GLS Dot deviation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: in a dirty cockpit
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GLS Dot deviation
Hi guys,
I was looking on the web and on company's manuals but I haven't found anything yet.
GLS (GBAS Landing System) is now being introduced, on trial, in the airline I work for and I can't find what's the value of 1 Dot deviation on the PFD/ND.
Any info?
Thanks
BTS
I was looking on the web and on company's manuals but I haven't found anything yet.
GLS (GBAS Landing System) is now being introduced, on trial, in the airline I work for and I can't find what's the value of 1 Dot deviation on the PFD/ND.
Any info?
Thanks
BTS
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as i remember from our operational GLS use (its been a few years) on the 737NG, it is exactly the same as for an ILS, which means 1 dot equals 1 degree, and for the expanded display one dot equals 0.5 degrees.
The PFD basically did not care what it displayed, the values were calculated by the MMR to give the exact same indications as for an ILS. For the autoflight system it therefore was a normal precision ILS signal and it allowed autoland and automatic rollout. Which was not approved of course, but in a testing effort for the german DLR it was used for that and worked absolutely flawlessly, especially considering that no protected areas were needed. In operational use we used it exactly like an ILS, and it seemed to have better beam stability and integrity (no fluctuation of the LOC/GS whatsoever). The only "downside" was, that it was limited to CAT I use.
The PFD basically did not care what it displayed, the values were calculated by the MMR to give the exact same indications as for an ILS. For the autoflight system it therefore was a normal precision ILS signal and it allowed autoland and automatic rollout. Which was not approved of course, but in a testing effort for the german DLR it was used for that and worked absolutely flawlessly, especially considering that no protected areas were needed. In operational use we used it exactly like an ILS, and it seemed to have better beam stability and integrity (no fluctuation of the LOC/GS whatsoever). The only "downside" was, that it was limited to CAT I use.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as i remember from our operational GLS use (its been a few years) on the 737NG, it is exactly the same as for an ILS, which means 1 dot equals 1 degree, and for the expanded display one dot equals 0.5 degrees.
The PFD basically did not care what it displayed, the values were calculated by the MMR to give the exact same indications as for an ILS. For the autoflight system it therefore was a normal precision ILS signal and it allowed autoland and automatic rollout. Which was not approved of course, but in a testing effort for the german DLR it was used for that and worked absolutely flawlessly, especially considering that no protected areas were needed. In operational use we used it exactly like an ILS, and it seemed to have better beam stability and integrity (no fluctuation of the LOC/GS whatsoever). The only "downside" was, that it was limited to CAT I use.
The PFD basically did not care what it displayed, the values were calculated by the MMR to give the exact same indications as for an ILS. For the autoflight system it therefore was a normal precision ILS signal and it allowed autoland and automatic rollout. Which was not approved of course, but in a testing effort for the german DLR it was used for that and worked absolutely flawlessly, especially considering that no protected areas were needed. In operational use we used it exactly like an ILS, and it seemed to have better beam stability and integrity (no fluctuation of the LOC/GS whatsoever). The only "downside" was, that it was limited to CAT I use.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might be, but it is certified to CAT I only, not CAT IIIb, the standard for ILS over here.
And technically it is not really LPV, as it is completely independent of an onboard database set, you just need the channel number, the trajectory is transmitted by the GBAS ground station.
And technically it is not really LPV, as it is completely independent of an onboard database set, you just need the channel number, the trajectory is transmitted by the GBAS ground station.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might be, but it is certified to CAT I only, not CAT IIIb, the standard for ILS over here.
And technically it is not really LPV, as it is completely independent of an onboard database set, you just need the channel number, the trajectory is transmitted by the GBAS ground station.
And technically it is not really LPV, as it is completely independent of an onboard database set, you just need the channel number, the trajectory is transmitted by the GBAS ground station.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have one set of eggs in the GPS basket better put the others somewhere else I would have thought!
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GBAS is a no cost option on Boeing 737-Next Generation (737-800/-900), Airbus A320, A330/340, A350 and A380 aircraft.
Using Honeywell’s SmartPath Ground-Based Augmentation System (GBAS), Boeing used its ecoDemonstrator 787, a flight test airplane that in 2014 served to assess more than 25 technologies to reduce aviation’s environmental footprint, to complete 12 CAT III approaches and landings at Boeing’s test facility in Moses Lake, Washington.
SEATAC has a proposal to install a CATIII system.
Using Honeywell’s SmartPath Ground-Based Augmentation System (GBAS), Boeing used its ecoDemonstrator 787, a flight test airplane that in 2014 served to assess more than 25 technologies to reduce aviation’s environmental footprint, to complete 12 CAT III approaches and landings at Boeing’s test facility in Moses Lake, Washington.
SEATAC has a proposal to install a CATIII system.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked for the operator that had the first operational approval for GLS in europe. And the same company used both 737NGs and Airbus A320 aircraft. Only the 737 was GLS equipped as it was a no-cost option. Although at some point it was decided to phase out the 737 in favor of a pure A320 fleet, the A320 never got GLS approval with that operator. Once asked why, the management told us that there, at that time (until 2016) there was no cost free option available on the A320, in fact it was only as a retrofit that cost around 250k per airframe. That might have changed, and i would expect it to change with the NEO as GLS/GBAS will be more widely used.
Not because it necessarily saves airlines, money, although it might be, as it can, in theory, allow CAT I/II/III curved approach trajectory. No, because it will save money for airport operators. One installation (with a back up set of of course) can serve several runways at once, obsoleting a lot of singular ILS installations. And of course, since it does not need traditional protected areas and more separation for that reason, higher movement numbers are possible, especially once it becomes low vis certified.
And of course, as long as the relevant signals are compatible, and i believe they are between GPS, Galileo and BeiDou, it can even provide higher reliability for a much lower price. Which of course translates in less delays and therefore saved money. So yes, there is a business case for GLS, actually a quite huge one. Now, we do have the egg/hen problem, but there are several airports that already have it installed, including some mildly larger ones like FRA or ZRH for example, next step is for the airlines to decide to get it installed.
Not because it necessarily saves airlines, money, although it might be, as it can, in theory, allow CAT I/II/III curved approach trajectory. No, because it will save money for airport operators. One installation (with a back up set of of course) can serve several runways at once, obsoleting a lot of singular ILS installations. And of course, since it does not need traditional protected areas and more separation for that reason, higher movement numbers are possible, especially once it becomes low vis certified.
And of course, as long as the relevant signals are compatible, and i believe they are between GPS, Galileo and BeiDou, it can even provide higher reliability for a much lower price. Which of course translates in less delays and therefore saved money. So yes, there is a business case for GLS, actually a quite huge one. Now, we do have the egg/hen problem, but there are several airports that already have it installed, including some mildly larger ones like FRA or ZRH for example, next step is for the airlines to decide to get it installed.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked for the operator that had the first operational approval for GLS in europe. And the same company used both 737NGs and Airbus A320 aircraft. Only the 737 was GLS equipped as it was a no-cost option. Although at some point it was decided to phase out the 737 in favor of a pure A320 fleet, the A320 never got GLS approval with that operator. Once asked why, the management told us that there, at that time (until 2016) there was no cost free option available on the A320, in fact it was only as a retrofit that cost around 250k per airframe. That might have changed, and i would expect it to change with the NEO as GLS/GBAS will be more widely used.
Not because it necessarily saves airlines, money, although it might be, as it can, in theory, allow CAT I/II/III curved approach trajectory. No, because it will save money for airport operators. One installation (with a back up set of of course) can serve several runways at once, obsoleting a lot of singular ILS installations. And of course, since it does not need traditional protected areas and more separation for that reason, higher movement numbers are possible, especially once it becomes low vis certified.
And of course, as long as the relevant signals are compatible, and i believe they are between GPS, Galileo and BeiDou, it can even provide higher reliability for a much lower price. Which of course translates in less delays and therefore saved money. So yes, there is a business case for GLS, actually a quite huge one. Now, we do have the egg/hen problem, but there are several airports that already have it installed, including some mildly larger ones like FRA or ZRH for example, next step is for the airlines to decide to get it installed.
Not because it necessarily saves airlines, money, although it might be, as it can, in theory, allow CAT I/II/III curved approach trajectory. No, because it will save money for airport operators. One installation (with a back up set of of course) can serve several runways at once, obsoleting a lot of singular ILS installations. And of course, since it does not need traditional protected areas and more separation for that reason, higher movement numbers are possible, especially once it becomes low vis certified.
And of course, as long as the relevant signals are compatible, and i believe they are between GPS, Galileo and BeiDou, it can even provide higher reliability for a much lower price. Which of course translates in less delays and therefore saved money. So yes, there is a business case for GLS, actually a quite huge one. Now, we do have the egg/hen problem, but there are several airports that already have it installed, including some mildly larger ones like FRA or ZRH for example, next step is for the airlines to decide to get it installed.
