Big News -- WAAS GPS is Operational for IFR

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

amount of the cost of ANY system is the data for it. To pay full rate for
a data
subscription on a unit that is inaccurate, unreliable and only gives
latitude and
longitude was and is insane.

Have you ever flown a Loran containing an aviation database? If your
experience with Loran is limited to a device which "only gives latitude and
longitude" then I could understand your concern.

My Loran has a full database of airports, NDBs, VORs, and intersections.
Its output is in bearing, distance, and course deviation, just like a GPS.
It shows me bearing and distance to nearest airports or nearest navaids,
just like a GPS. Operation of the M1 Loran is basically identical to the
IFR-approved M3 GPS except that the Loran does not have a database of
approaches. While the accuracy of the GPS certainly is better than the
Loran, the difference in accuracy is not even perceptible to most pilots in
a practical sense, even comparing Loran and GPS output side by side. While
a GPS certainly is preferable overall to a Loran, I would rather have one of
each than 2 GPS boxes or 2 Loran boxes.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in
:

My Loran has a full database of airports, NDBs, VORs, and
intersections. Its output is in bearing, distance, and course
deviation, just like a GPS. It shows me bearing and distance to
nearest airports or nearest navaids, just like a GPS. Operation of
the M1 Loran is basically identical to the IFR-approved M3 GPS except
that the Loran does not have a database of approaches. While the
accuracy of the GPS certainly is better than the Loran, the difference
in accuracy is not even perceptible to most pilots in a practical
sense, even comparing Loran and GPS output side by side. While a GPS
certainly is preferable overall to a Loran, I would rather have one of
each than 2 GPS boxes or 2 Loran boxes.

I flew offshore IFR with a LORAN, which had no database at all, & only room
for 9 waypoints at a time, which were identified only by the number - 1 -
9. It worked, & gave distance, bearing, groundspeed, etc, but anytime
there were thunderstorms within ~100 miles, it gave up the ghost, & quit.
Around Houston, TX, it died because of poor geometry. It gave position,
but it could be a couple of hundred miles off, you never knew. I once had
it telling me I was west of El Paso, westbound at mach 2+ & accelerating.
In a helicopter. I decided it was lying again. When I got within sight of
my destination, VFR, it found itself. LORAN is better than nothing, & more
modern units do a better job, but if I had my choice I'd take 2 GPS boxes
every time. It works, accurately, all the time. Where I mostly fly, there
are no VOR's to receive, anyway, but I still have to have 2 VOR's
operational in order to use my one GPS. If I had another, I could get rid
of the VOR's, but until precision GPS approaches arrive, I'll keep the
VOR's for use with the ILS at home. Don't worry, the FAA isn't going to
decommission all VOR's until there are adequate precision GPS approaches
available, if then. The sky isn't falling yet.

--
Regards,

Stan

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...
9. It worked, & gave distance, bearing, groundspeed, etc, but anytime
there were thunderstorms within ~100 miles, it gave up the ghost, & quit.

I think this was typical of early generation Lorans and also typical of
installations without static wicks or with other sources of interference.

In 6 years of IFR flying I lost the Loran signal a total of once -- that was
this past winter for about 60 seconds when flying in light snow.
Otherwise it has been rock solid -- not a bad track record and certainly a
nice backup to any other navigation system.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

The bottom line is that whatever theoretical arguments you can make for
Loran being a good backup system, as an economic reality, it's somewhere
between ADF and 4-course ranges.

I agree completely that economic forces will probably move toward alternate
GPS-type systems for the future.

But at least TODAY this all makes Loran an incredible value in an airplane.
Why spend $10,000+ on a second GPS moving map when for $300 you can get a
Loran as the second nav receiver or for the same $10,000 you can buy a
Sandel EHSI and connect the EHSI to both the GPS and the Loran? If/when
Loran finally is decommissioned, go ahead at that time and buy whatever is
state of the art then.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

In article ,
says...

All very good arguments in this thread. I just wonder how the
requirements of the rest of the world will affect the FAA's decision,
given that their primary "customer", the airlines, fly worldwide.


Two modest clarifications to the interesting arguments on the thread...

1. In my experience, the back-up navigation input to many/most airline FMS's
is actually DME/DME position sensing, not Intertial Nav. There are many FMS
equipped aircraft still flying that ONLY have DME/DME (and sometimes DME/VOR)
position inputs, and don't have GPS. AFAIK most airliners in short-haul
service don't have Inertial systems, contrary to the comments here. Hence most
discussions I've seen of keeping conventional navaids as back-up include
keeping DME.

2. And a follow-on from that - most airlines, especially US airlines, don't
fly worldwide. Most airliners never leave domestic airspace, which is why the
airlines don't spend the money on long-range nav equipment - see answer 1 above
:-)

Andy Davis

In article , "Richard Kaplan"
writes:

On my airplane, if I covered up the word "Loran" on my M1 and told you it
were an enroute GPS, you would not notice the difference between its
performance vs. that of a GPS. Again, I would any day choose a Garmin 530
/M1 Loran stack over a dual Gamin 530 stack.

Richard,
I wish you would include the GNS 430 in your posts since I have a 430/M1 stack
in my Archer. G Seriously, I agree 100%. The Northstar M1 came with the
plane 7 years ago and I added the 430. The Garmin and the Northstar make a
good combination since the "data in" comes from such different paths. Hope
they keep LORAN active for us "belt and suspenders" people.

Chuck
Chuck

Roy Smith wrote:

Scott Moore wrote:
No moving map. I'll save time here. I am a computer engineer. There is no
way it can be too high tech for me. I like moving maps. I don't want to go
back. Plus, I don't see the point. Loran was good for nothing but enroute,
so it would have had to use VOR/ILS for the terminal phase anyhow, so whereas
VOR makes some sense for a backup, Loran makes no sense to me whatever.

VOR has a built in mapping system. You know where the VOR is, its somewhere
you want to go (an airport), and it even identifies itself. LAT/LON without
airport data is useless, and getting pseudo-vor to an airport for $30 a month
with no moving map does not excite me in the least. Considering that the
Apollo Loran data subscription would probally have cost near as much as
my 430 GPS data, I would say the 430 was the more cost effective solution.

Much as I've been arguing that Loran is a dead technology, I feel the
need to correct a few of Scott's assertions.


What "correction". You say Loran would be capabile of moving map, but no
units do that, and the peice of junk I discarded didn't, nor are any makers
likely to make a new unit just because some GPS worriers want to have a
"backup".

Again, I would apprecate your not saying you are "correcting" me here, there
was no "correction" in your comments.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

Richard Kaplan wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

The bottom line is that whatever theoretical arguments you can make for
Loran being a good backup system, as an economic reality, it's somewhere
between ADF and 4-course ranges.

I agree completely that economic forces will probably move toward alternate
GPS-type systems for the future.

But at least TODAY this all makes Loran an incredible value in an airplane.
Why spend $10,000+ on a second GPS moving map when for $300 you can get a
Loran as the second nav receiver or for the same $10,000 you can buy a

By your flawed logic you could probally get the Loran free. Simply find a friend
who is yanking theirs out.

You are completely dismissing installation and database subscription costs.
Plus, Loran is in no way, shape or form a moving map or even a marginally
modern user interface technology.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

Most later Loran units (Northstar M1 for example) work just fine with a moving map
such as a Sandel HSI or an Argus. Same map units that provide a moving map for a GPS
that doesn't have one built in. There are more GPS's without moving maps out there
than there are with moving maps.

Scott Moore wrote:


What "correction". You say Loran would be capabile of moving map, but no
units do that, and the peice of junk I discarded didn't, nor are any makers
likely to make a new unit just because some GPS worriers want to have a
"backup".

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Scott Moore wrote:

...You say Loran would be capable of moving map, but no
units do that, and the piece of junk I discarded didn't, nor are any makers
likely to make a new unit just because some GPS worriers want to have a
"backup"...


The KLN-88 and ARNAV FMS-5000 Lorans have moving maps. Other Loran units
can plug into external moving map displays.

Not that a moving map seems critical for a backup unit, but if it is,
good luck in driving that moving map from your typical VOR receiver.


Loran is on back burner now, but if we want a backup for GPS (not a bad
idea) then it seems a lot more practical to add one or two Loran
stations (if they are actually needed) for CONUS operation than to
maintain the hundreds of VOR's required for the enroute structure.

If the terrorists get their balloon up to 30,000 feet with a broadband
GPS jammer then use Loran (with or without a moving map) to stagger to
the nearest ILS and call it a day.

The ARNAV FMS-5000 in my Decathlon seemed to work fine unless I was
inverted.