With accurate 'smart' missile delivery being driven by GPS, ownership and control of the system becomes a global power tool. With only one supplier, global control becomes complete.

Although there is much to find fault with here in the USA, I find it interesting that the United States can spend over $14 billion on technology, then make it free access for the rest of the world, and then get "slammed" for having "control" over the system...

I am all for the EU building their own system, but there must and has to be a way to make it complimentary and redundant with the current system, thus making everyone safer. Keep all the control you want, but we all really need to work in harmony regarding "global" systems... (And that includes the US as well...)

The LAST thing I want is more damn boxes in the cockpit that require learning two sets of instructions to do the SAME damn things.

jealous...
 

Qwntm,

About explains it all.
Europe didn't invent GPS, develop, fund, build, or deploy required equipment (satellites) for its use, yet guardedly uses same anyway and would like to have their grubby little hands on the switch, all without pitching in a dime for its use.

Let 'em develop their own ...so they can enjoy the usual cost overruns and tax their citizens accordingly. Build it I say...bravo!:E

Meantime, can enjoy GPS use in the USA and if equipment 'G' installed, accept the ATC phrase...cleared direct to destination, and when within range, cleared GPS approach...:ok:

Qwntm
 

I have been back and re-read all the posts in this thread and I cannot find any USA "slamming" comments (just a swipe at the French :p ).

A question was asked why Galileo was being developed and various reasons have been offered in response, primarily the desire for a complementary and redundant alternative (which you desire and Galileo will be) with more local control for European nations and independance from the USA.

Unfortunately you can only acheive true redundancy with 'more damn boxes in the cockpit' but let's hope that the user interfaces will be common. As users of GPS and Galileo services, we should not have to be concerned where the signals come from. We just want a display to reliably and accurately tell us where we are. That is down to the avionics market, not the satelite builders.

TG

Personally have done over 85 GPS approaches in the last seven years with my private aircraft (TSO equipment required of course) and have found them all to be very accurate.

Moratore Te Salutamus.

We'll miss you when you're gone.

Don't start counting your chickens just yet.
These 30 satellites are going to cost 3.5 beuro.
EU & ESA have had a hard time finding 1 beuro.
Where's the other 2.5 beuro going to materialise from?
The chances of getting satellites built in time to retain the frequencies is low.

maxalt,

You might 'miss' a few more as well.
Just inspected a G3 yesterday fitted with dual GPS equipment (including VNAV), as these approaches/stars/sids (DP's in North America) have become rather more common with bizjet aircraft.

Only reason many airlines have not fit this equipment is....they are too cheap to do so.:p :uhoh:

411a, I think you'll find the FAA now officially call them SIDS and have done so for the past year or so. I thought you new everything?

Actually Turkish, the FAA changed the SIDS to Departure Procedures quite some time ago.....