ILS will be around for a long, long time. The air carriers' auto-flight
systems can't auto-land with anything except ILS.

What the article fails to mention are the new advanced RNP instrument approach
procedures, the criteria for which is in the final approval phase. But, those
will not be of any use to light aircraft.

john smith wrote:

With LAAS in limbo, FAA buys more ILSs
by John Sheridan

The FAA is expected to announce a major ILS contract award within the
next 90 days, according to agency insiders. As currently written, the
contract will call for the purchase and installation of as many as 615
instrument landing systems between 2007 and 2013. The large majority of
systems will provide precision approaches at new locations while the
balance will replace older equipment. At some runways that already have
systems installed, the equipment will be upgraded to higher-category
units. The new contract builds on previous FAA awards, which have added
more than 300 ILS installations to the nation���s inventory over the
last three years.

The contract will cover the purchase of Category I, II and III systems,
which will be supplied under the federal government's indefinite
delivery, indefinite quantity process, a relatively new procurement
procedure that allows the FAA to specify the system types, quantities
and locations as operational requirements demand over the contract
period. Insiders expect the initial production batch, to be delivered in
2007, to consist of 15 Category I systems, at locations still to be
finalized.

The two bidders for the contract are Thales of France and Alenia Marconi
of Italy. These firms have bid through their respective U.S.
subsidiaries, the former Wilcox Electric Company of Kansas City and the
former Aviation Systems of Overland Park, Kan. The U.S. subsidiaries,
each of which has a long history of ILS manufacture for both the FAA and
international markets, would build the equipment. For the upcoming
contract, both supplied systems late last year for FAA technical and
operational evaluation at the Tamiami, Fla. airport.

LPV Approaches

FAA officials emphasize that the new ILS purchase will not affect the
agency's plan to actively promote the nationwide use of GPS WAAS 'near
Category I' localizer precision with vertical guidance (LPV) approaches,
which are expected to bring a much higher level of safety to
non-ILS-equipped runways. LPV approaches will gradually eliminate the
traditional step- down, 'dive and drive' VOR and NDB procedures by
providing a constant, ILS glideslope-like descent path.

In addition, because it uses high-accuracy WAAS signals, the LPV's
glideslope and approach centerline obstacle clearance areas are based on
ILS criteria and are thus narrower than those used for VOR and NDB
nonprecision approaches. In turn, these can safely provide decision
altitudes as low as 250 feet, compared with 200 feet for ILS. Currently,
more than 70 LPV approach plates have been published, with a target of
150 by year-end, and with a forecast production rate of 300 procedures
every year thereafter.

Outlook for LAAS

Where does the FAA's GPS LAAS precision approach program stand today? At
a recent ATC conference, Steve Zaidman, the agency's vice president of
operations services, stated that there was currently no business case
for the system. Zaidman's comment echoed earlier statements by FAA ATO
chief operating officer Russell Chew, who reiterated those statements at
the conference, explaining that the agency can no longer support
projects that are not sound, long-term capital investments or which
would burden cash-strapped operators with the purchase of equipment
lacking short-term payback.

The FAA has relegated LAAS to R&D status, where it is kept alive by a
small annual allowance. According to one FAA official, LAAS suffered
from two problems. The first was that even after many years of high-cost
development, the system's manufacturer was unable to meet the FAA's
requirements for Category I signal integrity and the total elimination
of the transmission of hazardously misleading information. The price tag
to meet those standards remained murky, and the agency knew only that it
would be high.

The second problem was that meeting those standards for Category I was
merely an interim, albeit necessary and fairly lengthy, step to the even
more costly development of Category III LAAS, which operators said they
would need before transitioning from ILS. Operators had shown little
interest in investing in Category I LAAS avionics, which offered few
benefits over the ILS equipment they already carry.