FAA pulls funding for LAAS landing systems

Richard Hertz wrote:

I don't have that kind of money to put the equipment in my plane.

ILS system seems to be fine for me.

ILS is a fine system, and has served us well for many years as a robust
precision approach and landing system. Category III facilites are particularly
awesome, representing bleeding edge refinements in a system that has been
around for a long time. In the early 1970s they replaced most of the "WW II"
components with much more stable localizers, at least at the major airports.

JJ wrote:

LAAS (Local Area Augmentation System) was to provide CAT 2 and 3 ILS
capability at major airports by fine tuning GPS and up loading
correction signals to aircraft. FAA has canceled the program. Looks like
the ground based ILS systems once slated for removal by 2010 are here to
stay.

There is a variation on this theme, however. Boeing has spent no small
amount of money developing and testing its own LAAS system at Mose Lake,
Washington. It does awesome things with appropriate equipment Boeings,
which is mainly a few 737-900s at the present time. The aircraft can fly RF
legs (radius to fix legs) so even the turns are positive course guidance
along a precisely defined arc segment. I suspect the Boeing model could
become a future private system for advanced RNP instrument approaches at
difficult airports,

In article ,
lid says...

In article , Javier Henderson
wrote:

except in for the problems with ILS in Europe...

What's the problem with ILS approaches in Europe? Frequency congestion?

yes. and interference from FM radio stations.


And what do you base this on?
CAT IIIc approaches are in effect at major airports, and small reliever
airports everywhere are using ILS CATI. What "problems" do you refer to?

G Faris

In article , (G Faris)
wrote:

What's the problem with ILS approaches in Europe? Frequency congestion?

yes. and interference from FM radio stations.

And what do you base this on?

On the revisions to the ICAO and JAA standards for ILS and VOR FM
immunity. These revisions were made as a result of the decreased
protection from high power FM radio broadcasts.

Do a search for ICAO, FM immunity, ILS

Look at:

ICAO Annex 10, Volume I Radio Navigation Aids,
Fifth Edition dated July 1996, Chapter 3, Paragraphs 3.1.4, 3.3.8

EUROCAE ED-46B

RTCA DO-195

(unfortunately, all of those documents are probably not available
on the web for free).

--
Bob Noel

The LAAS correction uplink is in the 150MHZ area. It would have been
more susceptible to FM interference than a Localizer. Just another
little tidbit of info.

Bob Noel wrote:
In article , Javier Henderson
wrote:


except in for the problems with ILS in Europe...

What's the problem with ILS approaches in Europe? Frequency congestion?


yes. and interference from FM radio stations.

"JJ" wrote in message
...
LAAS (Local Area Augmentation System) was to provide CAT 2 and 3 ILS
capability at major airports by fine tuning GPS and up loading
correction signals to aircraft. FAA has canceled the program. Looks like
the ground based ILS systems once slated for removal by 2010 are here to
stay.


I have not seen a news report of that anywhere. Do you have a link with more
details?

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , JJ
wrote:

The LAAS correction uplink is in the 150MHZ area. It would have been
more susceptible to FM interference than a Localizer. Just another
little tidbit of info.

eh? a (presumably) digital signal in the 150 MHz area would
have more susceptible to FM interference than a localizer
around 108 MHz?

The vhf digital link is adjacent to the VHF com.

Big link but under www.aviationnow.com

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/sea...cut0203 4.xml

C J Campbell wrote:
"JJ" wrote in message
...

LAAS (Local Area Augmentation System) was to provide CAT 2 and 3 ILS
capability at major airports by fine tuning GPS and up loading
correction signals to aircraft. FAA has canceled the program. Looks like
the ground based ILS systems once slated for removal by 2010 are here to
stay.



I have not seen a news report of that anywhere. Do you have a link with more
details?

Bob Noel wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

In article , JJ
wrote:

The LAAS correction uplink is in the 150MHZ area. It would have been
more susceptible to FM interference than a Localizer. Just another
little tidbit of info.

eh? a (presumably) digital signal in the 150 MHz area would
have more susceptible to FM interference than a localizer
around 108 MHz?


Very possibly. Harmonics can do as much damage as the fundamental
frequency. But it appears to me, from reading both on and between the
lines, that money was the driver here, as it always is. The contractor led
the agency down the primrose path, claiming 80% completion when it was
actually only 20%, or similar figures. The new administrator was not
amused. Rather than simply rap some knuckles, the entire program was
cancelled, thus punishing all aviation interests.

--
Regards,

Stan

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...


Very possibly. Harmonics can do as much damage as the fundamental
frequency. But it appears to me, from reading both on and between the
lines, that money was the driver here, as it always is. The contractor
led
the agency down the primrose path, claiming 80% completion when it was
actually only 20%, or similar figures. The new administrator was not
amused. Rather than simply rap some knuckles, the entire program was
cancelled, thus punishing all aviation interests.

The whole WAAS/LAAS mess has been circling the drain since Kenneth Mead
found Garvey in violation of the Inspector General's Act; for exceeding her
Authority signing WAAS contracts. There are better ways for FAA to spend
the aviation trust fund.