WAAS

Big John wrote:

"the FAA has spent $886 million on WAAS to date" ....................

Gaaah! And the way they're planning things, I'm sure
lower mins won't be available until the airport sinks
a million or so into an approach lighting system of sorts.

Help me out here, fellow campers. IIRC I read a Wally
Roberts interview on AVWEB which referred to the cost of
an ILS (minus approach lights) as being about $1.5 million
dollars. And it's fair to consider "minus approach lights"
because the airport will need to come up with an ALS etc
even w/ WAAS.

So....how many airports are there in the country?

Looks to me as though the FAA could have installed ILS
at about 500 GA airports for the cost of WAAS, and
people would be flying 'em today

Wonder how that compares to the number of US airports
where other factors (obstructions, terrain, rwy
length etc) are otherwise compatible w/ a precision-
type approach.

Oy. Your tax dollars at work.

Cheers,
Sydney

One of the advantages of WAAS is that it can provide approaches with
vertical guidance to minimums that are better than non-precision approaches
but worse that an ILS *without* the full ALS, etc. At my home airport that
could often make the difference between missing the NDB approach and going
to the nearest airport with an ILS or landing and driving my own car home.
The idea being you can get a whole lot more utility for no additional costs
for ground-based infrastructure.

Dave Reinhart


Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:

Big John wrote:

"the FAA has spent $886 million on WAAS to date" ....................

Gaaah! And the way they're planning things, I'm sure
lower mins won't be available until the airport sinks
a million or so into an approach lighting system of sorts.

Help me out here, fellow campers. IIRC I read a Wally
Roberts interview on AVWEB which referred to the cost of
an ILS (minus approach lights) as being about $1.5 million
dollars. And it's fair to consider "minus approach lights"
because the airport will need to come up with an ALS etc
even w/ WAAS.

So....how many airports are there in the country?

Looks to me as though the FAA could have installed ILS
at about 500 GA airports for the cost of WAAS, and
people would be flying 'em today

Wonder how that compares to the number of US airports
where other factors (obstructions, terrain, rwy
length etc) are otherwise compatible w/ a precision-
type approach.

Oy. Your tax dollars at work.

Cheers,
Sydney

David Reinhart wrote:
One of the advantages of WAAS is that it can provide approaches with
vertical guidance to minimums that are better than non-precision approaches
but worse that an ILS *without* the full ALS, etc. At my home airport that
could often make the difference between missing the NDB approach and going
to the nearest airport with an ILS or landing and driving my own car home.

Well, it depends upon the airport of course, but around here the
above frequently describes what you get w/ a non-precision GPS approach.
For example UNO (West Plains MO), the VOR 36 will get you to 672 agl;
the GPS 36 will get you to 372 agl (what a GPS approach with a clean
obstruction path can do for ya; in the other direction it's only 412).

The idea being you can get a whole lot more utility for no additional costs
for ground-based infrastructure.

What minimums would an ILS with no ALS get you? a WAAS approach?
Even if it's down to 200 AGL, is 172 ft worth $886 million? Holy
cow, and I'm a big fan of GPS approaches!

Cheers,
Sydney

KHYX already has an NDB, and a GPS approach, and a VOR-A off of KMBS 13
miles away... And now, drum roll we are getting an ILS... Uncle Sugar is
sweet...

Denny

"Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote in message
...
David Reinhart wrote:
One of the advantages of WAAS is that it can provide approaches with
vertical guidance to minimums that are better than non-precision
approaches
but worse that an ILS *without* the full ALS, etc. At my home airport
that
could often make the difference between missing the NDB approach and
going
to the nearest airport with an ILS or landing and driving my own car
home.

Well, it depends upon the airport of course, but around here the
above frequently describes what you get w/ a non-precision GPS approach.
For example UNO (West Plains MO), the VOR 36 will get you to 672 agl;
the GPS 36 will get you to 372 agl (what a GPS approach with a clean
obstruction path can do for ya; in the other direction it's only 412).

The idea being you can get a whole lot more utility for no additional
costs
for ground-based infrastructure.

What minimums would an ILS with no ALS get you? a WAAS approach?
Even if it's down to 200 AGL, is 172 ft worth $886 million? Holy
cow, and I'm a big fan of GPS approaches!

Cheers,
Sydney

In a previous article, Sydney Hoeltzli said:
So....how many airports are there in the country?

There are 5026 public airports and 8906 private airports in the FAA
database. Also 10 private and 1 public balloonport, 25 private and 4
public gliderport, 5261 private and 78 public heliports, 282 private and
201 public seaplane bases, 85 private and 3 public STOLports, and 129
private and 6 public ultralight fields.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it is
necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then.

In article , Sydney Hoeltzli
wrote:

Looks to me as though the FAA could have installed ILS
at about 500 GA airports for the cost of WAAS, and
people would be flying 'em today

There are 40 ILS frequencies. Thus, frequency management
is a "challenge."

There are very tough siting criteria for installation
of ILS, especially the GS. Some airports that could
get WAAS or LAAS approaches can't have ILS.

--
Bob Noel