GPS APPROACHES
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS APPROACHES
CAA to Conduct GPS Approach Tests for General Aviation Aircraft
The United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) will test Global Positioning System (GPS) Non-Precision Approaches (NPA) for general aviation aircraft at six UK airports. The six airports include Blackpool, Durham Tees Valley, Exeter, Gloucestershire, Iverness, and Shoreham. UK CAA-licensed pilots, flying UK-registered aircraft, may take part in these tests. The aircraft involved must be fitted with appropriate GPS equipment that has been fully approved in accordance with Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC) yellow 205 for NPA operations. The tests will run from May through October of 2006.
The United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) will test Global Positioning System (GPS) Non-Precision Approaches (NPA) for general aviation aircraft at six UK airports. The six airports include Blackpool, Durham Tees Valley, Exeter, Gloucestershire, Iverness, and Shoreham. UK CAA-licensed pilots, flying UK-registered aircraft, may take part in these tests. The aircraft involved must be fitted with appropriate GPS equipment that has been fully approved in accordance with Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC) yellow 205 for NPA operations. The tests will run from May through October of 2006.
With almost 10 years of approved GPS NPA (now called GNSS) ops in Australia, I'd have to say: GO FOR IT.
Why did this take so long for the UK?
What are they going to test that hasn't already been done in the last 10 years elsewhere?
Why did this take so long for the UK?
What are they going to test that hasn't already been done in the last 10 years elsewhere?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, I've been doing them in Canada-legally- for more than 4 years.
They work really slick especially with an en-route transition to a STAR followed by a RNAV (GPS) approach.
They work really slick especially with an en-route transition to a STAR followed by a RNAV (GPS) approach.
NIH....Not Invented Here!
It's an American DOD thing you know....
It's an American DOD thing you know....
Ah Sasless, but if the DoD's GPS system is so reliable, why are the US Coastguard pursuing Loran with such vigour? As I understand it they are planning to use a master timing station to give improved accuracy (claimed to be close to that of GPS). Do they know something that others don't - Loran in Europe is losing popularity (not helped by the Irish never putting up the Loop Head aerial).
The Loran users website indicates that eLoran (the new and improved version of Loran C) is an ideal backup and complement to GNSS - why would you need that if GPS as a standalone is good enough for aviation approaches?
an answer here perhaps -
http://www.loran.org/library/FinalLastPaperEJN2.pdf
tsk tsk - the mighty GPS has weaknesses......shock horror!
The Loran users website indicates that eLoran (the new and improved version of Loran C) is an ideal backup and complement to GNSS - why would you need that if GPS as a standalone is good enough for aviation approaches?
an answer here perhaps -
http://www.loran.org/library/FinalLastPaperEJN2.pdf
tsk tsk - the mighty GPS has weaknesses......shock horror!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aus, Europe & everywhere in between
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmet
Aren't they called "RNAV" approaches in Aus??
MILT
I think the answer to your question is that the approach points are promulgated on each chart (missed approach waypoint, flyover waypoint, etc) and these are stored on each GPS datacard.
Aren't they called "RNAV" approaches in Aus??
MILT
I think the answer to your question is that the approach points are promulgated on each chart (missed approach waypoint, flyover waypoint, etc) and these are stored on each GPS datacard.
Oogle, yep, GNSS RNAV approaches. Anything to complicate and change rather than stick by explanative nomenclature. They are a GPS approach that is non-precision, so what was wrong with "GPS NPA"?
Milt: the approaches are not to a specific point on the runway. They are the same as a VOR/DME, or NDB/DME in that they are approaches to a missed approach point that is determined by both azimuth and distance. There is no real difference because it is GPS. As such, they are promulgated in the same way any other approach waypoint is, on the instrument approach chart.
Crab: I dont think anyone is saying it is a standalone 100% reliable capability. Neither is Loran. Or VOR, etc. Each system should be complimented by a backup of some sort, and in the Coast Guard environment that has no ILS and VOR handy as a back up, we are back to Loran. I bet the Coast Guard are no getting rid of the GPS units in their aircraft.
Milt: the approaches are not to a specific point on the runway. They are the same as a VOR/DME, or NDB/DME in that they are approaches to a missed approach point that is determined by both azimuth and distance. There is no real difference because it is GPS. As such, they are promulgated in the same way any other approach waypoint is, on the instrument approach chart.
Crab: I dont think anyone is saying it is a standalone 100% reliable capability. Neither is Loran. Or VOR, etc. Each system should be complimented by a backup of some sort, and in the Coast Guard environment that has no ILS and VOR handy as a back up, we are back to Loran. I bet the Coast Guard are no getting rid of the GPS units in their aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incredible!
Only when I left the US, did I realise how far behind a lot of the rest of the world are with their GPS / RNAV development.
(Before anyone jumps, I say this purely as a matter of fact.)
Just for your information:
The first stage of the transition and 'testing' of GPS in the US was called an 'overlay' approach, where the GPS approach was simply overlayed on an existing Non-precision approach.
The next step in the GPS introduction was to have a GPS approach what was not predicated on any existing Navaid at all. - A standalone GPS approach. (After all it's GPS!). This allowed for the basic-T design (and its modifications) to become standard.
Moving on from the Basic-T the Terminal Arrival Area standards was developed. This is a standard for the area surrounding an RNAV approach. It is so beautifully simple that a controller can give a clearance 30nm out and not speak to the arriving aircraft until the FAF. No need for 'waypoint' instructions either as its all on the plate.
The US is now in the process of implementing the VNAV approaches, with the use of WAAS.
No need for VORs or NDBs or any other land-based navaids everr again!
Maybe one day in the future, technology will be available for helicopter pilots to plug in the coordinates of a car crash / rig / heli-skiing drop site / roof top helipad / construction site etc...etc... and 'hey, presto!' the GPS writes a custom 'Point-In-Space' legally approved approach to that point, with appropriate minima etc..etc..
As for the integrity of the system and the Volpe Report stated earlier...yes, there are some drawbacks.. loss of RAIM and possible targeting by terrorist groups.
However, the article mentioned earlier was based heavily on the Volpe Report, which was published in 2001 (I think). This was before GPS technology was well developed, before the were so many satellites, and most importantly, before there were viable alternatives to the US GPS system (Glonass??, Galileo)
With these in mind, I think the GPS concept is the way forward for aviation and world navigation. You'll eventually have receivers that can 'lock' onto any of the systems as necessary, assuring complete navigation all the time.
From a heli pilot's perspective, yes LORAN is a great backup, but it is also susceptible to its own problems, and at the end of the day is predicated on radio technology, and is thus 'line of sight'. It requires expensive ground based stations. So, as a backup (or alongside) GPS yes, as primary navigation system (as the LORANites would love to see)...nah!
cl12pv2s
Only when I left the US, did I realise how far behind a lot of the rest of the world are with their GPS / RNAV development.
(Before anyone jumps, I say this purely as a matter of fact.)
Milt: the approaches are not to a specific point on the runway. They are the same as a VOR/DME, or NDB/DME in that they are approaches to a missed approach point that is determined by both azimuth and distance. There is no real difference because it is GPS. As such, they are promulgated in the same way any other approach waypoint is, on the instrument approach chart.
The first stage of the transition and 'testing' of GPS in the US was called an 'overlay' approach, where the GPS approach was simply overlayed on an existing Non-precision approach.
The next step in the GPS introduction was to have a GPS approach what was not predicated on any existing Navaid at all. - A standalone GPS approach. (After all it's GPS!). This allowed for the basic-T design (and its modifications) to become standard.
Moving on from the Basic-T the Terminal Arrival Area standards was developed. This is a standard for the area surrounding an RNAV approach. It is so beautifully simple that a controller can give a clearance 30nm out and not speak to the arriving aircraft until the FAF. No need for 'waypoint' instructions either as its all on the plate.
The US is now in the process of implementing the VNAV approaches, with the use of WAAS.
No need for VORs or NDBs or any other land-based navaids everr again!
Maybe one day in the future, technology will be available for helicopter pilots to plug in the coordinates of a car crash / rig / heli-skiing drop site / roof top helipad / construction site etc...etc... and 'hey, presto!' the GPS writes a custom 'Point-In-Space' legally approved approach to that point, with appropriate minima etc..etc..
As for the integrity of the system and the Volpe Report stated earlier...yes, there are some drawbacks.. loss of RAIM and possible targeting by terrorist groups.
However, the article mentioned earlier was based heavily on the Volpe Report, which was published in 2001 (I think). This was before GPS technology was well developed, before the were so many satellites, and most importantly, before there were viable alternatives to the US GPS system (Glonass??, Galileo)
With these in mind, I think the GPS concept is the way forward for aviation and world navigation. You'll eventually have receivers that can 'lock' onto any of the systems as necessary, assuring complete navigation all the time.
From a heli pilot's perspective, yes LORAN is a great backup, but it is also susceptible to its own problems, and at the end of the day is predicated on radio technology, and is thus 'line of sight'. It requires expensive ground based stations. So, as a backup (or alongside) GPS yes, as primary navigation system (as the LORANites would love to see)...nah!
cl12pv2s
Last edited by cl12pv2s; 4th Apr 2006 at 04:55.
I am not so sure "the rest of the world" is so far behind. We were doing approved helicopter GPS approaches in Australia by 1997, and Terry Summers, a NSW based EMS Captain and Instrument ATO was heavily involved in setting the international standards of the approaches. "A matter of fact" as you would put it.
I note that the USA has settled on the "T" entries, but Australia went for the "Y" entries which I believe are the ICAO standard. The Y entry is essentially the same, but it requires a less than 90 degree turn on to the FAF leg. In addition, that standard has a third IAF 3 odd miles (for helicopters) out from the IF and in line with the finals leg. This creates three possible IAF, each with a maximum of 70 degree turns to join the initial leg.
The real development will be courtesy of a Mr Lappos. This will be when they start certifying GPS approaches to the helicopter capabilities of very slow speed at the missed approach point, all flown coupled. In that area, the USA is far ahead, and it will be some time before it seeps into Australia. But our fingers are crossed.
I note that the USA has settled on the "T" entries, but Australia went for the "Y" entries which I believe are the ICAO standard. The Y entry is essentially the same, but it requires a less than 90 degree turn on to the FAF leg. In addition, that standard has a third IAF 3 odd miles (for helicopters) out from the IF and in line with the finals leg. This creates three possible IAF, each with a maximum of 70 degree turns to join the initial leg.
The real development will be courtesy of a Mr Lappos. This will be when they start certifying GPS approaches to the helicopter capabilities of very slow speed at the missed approach point, all flown coupled. In that area, the USA is far ahead, and it will be some time before it seeps into Australia. But our fingers are crossed.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmet fire,
You're right...
So I'll rephrase...
I was surprised how behind some countries are!
Certainly, Australia and Canada have embraced the potential of GNSS, as the US have.
Interesting about the 'Y' and extra IAF. I would be interested in knowing the reference to this ICAO standard (if you have it).
cl12pv2s
You're right...
So I'll rephrase...
I was surprised how behind some countries are!
Certainly, Australia and Canada have embraced the potential of GNSS, as the US have.
Interesting about the 'Y' and extra IAF. I would be interested in knowing the reference to this ICAO standard (if you have it).
cl12pv2s
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be curious to know how many GPS NPA are approved in the States and Canada ?
and are new old-style precision approaches still installed, or are all the new helicopter approaches based on GPS now ?
Do you see any future for helicopters with the VOR-DME / ILS system, considering the ease induced by the GPS and GPS-like systems ?
Thanks
and are new old-style precision approaches still installed, or are all the new helicopter approaches based on GPS now ?
Do you see any future for helicopters with the VOR-DME / ILS system, considering the ease induced by the GPS and GPS-like systems ?
Thanks
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antoine just about every NPA in Canada has a GPS overlay approach as well.
Many remote airports only have GPS approaches.
The RNAV (GPS ) approaches follow the T -standard illustrated in cl12pv2s post.
We still have a large number of NDB approaches. I suspect they won't be around 20 years from now.
Localizer Back-Course appoaches are being phased out-slowly.
The ILS approach- I think- will be around for quite some time; even though it is old technology it's still a fantatastic approach aid.
Many remote airports only have GPS approaches.
The RNAV (GPS ) approaches follow the T -standard illustrated in cl12pv2s post.
We still have a large number of NDB approaches. I suspect they won't be around 20 years from now.
Localizer Back-Course appoaches are being phased out-slowly.
The ILS approach- I think- will be around for quite some time; even though it is old technology it's still a fantatastic approach aid.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS is the U.S military version of a GNSS which also gives them full control over it. I can understand if there are many countries that are happier to rely on older technologies over which they have full control.
But a good thing for the rest of the world is that GALILEO will be up and running from 2008, which is much more suited for civilian applications and not controled by the military or a single country. As they say on their website: "A system that both competes with and complements the American GPS system".
One of the features is that it is sending an "integrity message" informing the user immediately of any errors. Nice to have on a future GNSS precision approach to the hover, don't you think?
Interesting reading:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy...o/index_en.htm
/2beers
But a good thing for the rest of the world is that GALILEO will be up and running from 2008, which is much more suited for civilian applications and not controled by the military or a single country. As they say on their website: "A system that both competes with and complements the American GPS system".
One of the features is that it is sending an "integrity message" informing the user immediately of any errors. Nice to have on a future GNSS precision approach to the hover, don't you think?
Interesting reading:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy...o/index_en.htm
/2beers
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2beers:
The US Government has said they would not turn off GPS. It is a utility that is so widely used in the USA and other parts of the world that the effect of turning it off on the civil economy would be pretty large.
They are in fact adding more features to the system to provide better accuracy for civil use, and will continue to support it for many years.
GPS already has integrity features built in - the European system adds many things, but GPS is still quite useful (and will be free - how much are the Europeans going to charge for use???)
The US Government has said they would not turn off GPS. It is a utility that is so widely used in the USA and other parts of the world that the effect of turning it off on the civil economy would be pretty large.
They are in fact adding more features to the system to provide better accuracy for civil use, and will continue to support it for many years.
GPS already has integrity features built in - the European system adds many things, but GPS is still quite useful (and will be free - how much are the Europeans going to charge for use???)
