested properly. BHP rolls a truck off a track because the GPS was out? Who cares.

Fare-paying pax are a different matter.

In this corner of the world I think Galileo-only receivers will be as rare as hen's teeth. Dual receiver units will be the big seller for aviation at least, or so my tea leaves say... Also, bear in mind the two services use the same technology, so it's not revolutionary.

Makes for good fail-safes if the Germans switch off the Greek & Spanish satellites for non-payment of bills. :O

Folks,
Given the ongoing financial turmoil surrounding Galileo, I wouldn't be developing any business plans based on its availability.
Don't forget, Galileo was in financial strife before the GFC, recession in Europe only makes a final decision to genuinely support is even more protracted, perhaps even unlikely.

Bloggs, old mate, fear not, the new generation GPS will have little to no impact on aviation.

Tootle pip!!

Well, they still allow NDB approaches with fare paying passengers. :rolleyes:

So given the option of that versus a fresh out of the box first-gen Garmin consumer Galileo handheld - I know which one I regard the safer one! :ok:

Capn Bloggs
Precisely, and until all GPS approaches (most particularly those with a waypoint half way down the approach) have VNAV then more LHR type accidents are only a matter of time.

Baro VNAV isn't available for everyone. WAAS solves the VNAV issues nice and simply for everyone.

As for Galileo, how long has it been coming for now? It wouldn't surprise me if it never saw the light of day.

A SPACE BASED AUGMENTATION SYSTEM FOR AUSTRALIA

Read this and it will make you cry...$60million that is all it would have cost!

Even joining with regional systems will cost an upfront of $30million for the ground ref stations.

If only space was made available on the NBN birds:{

BARO-VNAV....in case nobody explains it...if your a/c is fitted with a FMS and you can receive a reliable barometric data stream your system can derive an altimeter aided LNAV approach...So...no FMS no BARO-VNAV! and THAT is in the realm of million dollar fitouts!

Nah sorry, can't follow your logic! LHR happened because the crew did not follow the procedure as it is writ - simple as that. Time has proven that the @#$%wits will always find new ways to kill themselves, and unfortunately, unsuspecting others!

Dr :8

I have to agree 100% with the Dr.

That is like saying a LOC is dangerous Vs an ILS. no it is not, it is just different and if flown as published is safe.

The FACT is with a LPV WAAS approach, there will be far more effective landings from approaches in crap weather. Safety may not be different if flown by the book. but the results as far as landings will improve.

The biggest benefit is for not just folk like me, who would be better off having lower minima, by just getting in, but for the RFDS, regional airlines and other corporate folk who waste millions of dollars in jet fuel doing several approaches or diverting all for the sake of 300 feet.

WAAS is in my opinion more important than some stupid NBN.....we want aircraft landing in the bush and regional centres....not faster porn!

The sooner the pollies get this fact the better.:ugh:

What is wrong with high quality Porn delivered at acceptable speeds, I thought this is an Aviators Site, porn ( soft nose art ) comes with the territory.

Agree Jab and Dr. However, in all cases described, if pilot flying had a GS to monitor as opposed to procedure or the assumption of performance whether intentional or accidental...well...I firmly believe there would have been a different outcome.

Now that I have read a few government papers and quietly curse the lack of advertising of intent, I am appalled, that for so little funds,in what would have resulted in the most desired outcome, at this result.

Complexity is the mother of all stuff-ups. Make it less complex and it will be safer.

Not having read the report, surely their intention was to fly it as published but failed to do so?

FTDK

It's a given they didn't follow the procedure as writ. IIRC there was a theory they been referencing their profile off the incorrect waypoint i.e using the wrong GPS distance.

Most GPS approaches count down 5,4,3,2,1,FF,5,4,3,2,1,MAP. In the heat of the moment, on a dark ****ty night, it would be very easy to look at the wrong No. 5 or 4 or 3 etc and attempt to fly the profile 5 miles low with disastrous results.

One any other approach (NDB,VOR,LOC,ILS) there isn't two sets of count down distances, they count down 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,MAP. Therefore making a profile check mistake very unlikely.

Hope you now follow my logic.

Interesting how there are some who want Australia's airspace to become even more reliant, perhaps totally reliant, on a GPS based navigation system that Australia neither owns nor controls...:hmm:

I wonder what the legal liability is for Airservices/CASA if the GPS based airspace system that is being further introduced and mandated with expensive equipment requirements for aircraft owners is suddenly lost....






.

I also have difficulty reading these and find it confusing where I am. Granted I'm using a crappy centuries old GPS hand flying but none the less it can be misread.

Also the numbers count backwards depending which way along the page it's written. Eg if the final profile is drawn right-left the numbers will try to match the profile. Can be confusing if not familiar with which way they go.

I think it should definitely be published as 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 however probably too hard to change GPS's which only provide distance to next WP and don't show dist to threshold.

Yes & yes. A pseudo glideslope would certainly make life safer for the punters. Not at all removing responsibility from captains to take care, as the fork-tailed one is quite right. But, looking at long term statistical accident rates for different approaches, if an approach is easier to interpret and easier to notice errors from, it's going to be safer in terms of lives lost per 1000 approaches.

Goodness me Flying Bingi. Who makes & supports the radars that Airservices use? Who makes & supports the airliners that we all fly in? Who makes the back-office IT infrastructure that the entire airspace system relies on? I do think it's a little late for the "if we don't control it then we won't use it" argument.

I'm always sorry to see the legal liability threat being raised. Far too much of that already from CASA. If there is a genuine risk of GPS being shut down, by all means promote it with evidence and robust analysis.

.


Hmmm... my last post disappeared. Bit of a mystery..:confused:


Seems "promote it with evidence and robust analysis" is not wanted around here - stick head in sand and toe the party line perhaps..:hmm:






.

Bombed out eh Binji??

I don't know why I do this. (contribute to a wankathon), Boredom perhaps, but;

Given Australlian land mass 7.5 million sq kilometers.

x 500 ft intervals to 20,000 ft = 40 x 7.5 = 300,000,000 (million) sq kilometers. Some of you bokes want to "own" this all, because an Auster with a turbocharger might bite you on the bum. Whats the odds you gamblers? I met a Chinaman at the casino the other day that will give odds. Worked out pretty much in his favour but.

Stick to the "J" curve if you must, but leave us in the boonies alone.

Space travellers excluded of course.

Above FL 200, do your own thing.

Francis.....wrong thread, mate!:hmm:

Apologies, I thought this was about wide area augmentation system to facilitate a space sponsored ADSB like system that would inpact upon people like me in "the boonies" who fly VFR from paddock to paddock and simply don't give a toss about people mucking about in clouds in class C airspace and don't want to be made to pay to make other peoples perceived safety threats meet the new CASA standards.

Safe sky's are empty sky's, even in Ralmadel.

I'll take that as a dorethy dixer..:)


Interesting yer bring up "bombed out" there Capn Bloggs

Few years back i did make mention on occasion of the potential fer terrorists to use GPS guided drones (UAV/UAS) as very precise bombs. There were many derogertary comments about it at the time... Bingy's buzz bombs ah think they were called by some..:hmm:

Seems all the research i did at the time of the literature and blog commentators suggesting the potential for terrorists using GPS for bomb drone guidence is coming to be as has been proven by the recent Hezbollah GPS guided drone (UAV/UAS) flight into Israel. (The latest is apparently the sixth known UAV flight and it appears it were unarmed)

Bringing WAAS and simular into the equation with enhanced 'vertical' GPS the terrorists should be able to 'deliver' a bomb drone to a cubic metre of airspace.


GPS - the best tool for terrorists ever invented...








.

Francis, the argument is how we missed out on getting an enhanced GPS system for feckall dollars. There were certain among us who espoused an amount that was a figure too big to jump over. I was inclined to believe them because I did not have accurate information to disprove them...so...no argument from me. And now, we find that figure was in accurate by a factor of at least 50, do you think I am not happy? $60million, this prigs spend more on shuttling refugees around the country. NOT HAPPY, JAN!

Yes well, when you put it that way..................

All the best for Christmas.;)

A little bit of info dug up by a wily old dog:ok:

Ground based GPS backup system to cover White Sands Missile Range
Interesting!

An Australian Company!

Ground based backup system that is DGPS accurate. The issue will be if these guys are willing to jump through all the TSO hoops. Hope they do.

Does not require satellite input!

Nunzio Gambale on Radio National 2010

Article Canberra Times

And be able to convince Garmin, etc, to make their receivers compatible.

That is very unlikely to happen. Why? Where is Garmin's biggest market? Does that market need another augmentation system?

Flying bing hi. Gps is very easy to jam. Try using one near a US warship with its "gear" turned on.

Frank, the trouble with your " big skies " theory is that most people fly point to point, and if they are navigating via GPS and using aerodrome reference points as waypoints then you can guarantee they will track identically and you had better pray for sufficient quadrantal altitude discipline.

I've had that happen to me, which is why I now " fly all over the sky" and always offset from recognized waypoints.

I guess we will get WAAS when car drivers and miners need it.

Broad acre farmers, exploration crews, transport,....any need for better than first order tachyometry.

Locatacorp may classify as a propitiatory GBAS system. However it shows the technology available.

Ah, a GBAS system that appeases the angry GPS gods. Very important when navigating near Mt Olympus and Valhalla. Some say that a propitiatory system also atones for sins against the lesser CASA deities, but this has been demonstrated to be heresy.

Bludy apple phones Propriatory...:ugh:

Howabout I try.....proprietary....:{

TSO c145 compliance is pretty much impossible without licensing patents. (Don't get me started!)

As much as I hate it, I see the next generation of this sort of stuff being proprietary. Best we can hope for is the requirement that it be licensed under reasonable terms if adopted by government.

This has been the norm in the US with a lot of technologies for a long time, most prominently TV and radio.

If you're talking about software and hardware implementation at the user level, well, you're absolutely right, no argument. There are some very clever proprietary algorithms in use even now to get more & more accuracy out of the basic signal.

I think it's helpful that the GPS space and control segments are operated by the USA for national security purposes. The technology is owned by a very public-spirited, dare I say generous, govt. The next iteration of civil technology is likely to use multiple frequencies to generate a fix currently only available to P (military) code users, so will continue to be free to all.

That is certainly a problem, hence the recommendation to always fly 1 nm right of track --- you will find it somewhere in the AIPA.
This procedure (long used in international ops --- in some parts of the world we flew 5R on the doppler, due local ATC, back in B707 days) is now formal, despite the long and loud objections of the AFAP. In those days it wasn't legal, but being alive beats legal any day.

Better still, with GPS, VFR, why track via areas of possible traffic. IFR, direct tracking where possible, and stick with 1R

Remember the definition of ATC: "A system whereby a small number of aircraft, in a vast and empty sky, are all concentrated over one point, greatly increasing the collision risk, thereby justifying air traffic control".

Merry Christmas, all!!.

Tootle pip!!

lol :D :D

You're a stupid prick if ever there was one! lol

Happy Christmas Leadie :ok:

Jack,
Such kind words for Christmas.
Why am I reminded of an old saying: "It takes one to know one"
Tootle pip!!

Hey Leedie, give us a Christmas present for a change; give us a reference! :8

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...y-landing.html

This is another reason why the aviation industry should push for Australia to implement a WAAS equivalent.
Virgin (and QANTAS) caught above Mildura with airport navaids inadequate to the weather conditions, and diminishing options.
Public safety is a powerful argument for industry lobbying, and the approaching election is the time to do it.