VOR Check question

wrote in message ...

Well, okay, but I work with this stuff all the time.


Prior to a recent discussion in this forum you believed the speeds in the
timing tables of NACO charts were IAS. Anybody that worked with this stuff
all the time would have known they were ground speed. It appears you're a
fibber.

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .

... and my response addresses exactly that.


No, it addresses the failure of a VOR and the failure of a GPS satellite.



The failure of a single VOR
(or even twenty) won't cripple the VOR system. But the (albeit unlikely)
failure of twenty satellites will cripple the GPS system.


You're right, but you're now comparing the failure of about 0.1 to 2% of the
VOR system to the failure of about 69% of the GPS constellation.

wrote in message ...

Sure it does. It provides guidance for minimums, procedural data notes,
etc, which are Part 97 imperatives when transmitted through the
rule-making process
onto the approach chart.


But no regulatory requirements upon pilots or the operation of aircraft.



Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about.


Is it? Let's test that. If you can provide a reference from FAA Order
8260.19C which places a regulatory requirements upon pilots then I don't
know what I'm talking about. If you can't provide that reference then you
don't know what you're talking about. Fair enough?



Those are "speeds." How you choose to use them is up to you.


You said previously they are IAS, are they or aren't they IAS? Or are you
saying that IAS and groundspeed can be used interchangeably?



The regulatory basis is the distance from the FAF to the MAP. Nothing
more,
nothing less. Obviously, with today's equipment navigating to the MAP via
RNAV is more accurate than a pilot attempt to convert IAS to TAS, then to
G/S.


So you're still maintaining that the speeds in the timing tables are IAS,
even after it was proven here that they cannot be anything other than GS?
That's incredible! And you think it obvious that I don't know what I'm
talking about!

Okay, fine. When I said the speeds in the timing tables were GS you asked
for a supporting reference. Since you "work with this stuff all the time"
it should be a simple matter for you to provide a reference indicating these
speeds are IAS. If you wish to retain what little credibility you have left
you'll do so.

wrote in message ...

You're reading the regulation without the context of FAA policy. VOR is
still the primary en route nav aid. Write FAA Flight Standards in DC
and ask them if the regulation means what you think it means.


So is it FAA policy that the regulations mean what they say, or that the
regulations mean what FAA Flight Standards in DC say they mean?

No, it addresses the failure of a VOR and the failure of a GPS satellite.

No, it doesn't =address= this, it =uses= this to =address= the original
point.

you're now comparing the failure of about 0.1 to 2% of the
VOR system to the failure of about 69% of the GPS constellation.

.... which is my point. A single VOR failure brings down 0.1% to 2% of
the VOR system. A single failure brings down 69% of the GPS system.
(your numbers - I don't believe the 69% part and haven't verified the
0.1% to 2% part though that sounds reasonable)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ah figures lie and liars figure. Actually you are comparing statistical
apples and oranges.

If a single VOR fails in your area, or worse on your approach, you have a
little to a big problem depending on the circumstances. If a single
satellite fails for the area you are operating you are not likely to even
know it because so many other satellites are still available to provide no
worse than about 60M accuracy.

PK

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
No, it addresses the failure of a VOR and the failure of a GPS satellite.

No, it doesn't =address= this, it =uses= this to =address= the original
point.

you're now comparing the failure of about 0.1 to 2% of the VOR system to
the failure of about 69% of the GPS constellation.

... which is my point. A single VOR failure brings down 0.1% to 2% of the
VOR system. A single failure brings down 69% of the GPS system. (your
numbers - I don't believe the 69% part and haven't verified the 0.1% to 2%
part though that sounds reasonable)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

If a single VOR fails in your area, or worse on your approach, you have a
little to a big problem depending on the circumstances. If a single
satellite fails for the area you are operating you are not likely to even
know it because so many other satellites are still available to provide no
worse than about 60M accuracy.

Uncontested. But a small number of failures is sufficient to bring down
the entire GPS system. A small number of failures is not sufficient to
bring down the entire VOR system. And the issue is the robustness of
the -system-, not the robustness for any individual flight.

I do not claim that one is better than the other. I do claim that the
difference in failure modes is significant, and as you pointed out, can
play either way. That it can play one way does not mean it can't play
the other way, or that the other way isn't a significant factor.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 18:07:49 -0400, "Paul Lynch"
wrote:

A solar storm can render the GPS signals unusable for a period and
have at least once if not twice. It's a rare occurrence. OTOH it is
possible, but with a low probability of either meteor (dust size
particles), or a solar storm of enough magnitude, disabling a portion
of the satellite constellation.

Although the likely hood is very small, GPS is more likely to run into
a wide area failure than VORs. OTOH you can still fly via GPS with
only 2 satellites. With 3 it does a reasonable job of vertical nav.
I don't believe it'd be legal for approaches or you'd have enough
information for such, but it does show the *relative* immunity of GPS
to failures rendering the system unusable.

Both are good systems with GPS being far more accurate and less prone
to interference or failure.

GPS makes an excellent primary system, but as with any system for
serious work you always want a separate back-up. Your hardware can
fail, their hardware can fail, or some one could jam the system which
is true for any system. For emergencies even the old ADF and the
local AM broadcast station can get you in the vicinity of the airport.
It doesn't take much thinking to roll your own approach using an ADF
in an emergency.

If it's a true emergency you use what's available and sort out the
legalities later.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Ah figures lie and liars figure. Actually you are comparing statistical
apples and oranges.

If a single VOR fails in your area, or worse on your approach, you have a
little to a big problem depending on the circumstances. If a single
satellite fails for the area you are operating you are not likely to even
know it because so many other satellites are still available to provide no
worse than about 60M accuracy.

PK

"Jose" wrote in message
...
No, it addresses the failure of a VOR and the failure of a GPS satellite.

No, it doesn't =address= this, it =uses= this to =address= the original
point.

you're now comparing the failure of about 0.1 to 2% of the VOR system to
the failure of about 69% of the GPS constellation.

... which is my point. A single VOR failure brings down 0.1% to 2% of the
VOR system. A single failure brings down 69% of the GPS system. (your
numbers - I don't believe the 69% part and haven't verified the 0.1% to 2%
part though that sounds reasonable)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

If you look at GPS notams, you will find a surprising number of area outages
that are small. They tend to be kind of conical in shape (small near the
ground and larger area as you increase in altitude. These seem to be due to
geometries for the satellite. If a satellite is out, this makes the
coverage even worse.

I fly in the east coast region (Wash DC ADIZ). There seems to be some areas
that have fairly permanent outage areas, perhaps jamming tests are done
there.

One should check GPS notams just as you would check VOR notams if you depend
on either navigation system.

Doug Wood

"Roger" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 18:07:49 -0400, "Paul Lynch"
wrote:

A solar storm can render the GPS signals unusable for a period and
have at least once if not twice. It's a rare occurrence. OTOH it is
possible, but with a low probability of either meteor (dust size
particles), or a solar storm of enough magnitude, disabling a portion
of the satellite constellation.

Although the likely hood is very small, GPS is more likely to run into
a wide area failure than VORs. OTOH you can still fly via GPS with
only 2 satellites. With 3 it does a reasonable job of vertical nav.
I don't believe it'd be legal for approaches or you'd have enough
information for such, but it does show the *relative* immunity of GPS
to failures rendering the system unusable.

Both are good systems with GPS being far more accurate and less prone
to interference or failure.

GPS makes an excellent primary system, but as with any system for
serious work you always want a separate back-up. Your hardware can
fail, their hardware can fail, or some one could jam the system which
is true for any system. For emergencies even the old ADF and the
local AM broadcast station can get you in the vicinity of the airport.
It doesn't take much thinking to roll your own approach using an ADF
in an emergency.

If it's a true emergency you use what's available and sort out the
legalities later.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Ah figures lie and liars figure. Actually you are comparing statistical
apples and oranges.

If a single VOR fails in your area, or worse on your approach, you have a
little to a big problem depending on the circumstances. If a single
satellite fails for the area you are operating you are not likely to even
know it because so many other satellites are still available to provide no
worse than about 60M accuracy.

PK

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
No, it addresses the failure of a VOR and the failure of a GPS
satellite.

No, it doesn't =address= this, it =uses= this to =address= the original
point.

you're now comparing the failure of about 0.1 to 2% of the VOR system
to
the failure of about 69% of the GPS constellation.

... which is my point. A single VOR failure brings down 0.1% to 2% of
the
VOR system. A single failure brings down 69% of the GPS system. (your
numbers - I don't believe the 69% part and haven't verified the 0.1% to
2%
part though that sounds reasonable)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Roger wrote:

A solar storm can render the GPS signals unusable for a period and
have at least once if not twice. It's a rare occurrence. OTOH it is
possible, but with a low probability of either meteor (dust size
particles), or a solar storm of enough magnitude, disabling a portion
of the satellite constellation.

Right. That's why redundancy is critical. Vacuum powered gyros have been
a part of aviation for half a century, I don't see any reason why vacuum
couldn't provide the same level of redundancy for naviads. Put a really
big vacuum pump at the end of the runway and any aircraft that gets close
enough gets sucked right to the threshold.

"Cessna 12345, cleared for the vacuum two approach. Report established in
the vortex".