"Peter" wrote in message
news:ROVYb.217372$U%5.1284734@attbi_s03...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
news:0YUYb.349393$xy6.1743180@attbi_s02...

Tarver Engineering wrote:


"Peter" wrote in message
news:ruUYb.349212$xy6.1742195@attbi_s02...


Ron Lee wrote:


"Dave" wrote:




Unaugmented GPS is accurate to within 7.2 meters longitudinally.


Go say that in sci.geo.satellite-nav and see what happens.



Probably not a bad number.

Only if the usual caveats are added; i.e. 95% of the time and assuming

the

receiver has good reception conditions. Any attorney trying to

discredit

GPS evidence will naturally focus on the 5% of the time when the

position

could be off by more than the nominal accuracy and on obstructions,
multi-path reflections, RFI, etc. that can degrade performance,
particularly in a covert installation where the antenna is unlikely to

be

optimally placed for good reception.


False.

The convergence of the GPS Jacobian does not occur for the conditions

you

describe. One of the major advantages of GPS over current ground based
navigation is the difficulty of spoofing the system.


I suggest you read your "GPS World" issues some more. Improvement of
integrity monitoring was one of the main reasons for requiring

augmentation

of GPS.


False.

The failure to monitor the integrity of the WAAS signal is why the test
bit
remained set until recently. The integrity issues were WAAS integrity
issues with no relevence to GPS.

Unaugmented GPS has insufficient integrity monitoring.

See the CNX-80.

Buy a vowel, get a clue, call your mommy.