GPS and old-fashioned thinking?

Scott Moore wrote:
Roy Smith wrote On 12/05/05 07:01,:

G Farris wrote:



The Europeans are ready to use every available argument (the threat of the US
unilaterally invoking Selective Availability being their favorite) to
denigrate GPS, so as to pave the way for their competing system, Galileo.


I can't blame them. If I lived outside the US, I would be pretty wary
about depending on a navigation system which I had no control over. It's
the same battle that happening now with control of the Internet.


The "battle for control of the Internet" is far more about China wanting to
censor it than any freedom issue.

Maybe. I know in 1991 there was a large effort to build a "Chinese
internet" that would use ONLY Chinese. There was a company (StepTech,
IIRC) that was building "Chinese UNIX" for use in the large program. I
think it is a bit strange: the want an "internet" so they can be a world
player, but they want the world to switch to Chinese to talk to them. I
haven't heard from those guys in quite a while.

Scott Moore wrote:
john smith wrote On 12/03/05 11:52,:

LASER ring gyros are certainly small enough, I don't know how much they
cost. If the US military can put them in artillery shells, they should
be available for light GA inertial nav systems.


Try looking up the price of a 3 axis FOG (Fibre Optic Gyro, the cheapest type
of laser gyro). Hint: the US military has a lot of money.

Funny. I remember a lot of talk about fiber optic gyros back in the
mid-1960. They still haven't made in roads as predicted.

Roy Smith wrote:

G Farris wrote:


The Europeans are ready to use every available argument (the threat of the US
unilaterally invoking Selective Availability being their favorite) to
denigrate GPS, so as to pave the way for their competing system, Galileo.


I can't blame them. If I lived outside the US, I would be pretty wary
about depending on a navigation system which I had no control over. It's
the same battle that happening now with control of the Internet.

Yes, we definitely need to find a way to charge users who aren't
taxpaying US citizens!


Matt

Doug wrote:
I can't find the link right now, but there is an all electronic (no
spinning gyro) attitude instrument available for experimental aircraft
in the $1200 range. Essentially replaces an AI or TC. Has a yaw
indicator and lots of other functionality. It is square but fits in a
round hole (no one makes round led screeens). Non - TSO of course. Not
sure of the exact technology behind it, but it works and is not any
more expensive than a traditional all electric AI.

I think this is the one you're referring to.
http://www.pcflightsystems.com

More features (and $$).
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com

DME/DME is simply not in that picure.


You give me hope! I hate this JAA politics BS...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

MC wrote On 12/05/05 15:46,:
Doug wrote:

I can't find the link right now, but there is an all electronic (no
spinning gyro) attitude instrument available for experimental aircraft
in the $1200 range. Essentially replaces an AI or TC. Has a yaw
indicator and lots of other functionality. It is square but fits in a
round hole (no one makes round led screeens). Non - TSO of course. Not
sure of the exact technology behind it, but it works and is not any
more expensive than a traditional all electric AI.


I think this is the one you're referring to.
http://www.pcflightsystems.com

More features (and $$).
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com

Both rate of turn accelerometer based.

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

I disagree. I think there is a more important problem. If you're flying direct
routes and RNAV with GPS as primary(and only random route) source of
navigation, in the event of a GPS signal degradation, you have a bit of a
balancing act to do to get back to "legacy" navigation.

Maybe you do. I don't. I have a LORAN in the panel. Entirely
adequate backup for anything short of a GPS approach - and non-GPS
approaches are generally single-navaid dependent and not backed up, so
no step backward here. In general, when I'm going direct to a
waypoint, my LORAN and GPS both point to it. Either one can fail and
it's no skin off my nose.

I am not a fan of the whole intergrated-system concept. I like the
idea of separate boxes, different software, and different signals.

The perfect redundant RNAV solution is already here. It's an M3 IFR
GPS and an M1 LORAN. Same UI, same form factor, great redundancy. I
believe you can buy all the parts for less than $3000. Add a VOR/LOC
receiver with GS, and you really don't need anything else for effective
navigation and redundancy.

Michael

Not all approaches provide a decent transition

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

What would you consider an "indecent" transition?

john smith wrote:

Not all approaches provide a decent transition

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

What would you consider an "indecent" transition?

Grin

What I suppose I could have written in place of "decent" would be "any".
But, in fact, the area has good RADAR coverage. So there is at least that
as a backup in the case of a NAVAID failure.

- Andrew