GPS and old-fashioned thinking?

"Stan Gosnell" wrote:

It's relatively cheap, and looks like a great system.

Uh-oh. Sounds like a couple dozen more OTS NOTAMs to read for every
trip.

"john smith" wrote in message
...
Not all approaches provide a decent transition

Do you mean a "decent" or "descent" transition?

What would you consider an "indecent" transition?

Asking "How about it?" without buying dinner first.

--
Dan

"The future has actually been here for a while, it's just not readily
available to everyone."
- some guy at MIT

can be installed at any tower, wire crossing, or other obstacle, and
receives transponder transmissions, determines if an aircraft is likely to
hit the obstacle, and transmits a warning on all VHF frequencies.

That sounds like a stupid system. Just what we want! (add sarcasm) A bunch
of warnings that go off on all our comm's so often that we are both annoyed
by them and desensitized by them.

Buy a GPS with terrain and obstacle warning. Then someone's buzzing, low
approach, landing, corridor flying or stupidity won't annoy everyone in a
ten mile radius.

Kobra

Stan Gosnell wrote:

Scott Moore wrote in news:dn293r$i4k$2
@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM:


Hell, someday they are going to put ADS-B transmitters ontop of
radio towers. It will happen.


There is already a system in existence that does a good job, and the FAA
has, or maybe still is, evaluated it. It was designed in Sweden, IIRC, and
can be installed at any tower, wire crossing, or other obstacle, and
receives transponder transmissions, determines if an aircraft is likely to
hit the obstacle, and transmits a warning on all VHF frequencies. All that
is required in the aircraft is a transponder and a VHF radio turned on. It
operates on solar cells and batteries, as well as AC if available. It's
relatively cheap, and looks like a great system.


ADS-B is going to be the ATC separation system. The movement is
probably irreversible. Austrialia (spelling?) is already a big player.

Avoidance of passive obstacle in airspace not suitable for IFR
navigation will become more and more a cockpit responsibility as
technology advances. My Garmin 296 already does an awesome job, at
least in the U.S., where all the NACO-recorded obstacles are in the
database.

Andrew Gideon wrote:

G Farris wrote:


The missed approach is part of the procedure, and if you've done
good you have it all dialled-in, briefed and ready to fly.


LOC22 at KCDW requires the localizer for the missed. The NDB-A (which has a
GPS overlay now) also uses the same NDB in the missed approach procedure.

Not all approaches provide a decent transition to a missed approach in the
case of a failure of the primary NAVAID. I find that astonishing.

- Andrew


There is so much protected airspace for these procedures that a primary
nav failure will not probably create a safety issue. And, if the
aircraft has a GPS moving map that provides a redundant positive course
guidance alternative/backup.

In the case of the new RNAV (RNP) SAAAR procedures, GPS is presumed to
fail during the approach. If the missed approach can be serviced with a
Level 1 TERPs missed approach area (criteria that have been used for
RNAV (GPS) missed approach design for about three years now, the pilot
is presumed to be able to do short term dead recogning for extraction in
the event of loss of GPS. If, howver, the missed approach requires
smaller RNP values than provided by a Level 1 missed approach, then the
aircraft must have IRU positioning to fall back on with loss of GPS.

Stan Gosnell wrote:
wrote in news:b0Ulf.50$z21.27@fed1read04:


ADS-B is going to be the ATC separation system. The movement is
probably irreversible. Austrialia (spelling?) is already a big
player.

Avoidance of passive obstacle in airspace not suitable for IFR
navigation will become more and more a cockpit responsibility as
technology advances. My Garmin 296 already does an awesome job, at
least in the U.S., where all the NACO-recorded obstacles are in the
database.


I don't have a 296, and neither do most pilots. My employer isn't likely
to put them in the hundreds of aircraft we fly, either. I do have a radio,
as do most aircraft.

The flip side is that the few thousand airliners all have EGPWS (TAWS).
So, the 900-pound ape is already taken care of.

A small point for the airlines flying IFR: the EGPWS platform doesn't
have recorded towers and buildings unless a modification call peaks and
obstacles has been added. I believe the pricy IFR-certified Garmin
system has all that stuff.

Since the 900-pound gorilla is using EGPWS/TAWS, no one is going to
spend for the system you mention.

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...
Scott Moore wrote in news:dn293r$i4k$2
@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM:

Hell, someday they are going to put ADS-B transmitters ontop of
radio towers. It will happen.

There is already a system in existence that does a good job, and the FAA
has, or maybe still is, evaluated it. It was designed in Sweden, IIRC,
and
can be installed at any tower, wire crossing, or other obstacle, and
receives transponder transmissions, determines if an aircraft is likely to
hit the obstacle, and transmits a warning on all VHF frequencies. All
that
is required in the aircraft is a transponder and a VHF radio turned on.

Think about what will have to the airwaves when such a broadcast is made.

Better to have detection of the signal active an alarm in the subject
aircraft rather than broadcasting it to EVERYONE in the area.

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...

The radio is very low-power, and thus short-range.

Imagine what even a low power transmitter would do it operating on a tower
right near an airport.

I don't have such a
GPS, and my company isn't likely to buy a few hundred of them in my
lifetime.

That's a non-reason for such a system.

Matt Barrow wrote On 12/08/05 22:06,:
"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...

Scott Moore wrote in news:dn293r$i4k$2
:


Hell, someday they are going to put ADS-B transmitters ontop of
radio towers. It will happen.

There is already a system in existence that does a good job, and the FAA
has, or maybe still is, evaluated it. It was designed in Sweden, IIRC,
and
can be installed at any tower, wire crossing, or other obstacle, and
receives transponder transmissions, determines if an aircraft is likely to
hit the obstacle, and transmits a warning on all VHF frequencies. All
that
is required in the aircraft is a transponder and a VHF radio turned on.


Think about what will have to the airwaves when such a broadcast is made.

Better to have detection of the signal active an alarm in the subject
aircraft rather than broadcasting it to EVERYONE in the area.




Kinda like ADS-B. Hey, didn't we start there ?

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote On 12/08/05 22:06,:
"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...

Scott Moore wrote in news:dn293r$i4k$2
:


Hell, someday they are going to put ADS-B transmitters ontop of
radio towers. It will happen.

There is already a system in existence that does a good job, and the FAA
has, or maybe still is, evaluated it. It was designed in Sweden, IIRC,
and
can be installed at any tower, wire crossing, or other obstacle, and
receives transponder transmissions, determines if an aircraft is likely
to
hit the obstacle, and transmits a warning on all VHF frequencies. All
that
is required in the aircraft is a transponder and a VHF radio turned on.


Think about what will have to the airwaves when such a broadcast is made.

Better to have detection of the signal active an alarm in the subject
aircraft rather than broadcasting it to EVERYONE in the area.




Kinda like ADS-B. Hey, didn't we start there ?

Not on voice channels that EVERYONE heard the warning (and then had to
decide if THEY were the one being warned.