Stupid Attorney taling about GPS's

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. Evidence already presented in this court case also indicates
some of the problems cited above which resulted in momentary errors of
miles rather than meters.
I'm an advocate of GPS navigation but it is not infallible and carries no
absolute 7 m accuracy guarantee.

"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.

Evidence already presented in this court case also indicates
some of the problems cited above which resulted in momentary errors of
miles rather than meters.

A maomentary error with what equipment?

I'm an advocate of GPS navigation but it is not infallible and carries no
absolute 7 m accuracy guarantee.

So far you are zero for two.

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.
http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/html/Rese...p?seminarID=62
:
"The assessment results also indicated that the current GPS system cannot
meet the RNP in most of the cases and the current integrity monitoring
mechanism is inadequate for providing the necessary integrity monitoring
capability. Therefore, this study suggests that augmentation systems are
needed to support the navigation function for all phases of flight." Jan.
28, 2004, Imperial College, London, Dr. Shaojun.


Evidence already presented in this court case also indicates
some of the problems cited above which resulted in momentary errors of
miles rather than meters.


A maomentary error with what equipment?

Apparent position errors recorded by the monitoring equipment used in the
investigation being discussed.


I'm an advocate of GPS navigation but it is not infallible and carries no
absolute 7 m accuracy guarantee.


So far you are zero for two.

The "Standard Positioning Service Performance Standard," Table 3.6
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/genin...ndardFINAL.pdf
gives the post-SA specification for horizontal position as being within 13m
95% of the time assuming the receiver can see all signals from satellites
above the horizon. The vertical spec. is 22m, 95% of the time. Actual
performance has exceeded these specifications but AFAIK the specification
has not been updated.
Feel free to cite any GPS specification that guarantees 7 m accuracy 100%
of the time regardless of reception conditions.

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 03:10:41 GMT, Peter wrote:

Unaugmented GPS has insufficient integrity monitoring.
http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/html/Rese...p?seminarID=62
:
"The assessment results also indicated that the current GPS system cannot
meet the RNP in most of the cases and the current integrity monitoring
mechanism is inadequate for providing the necessary integrity monitoring
capability. Therefore, this study suggests that augmentation systems are
needed to support the navigation function for all phases of flight." Jan.
28, 2004, Imperial College, London, Dr. Shaojun.


I looked at the link you posted. It seems to be a summary of what is
intended to be presented at a seminar, with no associated evidence. It is
also not clear as to what Shaojun's definition of "inadequate" is.

It is not clear to me what method of integrity monitoring is going on in
the British airspace to which Shaojun refers, but it seems to be
unaugmented RAIM.

The summary indicates that his study "route" was London to New York. But
my understanding is that trans-oceanic flights have to have multiple
navigation systems, only one of which can be GPS.




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 03:10:41 GMT, Peter wrote:

Unaugmented GPS has insufficient integrity monitoring.

http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/html/Rese...ls.asp?seminar
ID=62
:
"The assessment results also indicated that the current GPS system cannot
meet the RNP in most of the cases and the current integrity monitoring
mechanism is inadequate for providing the necessary integrity monitoring
capability. Therefore, this study suggests that augmentation systems are
needed to support the navigation function for all phases of flight." Jan.
28, 2004, Imperial College, London, Dr. Shaojun.


I looked at the link you posted. It seems to be a summary of what is
intended to be presented at a seminar, with no associated evidence. It is
also not clear as to what Shaojun's definition of "inadequate" is.

What is clear is that Peter has a tad more ego than knowledge.

"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.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

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

Tarver Engineering wrote:

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.

http://www.avionicsplace.com/ApolloCNX80.htm :
"The FAA’s new Wide Area Augmentation System or WAAS dramatically improves
the accuracy, integrity, and availability of GPS. The CNX80 incorporates a
new 15-channel WAAS receiver designed by UPS Aviation Technologies
specifically for airborne applications."

"Peter" wrote in message
news:305Zb.345746$I06.3635492@attbi_s01...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

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

Tarver Engineering wrote:

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.

http://www.avionicsplace.com/ApolloCNX80.htm :
"The FAA’s new Wide Area Augmentation System or WAAS dramatically improves
the accuracy, integrity, and availability of GPS.

Nope, but a salseman needs to sell. If you look at the difference in
minimums for the VNAV, you will note that WAAS gives the operator little to
nothing in increased capabilities.

WAAS was a scam run on aviation to remove tens of $billions from the
aviation trust fund; from that perspective WAAS is a tremendous success.
WAAS is the reason sci.geo.satellite-nav is a discredited and dishonest
newsgroup. Ron Lee being a possible exception.

A maomentary error with what equipment?




The equipment that was in use for surveillance on Mr Peterson.

If you are going to discuss a thread based on current events, wouldnt it
be a good idea to be familiar with the context its being discussed in?

Dave