The FAA is marching toward sole dependence on GPS.

This is recent. Seems like re-inventing the wheel, because FreeFlight, Inc.,
(the old Trimble folks) flight-tested a combination GPS-eLoran a couple of
years ago, providing ground tracks that were virtually indistinguishable.
The maritime industry is using eLoran right now.

http://www.tc.faa.gov/logistics/grants/doc/07-G-003.doc

Bob Gardner

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
That presentation is close to 4 years old.

This has not been discussed as a possible RNP sensor by the PARC
(Performance-based Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee) during the
past 3 years.

Because RNP is technically sensor-independent an airframe OEM or avionics
vendor is free to attempt to certify any sensor.

Bob Gardner wrote:
Sorry...it's Mitch Narins...I spelled it wrong. Read this:
http://www.loran.org/library/Road%20to%20eLoran.pdf and note the FAA logo
on the first page.

Bob Gardner

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Well, let me put it this way. It isn't in any of the FAA's NexGen
performance-based nav systems plans.

Bob Gardner wrote:

No, Sam....LEGACY loran sucks. Enhanced loran (which will require new
receivers/antennas to utilize its GPS-equivalent accuracy) is right
around the corner. A new eLoran station has recently been put on the
air in the UK, and the Coast Guard is well on the way to upgrading its
whole system. Go to www.loran.org and start following links.
www.crossrate.com is another useful site.

Bob Gardner

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

And LORAN sucks and does not work in much of the world.

Bob Noel wrote:
In article , Sam Spade
wrote:


Why wouldn't you want a WAAAS capable panel mount in any case, ADS-B
notwithstanding?



VFR-only aircraft do not gain much operational utility from the increased
accuracy of WAAS GPS. Simply put, WAAS enables near CAT I instrument
approaches. Non-WAAS GPS is perfectly capable of being used VFR.

And why ADS-B requires the small accuracy gain of WAAS is a mystery to me.
I wonder why the FAA wants to make a US version of ADS-B instead of using
a common standard.


There is a whole different world of safety and operational access
available with 145/146 panel mounts over 129 boxes.


huh?

I thought we were speaking of IFR operations.

With VFR any non-certified hand-held is plenty good.

With IFR WAAS (145/146) gives you LPV (much greater access, and
increasing all the time), and you get VNAV minimums on VNAV/LNAV IAPs,
and you get safer vertical guidance on LNAV only IAPs. Lots more safety
avoid dive and drive.

Sam Spade wrote:

I thought we were speaking of IFR operations.

Not me. I am VFR

With VFR any non-certified hand-held is plenty good.

With IFR WAAS (145/146) gives you LPV (much greater access, and
increasing all the time), and you get VNAV minimums on VNAV/LNAV IAPs,
and you get safer vertical guidance on LNAV only IAPs. Lots more safety
avoid dive and drive.

True but plain old non-WAAS Garmin GNS 430 offers adequate approach
functionality.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:


I thought we were speaking of IFR operations.


Not me. I am VFR

With VFR any non-certified hand-held is plenty good.

With IFR WAAS (145/146) gives you LPV (much greater access, and
increasing all the time), and you get VNAV minimums on VNAV/LNAV IAPs,
and you get safer vertical guidance on LNAV only IAPs. Lots more safety
avoid dive and drive.


True but plain old non-WAAS Garmin GNS 430 offers adequate approach
functionality.

Ron Lee

I would add "limited" to "adequate." Eventually, the 145/146 platforms
will be able to do RF legs; not so with 129 panel mounts.

I have my Loran on almost all the time. I never cease to be amazed at the
great correlation between my Loran and GPS. They agree within a knot or so,
sometimes less, and a 1/10 of a mile. I think Loran is great as a backup to
the GPS for situational awareness.

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
. ..
No, Sam....LEGACY loran sucks.