Big News -- WAAS GPS is Operational for IFR

"Barry" wrote in message
...
No, Blakey's press release was quite explicit, in the use of the term,
"sole means".

Which press release are you referring to?

The one that began this thread.

The recent one on WAAS
(http://www2.faa.gov/index.cfm/apa/1062?id=1756) reads, in part:

"Once avionics are certified to receive the system's full capability,
WAAS will allow precision instrument approaches at thousands
of runways at airports and airstrips that have little or no
ground-based landing capability," said FAA Administrator
Marion C. Blakey."

Perhaps.

but doesn't contain the term "sole means". The people I know in FAA
Flight
Standards avoid using the term because its meaning isn't clear (though the
FAA doesn't seem to mind ambiguity in many other cases).

Yes Berry, "sole means" was not going to happen, but now it did.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

"Barry" wrote in message ...

Which press release are you referring to? The recent one on WAAS
(http://www2.faa.gov/index.cfm/apa/1062?id=1756) reads, in part:

"Once avionics are certified to receive the system's full capability,
WAAS will allow precision instrument approaches at thousands
of runways at airports and airstrips that have little or no
ground-based landing capability," said FAA Administrator
Marion C. Blakey."

but doesn't contain the term "sole means". The people I know in FAA Flight
Standards avoid using the term because its meaning isn't clear (though the
FAA doesn't seem to mind ambiguity in many other cases).

Barry

GPS will not be certified for 'sole means.'

Period.

GPS will not be certified for 'sole means.'

Period.

It depends on what "sole means" means. GPS and its augmentations will
probably never be the only navigation system provided. However, it appears
that the FAA will permit non-commercial operators to fly IFR with only WAAS
and GPS - see the current NOTAM:

http://www1.faa.gov/NTAP/NTAP03JUL10/GEN03003.HTM

Note in particular the last paragraph:

"Unlike TSO-C129 avionics, which were certified as a supplement to other
means of navigation, WAAS avionics are evaluated without reliance on other
navigation systems. As such, installation of WAAS avionics does not require
the aircraft to have other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown."

Barry

"Jon Parmet" wrote in message
om...
"Barry" wrote in message
...

Which press release are you referring to? The recent one on WAAS
(http://www2.faa.gov/index.cfm/apa/1062?id=1756) reads, in part:

"Once avionics are certified to receive the system's full capability,
WAAS will allow precision instrument approaches at thousands
of runways at airports and airstrips that have little or no
ground-based landing capability," said FAA Administrator
Marion C. Blakey."

but doesn't contain the term "sole means". The people I know in FAA
Flight
Standards avoid using the term because its meaning isn't clear (though
the
FAA doesn't seem to mind ambiguity in many other cases).

Barry

GPS will not be certified for 'sole means.'

Did and done, Parmet. The VORs are going away.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

Peter wrote in message ...

Doug Carter wrote

Keep in mind that GPS is a broad band spread spectrum waveform, not a
narrow band FDM channel like a VOR uses.

GPS is a narrow band signal.

One implication (and the
principal reason military customers like spread spectrum system) is the
difficulty in jamming. Depending on the coding gain and distance it
takes a lot of transmitter power. However, power amplifiers (even at L
band) are commercially available so it can be done.

1 watt at 30,000 feet (e.g. hanging under a very low cost baloon) will
jam GPS over a radius of about 500 miles.

Reference already discussed in this thread.


Peter.
--

http://www.mayflowercom.com/testresults.htm

a recent Lincoln Laboratory study (Gilmore and Delaney [2]) indicated that
a modest 1 W in-band interference source may deny C/A code receiver
operation up to a range of about 85 km.

I get 53 miles.

These guys say you are off by a factor of ten.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:11:13 GMT, "Craig Davidson"
wrote:



Peter wrote in message ...

Doug Carter wrote

Keep in mind that GPS is a broad band spread spectrum waveform, not a
narrow band FDM channel like a VOR uses.

GPS is a narrow band signal.

One implication (and the
principal reason military customers like spread spectrum system) is the
difficulty in jamming. Depending on the coding gain and distance it
takes a lot of transmitter power. However, power amplifiers (even at L
band) are commercially available so it can be done.

1 watt at 30,000 feet (e.g. hanging under a very low cost baloon) will
jam GPS over a radius of about 500 miles.

Reference already discussed in this thread.


Peter.
--

http://www.mayflowercom.com/testresults.htm

a recent Lincoln Laboratory study (Gilmore and Delaney [2]) indicated that
a modest 1 W in-band interference source may deny C/A code receiver
operation up to a range of about 85 km.

I get 53 miles.

These guys say you are off by a factor of ten.

Isn't 53 miles pretty close to 85 km?

Roger




Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:59:47 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Barry" wrote in message
...
No, Blakey's press release was quite explicit, in the use of the term,
"sole means".

Which press release are you referring to?

The one that began this thread.

Hi post began this thread and there was no link to the AOPA article.

However I think you are referring to the "other thread" about WAAS
being turned on and that has a link to the AOPA article
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...03-3-019x.html
It does refer to the equipment from two companies being "sole source"
capable, I didn't read it to mean they were already certified as such,
but I didn't read they weren't either.

OTOH the last I knew the FAA had backed off, mainly due to military
concerns, on making GPS the only source of navigation and were
planning on keeping some form of ground based navigation as a backup.

So...Although we may see a reduction in VORs and NDBs, I seriously
doubt we will see the VORs go away anytime in the near future, or even
our lifetimes.

Even with the decommissioning of NDBs, they are still installing new
ones..

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

The recent one on WAAS
(http://www2.faa.gov/index.cfm/apa/1062?id=1756) reads, in part:

"Once avionics are certified to receive the system's full capability,
WAAS will allow precision instrument approaches at thousands
of runways at airports and airstrips that have little or no
ground-based landing capability," said FAA Administrator
Marion C. Blakey."

Perhaps.

but doesn't contain the term "sole means". The people I know in FAA
Flight
Standards avoid using the term because its meaning isn't clear (though the
FAA doesn't seem to mind ambiguity in many other cases).

Yes Berry, "sole means" was not going to happen, but now it did.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:59:47 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Barry" wrote in message
...
No, Blakey's press release was quite explicit, in the use of the
term,
"sole means".

Which press release are you referring to?

The one that began this thread.

Hi post began this thread and there was no link to the AOPA article.

However I think you are referring to the "other thread" about WAAS
being turned on and that has a link to the AOPA article
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...03-3-019x.html
It does refer to the equipment from two companies being "sole source"
capable, I didn't read it to mean they were already certified as such,
but I didn't read they weren't either.

The use of the term "sole means" is the most signifigant statement in the
entire press release. I thank you for the correction, Roger.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE