WAAS in Australia
 

With the next federal election in the foreseeable timeframe, is it time for industry and all other interested groups to start to very actively lobby for an Australian program to install ground stations to utilise Japanese MSAS/MTSAT satellites?
This could presumably partly utilise the ADS-B infrastructure and thus it would be cheaper than a de-novo system.
Surely now is the time for interested parties to join together, get the media involved, and lobby the politicians for support in the lead up to the election (when politicians and parties are more amenable to lobbying).

John

That would be much too simple. We will instead design our own system because the other one wasn't invented here.

...and when that doesn't work after spending billions, we will eventually buy WAAS.

Billions on what, Sunfish?

Our very own 25 or more ground stationsto give us Geo reference for the GPS signal

While I would very much like to see this happen, I think it's very unlikely.

The SBAS review in 2011 came to a clear conclusion that was something like "difficult to justify the costs" of around $150 - $200 million, and that's assuming we do the intelligent thing and piggyback on MSAS. There was already a fair bit of lobbying going on during the SBAS review. I don't see how more lobbying will change minds.

In the longer term, there is hope for an SBAS in Australia, though. There are a bunch of new satellite constellations running on multiple frequencies that are coming online (slowly) - namely GPS block III, galileo, glonass, compass and qzss. Supposedly, by using the multi-frequency + multi constellations, we can get the fault tolerance and accuracy benefits of SBAS without the need for a ground reference network (or possibly with a much smaller ground reference network). Unfortunately, this is still at the research stage, and it'd probably be 2020 or later before it will be in a useable form.

- S

Technically I think this is not possible. From what I understand the WAAS transmissions made in Japan are referenced to GPS receivers (measuring the differential) on the ground in Japan providing the WAAS capability over that local geographic area.

I would think that potentially using that WAAS differential signal in Australia (which is essentially a time shift of the GPS signal in the receiver) could put an aircraft way off course compared to turning the WAAS signal off. GPS receivers work their positions out by looking at the time differance between GPS signals, WAAS makes an adjustment to these time series.

A receiver in Australia would see a different satellite constellation than a receiver in Japan would at any given time (a satellite that is visible in Japan could be beyond the horizon in Australia), and is the WAAS transmission is making corrections to only part of the constellation that a receiver in Australia would have visible.

Not quite right regarding the MTSAT.

The Japanese Department of Transport wanted to get Australia on board from the start. So much so that there is a ref station uplink in Canberra as well as one in Hawaii. All that is required is the ground constellation to work out the differentials and transmit the code up to the MTSAT. There is already a transponder pointing this way. If you are wondering what coverage would be like, just look at any satellite picture of our neck of the woods. Those pics are from the MTSAT. $300million is bogus, the ground stations are already there, surveyed in, already talking to mummy, just need another aerial and another tray in the rack.

What IS required is to organise a cohort of like minded industry users to lobby Canberra to show it isn't just aviation that can benefit from this technology. Lord knows it will save lives out in the GAFA...GAFA? any time there is marginal wx it will save lives or rather, put lives at less risk.

Folks,
One of the obstacles we face is that aviation is only one small section of the community that uses GPS systems.
In the US in particular, there are many ground based users of GPS/WAAS positioning accuracy.

With the coming of the new generation of GPS, WAAS like accuracies will be available without WAAS, but only to slow moving targets.

Thus, we are faced with a situation where aviation will be the only beneficiary of WAAS, the notional cost can only be spread over a very narrow field, in any cost/benefit analysis.

Of course, in a "user pays" environment, WAAS is unpopular, because gummint/AirServices haven't been able to devise a way for charging for it.

Tootle pip!!

It's possible. MSAS (and the other WAAS compatible systems) are designed to provide service over a wide area (theoretically, the entire earth, but this may be limited by the available bandwidth in the SBAS bitstream). The correction messages fall into two categories - the satellite clock/position errors, which are obviously useable whether the end user is in Japan or in Australia; and the ionosphere corrections. We can extend MSAS to provide the ionospheric corrections over Australia if we add a ground reference stations to the MSAS reference network. It's this local ground reference network that we'll need to get funding for.

Actually, an alternative setup would be to build our own SBAS system, and simply use the MSAS satellites to broadcast the correction messages. However, I don't see any practical advantage in this approach over the extend-MSAS approach.

Errrm... We need a full network of ground reference stations - a single station won't give sufficient coverage to get the necessary ionospheric correction data.

- S

I understand how the corrections are made and what they are correcting, my point was without the ground stations in Australia, that see the satellites that a receiver in Australia would see, a WAAS correction from Japan would not be technically possible.

We should leverage on equipment available elsewhere to reduce costs, it would be pointless having a system which requires Australia specific avionics.

That's what he's saying, we have a network: the ADS-B ground stations. Just a bit of extra kit in them and done.

Lordy-lordy,

As Leadsled says (we are on the same page brutha) the ONLY reason it aint happening is because the turds in Canberra haven't figured out a way of charging for it. Good ole Australian user pays! If a politicians wife, son or daughter (or mistress, gay lover etc) is killed through it not being switched on, rest assured it will be switched on the day after.

Found out today, you can actually polish a turd if you soak it in liquid nitrogen first, weshould tell the folk in Northborne Avenue.

There is already a government funded network in place, however I do not think it is aviation grade. Geoscience Australia is the federal government organisation responsible for managing the Australian geospatial infrastructure. The network is already used for marine, land, and airborne applications.

I kind of agree with Lead Sled / Jack Ranga, but think the stumbling block to WAAS is that the airlines don't need it. The hockey stick high traffic routes are served by ILS and no where else really matters.

Although (with less sarcasm) most other locations in Australia have good enough weather than GNSS NPA is good enough.

It should be noted that Australia does have WAAS beacons, but they point to sea for marine use and are not usable for aviation.

You mean over-priced, under performing and without validation or redundancy? :ugh:

I don't think that is WAAS, but rather a completely separate system and you need a special receiver, just a normal WAAS one won't do. Farmers use a GBAS too for auto-steering their tractors, but again: not WAAS.

One of the major benefits of SBAS is the improved availability of the GPS signal, so an alternate is not required when your destination is only served by a GNSS approach. I would have thought that this is more important (cost-saving) to Australian pilots than the use of lower approach minima, given our weather conditions most of the time. It will be even more important when Airservices gets around to de-commissioning many of the local NDBs.

But this is likely to be addressed by receivers simultaneously using Galileo and GPS Block III signals within the next ten years. (More satellites to choose from, and receiving on two or three frequencies simultaneously.) So as a tax payer I'd question the wisdom of developing a network of SBAS reference stations at this stage.

WAAS is a form of differential GPS (DGPS), nothing more, nothing less. It improves accuracy by a) proving an accurate ground based position, b) improving error checking of other satellites and c) importantly for instrument approaches, it allows triangulation from a low reference to give better vertical location. Trying to triangulate from overhead satellites results in triangles with very acute angles which has poor precision. You can have as many satellites as you want does not improve vertical accuracy. You can already buy handheld GPS units that will receive GPS, GLONASS and Galileo satellites. I think that gives access to maybe more than 60 satellites. How many do you need?

Without knowing the costs, I don't believe WAAS stations would be expensive. The money would be in the building, antennae, UPS, etc. The technology of the WAAS transmitter is cheap. It will, however, require ASA to create a bunch of new certified approaches. Maybe that is the real stumbling block?

Is it not correct that only one or two ground stations are required for the Australian continent for WAAS? If that is the case, there is NO excuse for it not being available.

Surely with the savings in maintenance requirements on the NDB's and VOR's that are shut down (or will be shut down in the near future) the cost of this new technology would be covered.
GPS/RNAV is all we will have to play with in crook weather west of the sandstone curtain so there would be a significant safety aspect to consider. Any vertical guidance to possible lower minimums would be a real plus. Alternate requirements, while most important, are a real pain when there is a need to carry heaps of fuel because of the distance to the nearest alt.

The US has 25 stations which gives total Nth American coverage. They area only required near airports, so you'd think that maybe 10 would do Australia. Just my guess.

Actually the location and number of stations has little to do with airports - the station density is required to generate a sufficiently detailed map of the ionosphere so that local corrections can be calculated by the SBAS receiver. The more stations you have, then the more ionospheric measurements you have, which means you can have a higher resolution map of the ionosphere.

So the number of stations required to cover the whole of Australia would be roughly the same as the U.S.

edit: I should clarify by saying that I think a level of performance can be achieved with a smaller number of stations, but the vertical integrity required for APV approaches might not be achieved with sufficient availability...

edit: replace WAAS with SBAS.

AUSTRALIAN STRATEGIC PLAN FOR GNSS

We need to see what is out there before we start asking about what we need. Quick read of this paper shows the bofins stuck on centimetric accuracy with a huge array of constant monitoring netwroks which just will not work....BUT....note the date....2016 to adopt APV...CASA is talking to Japan and India. Maybe a few letters to the CASA to look at the idea of economic fitout using existing infrastructure. The bofins see SBAS as too inaccurate for intended purposes...read that as similar to automatic unmanned control of heavy mining equipment.

Here is our go to man-
Dirk Noordewier Air Transport Inspector, Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation, Civil Aviation Safety Authority ([email protected])

Here is the plan as of 2010.

General note- This industry needs someone to keep tabs on what is actually happening with regards to regulation and implimentation. These studies have been going on since 2007 and over subjects that have been broached on this forum and have been deemed as too expensive or not here because we want to charge users for it.

EDIT- The cop out is implimentation of Baro-VNAV for APV...methinks a concerted nudge with some well placed advocacy may change the CASAs tune if they have signed up to implimentation by 2016. IFF SBAS/WAAS available thru MTSAT...AirServices designs the approaches, those companies with a need get their equipment certified for LPV and we have CAT I like approaches on our regional RPT networks...saving lives! LHR or YHOT or YBLA need never happen again....EVER!

Airservices had a plan; it was called Ground-based Regional Augmentation System (GRAS). Basically SBAS but without the 'Satellite' - the GPS corrections being broadcast via VHF data transmitters. Bill Ely's thesis is a great overview of the history, and can be found by google search. Unfortunately despite substantial effort by individuals within AsA, that plan did not come to fruition.

The biggest drawback to SBAS for Australia has been the cost of the satellites to host the SBAS transmitters - but hey, guess what we're getting with the NBN... NBN Satellites For Remotest towns :ok:

Geoscience Australia already has 50 ground stations in service. Japan in comparison has 10.

I think you don't have to look to far past ASA to find the reason WAAS hasn't happened. It's the same reason why it hasn't happened in this side of the Tasman either. ASA and Airways NZ haven't found a way to obtain revenue from WAAS or other SBAS systems as they are basically free to air, plus as has been mentioned the big guys don't need it.

How many dollars did ASA spend on their GBAS system that they tried to develop with Honeywell. Ground Based Augmentation System | GBAS |

What happened to this? Was supposed to be up and running in 2009.

I suspect their motivation for such a system is so that they can develop a revenue stream out it.

OZBUSDRIVER
I agree, Not a truer word written in this subject.

How do you think we feel!!?? The procedure designers at AsA have been tasked with rolling out Baro-VNAV to an industry which doesn't want them because 90% of you can't/won't be able to fly them.

We have so many other things we need to be focusing on right now,but unfortunately Baro gets all the attention. The only reason being, we are running behind in the roll out program and CASA might not be able to meet their ICAO obligations. There are a few managers kpi's linked to this as well.

Sometimes its just embarrassing


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

Ozbusdriver wrote "...read that as similar to automatic unmanned control of heavy mining equipment"

If there was some way mining could use an SBAS/WAAS to reduce costs of running mines (a hot topic at the moment) this would be a powerful ally to have in the advocacy for Australia implementing a SBAS/WAAS.

The Kiwis have APV ie LNAV/VNAV already without SBAS or WAAS:

http://www.aip.net.nz/pdf/NZAA_70.25Y.pdf

I wonder if the 2016 CASA target is only for our charts to be redone for LNAV/VNAV?

:confused::confused::confused::confused: LHR happened because the flight crew did not follow the approach as it was written. People continue to prang off ILS approaches because they do not follow the procedure as it is written. How is VNAV going to change that?

Dr :8

Doctor, VNAV (in any form) reduces the potential for crews to get vertically lost on the approach, esp those @#$%^ GPS NPAs that have a waypoint in the guts of the critical portion.

Follow the VNAV and monitor it as opposed to working it out yourself. Trust me. VNAV is goooood.

There is a pervasive trap in the adoption of new technology that snares almost all businesses and governments at some time.

That is the phenomenon of the good being rejected in favour of the pursuit of the mythical perfect.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in Australia. Let me give you a simple example that illustrates this completely:

I have a friend who at one time imported Nolan motorcycle helmets. These are and always have been at the very edge of state of the art in the field and they are also made in the worlds most advanced helmet factory in Europe and meet or exceed both European and American standards.

...Except they hadn't been tested to Australian standards had they? They couldn't be sold in this country without that little Standards Australia mark on the label. In Australia the heads and necks are more fragile and the bitumen harder than in Europe. or so we are lead to believe. The factory was incredulous - you want us to do these stupid tests and jump through Australian hoops? OK, but it is going to cost you. What a waste of time and money to keep some Australian bureaucratic prick in a make work job.

These days evey box of cornflakes comes with a WAAS enabled GPS in it. Has Australia adopted WAAS? Nope. Instead it pursued its own purpose built system that not only is expensive, but it cannot be sold to the rest of the world.

The country is littered with examples of purpose built Australian technology or "customised" technology (read unuseable anywhere else) when something off the shelf from Europe or America would do almost as well - and at a fraction of the cost. The case of the entire avaition regulation suite is a case in point. Why don't we adopt the FAA rules?

If I was dictator, I would mandate that any time a DIN anr UL standard existed for something that met 90% of Australias needs it must be adopted. The same with any communications or transport technology. Keep australian standards for things that are totally unique to Australia - like Koala enclosures.

... at the rate they are resigning, they will soon be an endangered species.:oh:

On the plus side, lots of jobs available for trainee or qualified designers.

Mate, I'd say we already are...

Sunfish: It's not just bikie necks and craniums; the same goes for those of infants and thus we get a very small selection of overpriced seats with poor ergonomics design. And you get fined if you don't anchor them to the boot because the seatbelt it is also attached to, rated to hold 150 KG blokes in a head-on collision, isn't capable of saving your little bundle of joy. :ugh:

And don't get me started on the quality of electrical wiring done by those "licensed cablers" I find in all the houses I have lived in. Wiring I can't touch (not even change a light fitting) because I have not taken a 4 year apprenticeship.

But every hoon can soup up their cars and tinker with the brakes. :ok:

Well done Australian Standards - and the sparky union/lobby.

(as much as this is off-topic, it goes to show a systematic problem in government, not limited to aviation)

The Kiwis also don't necessarilyrequire an alternate if your destination is served only by a GPS approach. Mucho cost saving in remote areas, although unusual by worldwide standards. Their laws around use of VNAV are quite restrictive for GA, so it's not quite as great as that AA approach plate indicates.

SBAS also removes the alternate requirement, and it seems likely Galileo will have similar availability and integrity, using the same concept as the military P-channel on GPS. It'll be a game changer I think, although not so much perhaps for the airlines locked into using ancient FMS equipment.

Having done a short stint at BHP a few years ago, I can assure you they are not waiting for anyone. The plan is to survey their own locations around the mine, get off-the-shelf GBAS equipment and get on with it.

Probably costs them a couple of million, but as they are saving millions each year by using autonomous vehicles, it's a no-brainer.

I am not convinced.

Galileo is certainly capable, but I don't see any current TSO c145/146 GPS manufacturers jumping on it.

It's optimistically called "GNSS" instead of GPS to make it sound generic, but I am skeptical it will work that way in practice.

I see a lot of obstacles before a Galileo (or hybrid Galileo/GPS/GLONAS) unit is the considered the equal of a c145 GPS by CASA.

Be nice to see it this side of 2025, but I doubt it...