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??