IFR with a VFR GPS

Peter R. wrote:

Ron Lee wrote:


Peter, why are people there anti-GPS?


Most likely because in its current form, GPS availability is controlled by
the US Gov't. If the roles were reversed, I might also share this
sentiment.


And, the U.S. pays for it all.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Steven,


So an extremely accurate navigational system is available and paid for
completely by another nation. What's not to like about that?



Uhm, the somewhat unpredictable boss, George Bush. While I would think it
unconceivable to switch GPS off because of the economic consequences,
with this guy, you never know what god will tell him to do next or some
such nonsense.

I still don't think that's the reason for an anti-GPS sentiment in the UK
- if it exists.

Bush, as bad as he is, would create major havoc with the U.S. air
carriers if he shut down the system.

Sometimes you folks give Bush too much credit. I recall the Europeans
making essentially the same arguements when Clinton was president.

Folks over there simply should refuse to use the U.S. system and build
their own.

wrote:

Folks over there simply should refuse to use the U.S. system and build
their own.

They are. It's called "Galileo."

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter wrote:

Yes, and the project is driven by a proposed charging scheme, where a
low accuracy signal (roughly equiv to the US one) is free and a higher
accuracy signal will be charged for.

The integrity service will be fee-based.

Since the free signal from the USA is plenty good enough for en-route
navigation of cars, boats, and planes, it is pretty obvious that any
attempt to raise money from planes would have to involve authorised
GPS approaches being conditional on the carriage of a prepaid decoder
for the "better" signal.

Seems like one possible solution.

What I don't get is who will bother to pay. ILS is nearly everywhere,
and nonprecision NDB/VOR approaches are OK for most of the rest. Any
commercial transport will still need to carry all the equipment.

Concur

Any national security crisis bad enough to cause the US one to be
turned off will also turn off the Euro one.

It's typical European political stupidity.

Maybe not stupidity. Perhaps more an ego thing.

There's also a Russian system, Glonass; not sure where it's at.

IMO, GLONASS is not a viable system.

Ron Lee

In article ,
(Ron Lee) wrote:

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

In my opinion, there is no practical difference for enroute navigation
between a panel-mount certified GPS and a hand held which is not
certified.

Yes there is. RAIM provided integrity. As long as no signal error
exists (vast majority of the time) then your assertion is basically
correct.


But what if signal error exists? How is risk increased because of it
for enroute navigation? For practical purposes, it isn't.


JKG

In article ,
Gerald Sylvester wrote:
installation and servicing, etc. For instance, a certified
IFR GPS will definitely require more testing during
the design and release as well as during the installation
than a non-certified unit. Is this apparent to the user,
no, it is not.


I would be willing to bet that Garmin shares a significant amount of
code between their panels and their handhelds, at least when it comes to
the 396. And, the Jepp data is the Jepp data. Sure, there is no
certification document with which handhelds must comply, but I just
don't think it's worth losing any sleep over, or even giving much though
to, for enroute navigation. I just don't care. In almost 10 years of
using various hand held GPS units in the airplane for enroute
navigation, I have never ended up in the wrong place. That's certainly
more than I can say for my ADF.



JKG

In article ,
Jonathan Goodish wrote:

In almost 10 years of using various hand held GPS units in the airplane
for enroute navigation, I have never ended up in the wrong place.
That's certainly more than I can say for my ADF.

Be careful who hears you say that. You're using logic. The FAA doesn't
like it when you do that.

In article Eoqdf.744$7A.348@fed1read04, says...



And, the U.S. pays for it all.

Which is why "Galileo" is being developed.
It irks the Europeans to no end that a functional, accurate system can be
offered for FREE - all the more so if it's paid for by the US.

The way things are SUPPOSED to work is that end users and common citizens are
supposed to pay high user fees for everything, to support windfall profits
for a few "sweetheart" companies, who in turn support political parties.

Regulations to make this a de facto requirement will be forthcoming as soon
as Galileo shows signs of becoming operational.

GF

Bush, as bad as he is, would create major havoc with the U.S. air
carriers if he shut down the system.


The air carriers are not really major users of GPS, AFAIK.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Greg,

Which is why "Galileo" is being developed.
It irks the Europeans to no end that a functional, accurate system can be
offered for FREE - all the more so if it's paid for by the US.


Actually, it irks some few but big European companies that they are not
profiting from GPS. That's why they make the EU ask them to buil their own
system...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)