Waas
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
From: Oxford
Waas
Simple, really...
Does WAAS work at all in the UK? Have e.g. the USAF installed any transmitters for their own use?
I'm sure I saw my GPS indicate that it was receiving WAAS the other day...
Tim
Does WAAS work at all in the UK? Have e.g. the USAF installed any transmitters for their own use?
I'm sure I saw my GPS indicate that it was receiving WAAS the other day...
Tim
Guest
Posts: n/a
There is a project in Germany looking at implementing fake ground based satelites (pseudolites) to provide RAIM precision approach coverage.
I'm not really clear on this, but I think this is different in that WAAS corrects the satelite signal, whereas a pseudolite is to all practical effects a satelite and completely independant of all other satelites.
I'm not really clear on this, but I think this is different in that WAAS corrects the satelite signal, whereas a pseudolite is to all practical effects a satelite and completely independant of all other satelites.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
From: Oxford
WAAS corrects the satelite signal
Tim
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I thought the whole idea behind Galileo was that GPS approaches will become authorised once this is up and running, and the condition will be a receiver capable of receiving a paid-for signal.
If they bring in WAAS in Europe, what's the point of Galileo?
What about EGNOS?
If they bring in WAAS in Europe, what's the point of Galileo?
What about EGNOS?
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
Differential GPS gives a headline accuracy of around 10m, WAAS around 3m and good enough vertical accuracy to replace an ILS.
What about EGNOS? Well, it's still dependent on a non European infrastructure, and for various reasons the Europeans want their own GPS which will essentially duplicate the American version in every way except cost to the consumer.
What about EGNOS? Well, it's still dependent on a non European infrastructure, and for various reasons the Europeans want their own GPS which will essentially duplicate the American version in every way except cost to the consumer.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
From: Oxford
I'm truly depressed about Galileo. I naively saw it as a way to get GPS approaches here; I hadn't considered the charging aspect. The whole thing seems pointless and cynical to me: much better to spend the money on WAAS/LAAS for UK airfields.
Tim
Tim
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
WAAS and DGPS are different technology with the same application. DGPS beacons were mostly coastal or "Special use" and were a tower that broadcast a position correction based on a surveyed position. This waws than transmitted and GPS recievers with a special DGPS antenna would collect both signals and apply the correction.
A lot of units were DGPS capable but all required the extra antenna. No handlheld unit that I have ever seen actually had the antenna. The DGPS antenna on my boats was quite large.
When the USA switche off SA the DGPS beacons were also switched off.
WAAS uses a pair of satelites over the continental USA to broadcast a time correction signal. The unit then uses the corrected time to amend the almanac that it downloads on startup and thus correct the standard GPS signal.
A DGPS signal is more accuracte if you were going to supplement the signal for a precision approach as it can also fix height data as well due to a known position.
A lot of units were DGPS capable but all required the extra antenna. No handlheld unit that I have ever seen actually had the antenna. The DGPS antenna on my boats was quite large.
When the USA switche off SA the DGPS beacons were also switched off.
WAAS uses a pair of satelites over the continental USA to broadcast a time correction signal. The unit then uses the corrected time to amend the almanac that it downloads on startup and thus correct the standard GPS signal.
A DGPS signal is more accuracte if you were going to supplement the signal for a precision approach as it can also fix height data as well due to a known position.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
I don't think the US Coastguard turned off the DGPS system when SA was turned off, see IGPS FAQ I understand that DGPS in practice will provide 3m accuracy near the station, reducing by 1m every 100 miles, but the headline figure is still 10m.
EGNOS is the same as WAAS, so Europeans have in theory Cat I approach ability using the US system, but apparently don't want to use it in aviation. I share the cynicism about European use of GPS in aviation, it reminds me of mobile phone use on planes. The authorities banned it on spurious safety grounds until somebody worked out how to make money from it, and now it seems OK!
EGNOS is the same as WAAS, so Europeans have in theory Cat I approach ability using the US system, but apparently don't want to use it in aviation. I share the cynicism about European use of GPS in aviation, it reminds me of mobile phone use on planes. The authorities banned it on spurious safety grounds until somebody worked out how to make money from it, and now it seems OK!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
From: Essex, UK
It is almost certain that Galileo will not now happen.
The project needs another £400m which was expected to come from industry. Companies have refused to invest in it unless it has military applications, Galileo cannot have military applications unless the European Constitution is ratified allowing the EU to establish a defence force of its own.
With the EU in bed with China, the US threatening to jam the signal if China is a partner, and Germany and France fighting over who will control it, I think we can safely say that the lack of Constition is more of a blessing than we could have hoped for.
The project needs another £400m which was expected to come from industry. Companies have refused to invest in it unless it has military applications, Galileo cannot have military applications unless the European Constitution is ratified allowing the EU to establish a defence force of its own.
With the EU in bed with China, the US threatening to jam the signal if China is a partner, and Germany and France fighting over who will control it, I think we can safely say that the lack of Constition is more of a blessing than we could have hoped for.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I read somewhere that some of the Galileo satellites were ready for launch...
As for the business model, anybody can see it's nonsense. The American GPS system is free and is more than accurate enough for just about any vehicle/ship/aircraft en route navigation requirement. As I go around a roundabout, TomTom3 tells me which bit of the roundabout I am on and where to turn off.
Commercial aviation uses mostly ILS and occassionally VOR or NDB based approaches so they don't need GPS approaches. In Europe, there may be a market on the fringes (e.g. Ryanair flying into some regional airport that doesn't have an NDB or VOR) but that's all it is.
Ultimately, that's why we have no GPS approaches in the UK. The airlines use ILS etc, small-field commercial ops can get special CAA permission for a private IAP based on some nearby navaid, and the bit of GA that would use GPS approaches is too small to make it worth while for an airfield to spend the money getting one approved.
There is sure to be a big market for GPS approaches in the emerging economies (e.g. I bet China is going to build a load of airports) but they will have no incentive to pay the Europeans when the American system is free.
The only way to make Galileo pay is to somehow force a whole load of present users of navigation systems to use it. For example, closing down instrument approaches and forcing the users to use Galileo instead. But a crazy plan like that could never be pulled off in international aviation.
Maybe I am missing something?
As for the business model, anybody can see it's nonsense. The American GPS system is free and is more than accurate enough for just about any vehicle/ship/aircraft en route navigation requirement. As I go around a roundabout, TomTom3 tells me which bit of the roundabout I am on and where to turn off.
Commercial aviation uses mostly ILS and occassionally VOR or NDB based approaches so they don't need GPS approaches. In Europe, there may be a market on the fringes (e.g. Ryanair flying into some regional airport that doesn't have an NDB or VOR) but that's all it is.
Ultimately, that's why we have no GPS approaches in the UK. The airlines use ILS etc, small-field commercial ops can get special CAA permission for a private IAP based on some nearby navaid, and the bit of GA that would use GPS approaches is too small to make it worth while for an airfield to spend the money getting one approved.
There is sure to be a big market for GPS approaches in the emerging economies (e.g. I bet China is going to build a load of airports) but they will have no incentive to pay the Europeans when the American system is free.
The only way to make Galileo pay is to somehow force a whole load of present users of navigation systems to use it. For example, closing down instrument approaches and forcing the users to use Galileo instead. But a crazy plan like that could never be pulled off in international aviation.
Maybe I am missing something?
Last edited by IO540; 1st November 2005 at 14:56.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
From: Oxford
the bit of GA that would use GPS approaches is too small to make it worth while for an airfield to spend the money getting one approved.
until it's banned, anyway.
Tim
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
and are probably already using non-approved DIY approaches based on GPS anyway, as it's perfectly legal...until it's banned, anyway
And if you do a letdown to 1000ft AGL (which is only slightly above some NDB approaches) you are still legally at the MSA. Even the FAA allows IFR flight AT the MOCA.
It's the area between the two levels. Is there any statistically valid evidence of problems there?
The bottom line is that it can't be enforced, because nobody can tell when the pilot got visual. Except possibly at a towered field which has a cloudbase measuring device, and even then only in pretty extreme cases.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I read somewhere that some of the Galileo satellites were ready for launch...
There is sure to be a big market for GPS approaches in the emerging economies (e.g. I bet China is going to build a load of airports) but they will have no incentive to pay the Europeans when the American system is free.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
From: Bordeaux, France
The only way to make Galileo pay is to somehow force a whole load of present users of navigation systems to use it. For example, closing down instrument approaches and forcing the users to use Galileo instead. But a crazy plan like that could never be pulled off in international aviation.
I dont think Im crazy, just very, very, cynical...
...Regards, SD..
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
HWD
We must both be reading stuff on the internet
I read that Galileo was finally agreed to be compatible with Navstar, to enable use of the same chipsets, etc.
Skydriller
I wasn't being ironic, for a change. I don't really think that Europe (which, when you look at a globe, is a really really tiny part of the earth, despite owning most of the earth 400 years ago) would be able to force all the world's airlines to equip their airliners with "Galileo approved" GPS receivers, containing pre-paid decryption devices (like Sky TV - how else can anybody charge for GPS reception?), change their operating procedures, force crew retraining, etc. just so they can fly to that tiny place called European "Union". It would be a complete joke.
Perhaps somebody here has got their head into the Galileo proposals on how to get money out of it, and is able to comment. I can't see it.
There are lots of very good technical reasons for GPS approaches over ILS etc, e.g. 2D- and 3D-curved approaches become possible, but it can all be done with Navstar, for free.
We must both be reading stuff on the internet
I read that Galileo was finally agreed to be compatible with Navstar, to enable use of the same chipsets, etc.
Skydriller
I wasn't being ironic, for a change. I don't really think that Europe (which, when you look at a globe, is a really really tiny part of the earth, despite owning most of the earth 400 years ago) would be able to force all the world's airlines to equip their airliners with "Galileo approved" GPS receivers, containing pre-paid decryption devices (like Sky TV - how else can anybody charge for GPS reception?), change their operating procedures, force crew retraining, etc. just so they can fly to that tiny place called European "Union". It would be a complete joke.
Perhaps somebody here has got their head into the Galileo proposals on how to get money out of it, and is able to comment. I can't see it.
There are lots of very good technical reasons for GPS approaches over ILS etc, e.g. 2D- and 3D-curved approaches become possible, but it can all be done with Navstar, for free.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,034
Likes: 1
From: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
The first SCAT-1 system has been installed in Norway, and is in operational use at ENBN/Brønnøysund.
In the next 4 years 24 other STOL regional airports will get the system. Noen of these airports have precision approaches today due to terrain/cost issues. (Offset approaches and no flat ground to install a GP without astronomical costs)
(SCAT-1: Special category 1, a bargain version LAAS)
In the next 4 years 24 other STOL regional airports will get the system. Noen of these airports have precision approaches today due to terrain/cost issues. (Offset approaches and no flat ground to install a GP without astronomical costs)
(SCAT-1: Special category 1, a bargain version LAAS)