GPS approach safety case

10ish years after overlay GPS approaches were introduced in the US, we in
the UK still have no GPS approaches. There must be a considerable body of
evidence collected on accidents, incidents and anomalies over the period
that GPS approaches have been in use. In particular, there may be evidence
that GPS approaches have improved overall safety in non-precision
approaches.

Any pointers please?

Thanks

Julian Scarfe

Julian Scarfe wrote:

10ish years after overlay GPS approaches were introduced in the US, we in
the UK still have no GPS approaches. There must be a considerable body of
evidence collected on accidents, incidents and anomalies over the period
that GPS approaches have been in use. In particular, there may be evidence
that GPS approaches have improved overall safety in non-precision
approaches.

Any pointers please?

No pointers. Emprically, I'd say they are working great in the US. The issue
is politics, not safety.

wrote in message ...


Julian Scarfe wrote:

10ish years after overlay GPS approaches were introduced in the US, we
in
the UK still have no GPS approaches. There must be a considerable body
of
evidence collected on accidents, incidents and anomalies over the period
that GPS approaches have been in use. In particular, there may be
evidence
that GPS approaches have improved overall safety in non-precision
approaches.

Any pointers please?

No pointers. Emprically, I'd say they are working great in the US. The
issue
is politics, not safety.

tend to agree. Look who controls the GPS infrastructure. without assurances
that the integrity of the system was not at the whim of the US Department of
Defence, I cannot see the UK authorities being prepared to rely on GPS.
Ultimately this does become a safety issue.

What the US authorities do in their own country and to their own airspace
system is one thing, doing it in someone else's is another.

"S Green" wrote in message
...

No pointers. Emprically, I'd say they are working great in the US. The
issue
is politics, not safety.

tend to agree. Look who controls the GPS infrastructure. without
assurances
that the integrity of the system was not at the whim of the US Department
of
Defence, I cannot see the UK authorities being prepared to rely on GPS.
Ultimately this does become a safety issue.


Are you seriously suggesting that the DOD would on a whim turn off all the
GPS signals and possibly cause thousands of people to die in landing
accidents? Um, yeah -- let's see:

"Mr. President, we had a terrorist threat of condition chartreuse today, so
we decided to kill thousands of people at random all over the world by
turning off the GPS system. When the terrorists actually blew up London, we
were unable to respond because the GPS system was turned off."

"Good job, boys. The political fallout over that should be minimal..."

No, I don't think so.

Next I suppose that you are going to claim that the British don't have any
radar that they could use in the event of a navigation system failure.

Or maybe your view really is just anti-American politics after all.

S Green wrote:

wrote in message ...


Julian Scarfe wrote:


10ish years after overlay GPS approaches were introduced in the US, we

in

the UK still have no GPS approaches. There must be a considerable body

of

evidence collected on accidents, incidents and anomalies over the period
that GPS approaches have been in use. In particular, there may be

evidence

that GPS approaches have improved overall safety in non-precision
approaches.

Any pointers please?

No pointers. Emprically, I'd say they are working great in the US. The

issue

is politics, not safety.


tend to agree. Look who controls the GPS infrastructure. without assurances
that the integrity of the system was not at the whim of the US Department of
Defence, I cannot see the UK authorities being prepared to rely on GPS.
Ultimately this does become a safety issue.

I think it is still politics.


What the US authorities do in their own country and to their own airspace
system is one thing, doing it in someone else's is another.

Do you really think the US would do something that would jeopardize its
own civilian traffic? Also, there are reasons that most aircraft have
multiple navigation systems. Any system can fail and it is only prudent
to have some form of backup. If any country depends only on GPS for
navigation, then the safety issue is theirs.


Matt

"S Green" wrote in message
...

tend to agree. Look who controls the GPS infrastructure. without
assurances
that the integrity of the system was not at the whim of the US Department
of
Defence, I cannot see the UK authorities being prepared to rely on GPS.
Ultimately this does become a safety issue.

But the UK authorities already rely on GPS at least to the same extent. As
well as having to carry ADF, VOR and DME for IFR flight in controlled
airspace, anyone wanting to fly at or above FL100 (note that that's
equivalent to 10,000 ft, perhaps not what US pilots are used to for flight
levels) needs B-RNAV (B for Basic). The only economical way of meeting the
B-RNAV requirement is to carry a TSO-C129a class A GPS receiver. I have in
the back of my mind that, ironically, it has to be class A1 (approach
capable) because B-RNAV imposes some extra requirements beyond the A2 spec,
but I'm not sure. Thus if the GPS infrastructure disappears, the
unavailability of a few overlay approaches or even standalone GPS approaches
is the least of our problems!

I'd like to see:

a) a relaxation in the requirement to carry all of ADF, VOR *and* DME if
there's also a TSO-C129a GPS receiver and the conventional nav equipment
allows sensible backup.

b) the ability to fly overlay NDB approaches without ADF, again provided nav
equipment is carried to enable an approach at an alternate.

Sometimes, and I know its rare, politics falls before a rational argument...

Julian Scarfe

S Green wrote:


tend to agree. Look who controls the GPS infrastructure. without assurances
that the integrity of the system was not at the whim of the US Department of
Defence, I cannot see the UK authorities being prepared to rely on GPS.
Ultimately this does become a safety issue.

What the US authorities do in their own country and to their own airspace
system is one thing, doing it in someone else's is another.

That is such a crock of crap. The politics I am referring to is the refusal of
you Brits to take a freebie and run with it.

You don't have to dissasemble your present system, yet take advantage of GPS for
superior non-precision IAPs all over the Empire. If the evil Americans shut
down the system you treat it like a RAIM failure and proceed to your non-GPS
alternate.

Google "eurofix" to get a glimpse of the future.

Bob Gardner

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
news:S3Awc.214$SC4.162@newsfe5-win...
10ish years after overlay GPS approaches were introduced in the US, we in
the UK still have no GPS approaches. There must be a considerable body of
evidence collected on accidents, incidents and anomalies over the period
that GPS approaches have been in use. In particular, there may be
evidence
that GPS approaches have improved overall safety in non-precision
approaches.

Any pointers please?

Thanks

Julian Scarfe

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message =
news:G%Jwc.281$%a5.54@newsfe5-win...
=20
=20
..... As
well as having to carry ADF, VOR and DME for IFR flight in controlled
airspace, anyone wanting to fly at or above FL100 (note that that's
equivalent to 10,000 ft, perhaps not what US pilots are used to for =
flight
levels) needs B-RNAV (B for Basic). The only economical way of meeting =
the
B-RNAV requirement is to carry a TSO-C129a class A GPS receiver. I =
have in
the back of my mind that, ironically, it has to be class A1 (approach
capable) because B-RNAV imposes some extra requirements beyond the A2 =
spec,
but I'm not sure.=20
=20
=20
Julian Scarfe
=20
=20
Interesting, if that A1 need is indeed the case.
Approach capability seems an odd requirement in equipment mandated only =
for high-altitude flight.
But logic shouldn't be applied recklessly to regulations, should it?
---JRC---

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
Google "eurofix" to get a glimpse of the future.

Interesting, though it doesn't appear to have been updated for three years
(including the "live" test data)!

Julian