If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
IGC APproval for GPS with WAAS
I was wondering if any of the manufacturers are considering submitting for
IGC approval a GPS WAAS system that does not incorporate a barograph? Seems to me that such system is far more accurate then those that incorporate a barograph, and should also never need calibration. Ivan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
X-no-archive: yes
In article _1vwb.96689$Dw6.473262@attbi_s02, Ivan Kahn writes I was wondering if any of the manufacturers are considering submitting for IGC approval a GPS WAAS system that does not incorporate a barograph? Seems to me that such system is far more accurate then those that incorporate a barograph, and should also never need calibration. Ivan Most unlikely as it the Technical Specification requires a barometric record. While I have no intention of entering into a long discussion on why barometric traces are required, the comparison between barometric and GPS altitude is a useful check and in the event of GPS signal being lost temporarily, the barometric trace will prove flight continuity. GPS altitude cannot be used for checking for Airspace Infringements and this would invalidate it's use in many competitions. Tim Newport-Peace "Indecision is the Key to Flexibility." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Tim Newport-Peace" ] wrote in message
... X-no-archive: yes In article _1vwb.96689$Dw6.473262@attbi_s02, Ivan Kahn writes I was wondering if any of the manufacturers are considering submitting for IGC approval a GPS WAAS system that does not incorporate a barograph? Seems to me that such system is far more accurate then those that incorporate a barograph, and should also never need calibration. Ivan Most unlikely as it the Technical Specification requires a barometric record. While I have no intention of entering into a long discussion on why barometric traces are required, the comparison between barometric and GPS altitude is a useful check and in the event of GPS signal being lost temporarily, the barometric trace will prove flight continuity. GPS altitude cannot be used for checking for Airspace Infringements and this would invalidate it's use in many competitions. Tim Newport-Peace "Indecision is the Key to Flexibility." I agree, why traces are needed is really the point. But I believe a GPS with WAAS is far more accurate than a barograph and should also be more cost effective. But unless someone seeks approval then I would not expect any specification to change. I was just wondering if there is any movement in this area. Ivan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
X-no-archive: yes
In article hFPwb.225716$mZ5.1710772@attbi_s54, Ivan Kahn writes I agree, why traces are needed is really the point. But I believe a GPS with WAAS is far more accurate than a barograph and should also be more cost effective. But unless someone seeks approval then I would not expect any specification to change. I was just wondering if there is any movement in this area. Ivan I don't think it happens quite that way. If you submit a recorder that does not conform the Specification in Force at the time, approval will not be granted until it DOES conform. The specification would need to be changed FIRST. I do not believe that the requirement for Barometric Altitude will be removed any time soon. Best regards, Tim Newport-Peace "Indecision is the Key to Flexibility." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
You might want to consider the implications of WAAS. I have no direct
experience, but the principle is that you take an external signal and use it to 'correct' the GPS location to another place - hopefully more accurate. But what is to stop you sending bogus 'corrections' and making the GPS think its somewhere else entirely ? The WAAS signals are much easier to generate than the original GPS satellite signals. Sounds an easy way to cheat to me. -- Regards, Adrian Jansen J & K MicroSystems Microcomputer solutions for industrial control "Ivan Kahn" wrote in message news:hFPwb.225716$mZ5.1710772@attbi_s54... "Tim Newport-Peace" ] wrote in message ... X-no-archive: yes In article _1vwb.96689$Dw6.473262@attbi_s02, Ivan Kahn writes I was wondering if any of the manufacturers are considering submitting for IGC approval a GPS WAAS system that does not incorporate a barograph? Seems to me that such system is far more accurate then those that incorporate a barograph, and should also never need calibration. Ivan Most unlikely as it the Technical Specification requires a barometric record. While I have no intention of entering into a long discussion on why barometric traces are required, the comparison between barometric and GPS altitude is a useful check and in the event of GPS signal being lost temporarily, the barometric trace will prove flight continuity. GPS altitude cannot be used for checking for Airspace Infringements and this would invalidate it's use in many competitions. Tim Newport-Peace "Indecision is the Key to Flexibility." I agree, why traces are needed is really the point. But I believe a GPS with WAAS is far more accurate than a barograph and should also be more cost effective. But unless someone seeks approval then I would not expect any specification to change. I was just wondering if there is any movement in this area. Ivan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I have long been hoping the Garmin GPSmap 76S would be consided
as an IGC approved device. I usually do not enable the WAAS in my device. But find the 76S to be very accurate after a flight when I generate an ..igc file from the track log using GPSDump and loading it into SeeYou. I was on a flight Sunday, in a LET-L13 in Zephyrhills, FL. I got off tow at 3000' AGL. I had a 2.3 hr. flight. at one time during the flight I had dropped down to 1400' AGL, I was about to enter the pattern but found a weak thermal and started to work it. About 50 minutes later I was at 4700' AGL. When I landed, some club members told me they thought that probably would have been good for a Silver Altitude. I am not sure. That was like my 20 TH solo flight. If The Garmins would be an IGC approved device. I would carry my 76S on every flight. You never know! Carl "Ivan Kahn" wrote in message news:hFPwb.225716$mZ5.1710772@attbi_s54... "Tim Newport-Peace" ] wrote in message ... X-no-archive: yes In article _1vwb.96689$Dw6.473262@attbi_s02, Ivan Kahn writes I was wondering if any of the manufacturers are considering submitting for IGC approval a GPS WAAS system that does not incorporate a barograph? Seems to me that such system is far more accurate then those that incorporate a barograph, and should also never need calibration. Ivan Most unlikely as it the Technical Specification requires a barometric record. While I have no intention of entering into a long discussion on why barometric traces are required, the comparison between barometric and GPS altitude is a useful check and in the event of GPS signal being lost temporarily, the barometric trace will prove flight continuity. GPS altitude cannot be used for checking for Airspace Infringements and this would invalidate it's use in many competitions. Tim Newport-Peace "Indecision is the Key to Flexibility." I agree, why traces are needed is really the point. But I believe a GPS with WAAS is far more accurate than a barograph and should also be more cost effective. But unless someone seeks approval then I would not expect any specification to change. I was just wondering if there is any movement in this area. Ivan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Carl Buehler wrote: If The Garmins would be an IGC approved device. I would carry my 76S on every flight. You never know! When you start flying cross-country, you'll be carrying it anyway! -- ----- Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Adrian Jansen" wrote: You might want to consider the implications of WAAS. I have no direct experience, but the principle is that you take an external signal and use it to 'correct' the GPS location to another place - hopefully more accurate. But what is to stop you sending bogus 'corrections' and making the GPS think its somewhere else entirely ? The WAAS signals are much easier to generate than the original GPS satellite signals. Sounds an easy way to cheat to me. But how far can the WAAS signal "correct" the GPS one? I assume the principle is that the transmitter knows exactly where it really is, so if GPS says it is somewhere else then the difference is an error which will apply to all other GPS receivers in the area. Since the GPS error is likely to be on the order of 5m - 10m, and very very unlikely to be more than a couple of hundred meters, I would expect the system to be designed to correct the GPS positions by no more than a few hundred meters. Another characteristic is that the correction is the same not only for a reasonably large geographic area, but that the necessary correction changes quite slowly, over a period of many minutes. If I was designing the system, I expect I would also take advantage of that to reduce the amount of information that need to be transmitted. So I would expect a maximum correction possible of, say, less than a km, and rapid changes to the correction to be either impossible or else rather unusual and therefore suspicious. I don't see how you could use that to make any significant difference to a glider flight. -- Bruce |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Adrian Jansen" wrote in message ... You might want to consider the implications of WAAS. I have no direct experience, but the principle is that you take an external signal and use it to 'correct' the GPS location to another place - hopefully more accurate. But what is to stop you sending bogus 'corrections' and making the GPS think its somewhere else entirely ? The WAAS signals are much easier to generate than the original GPS satellite signals. Sounds an easy way to cheat to me. -- Regards, I do not believe it is at all easy to fake GPS WAAS and GPS is already acceptable for position. But it is very easy to fake a barograph. Ivan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ivan Kahn
writes snip I do not believe it is at all easy to fake GPS WAAS and GPS is already acceptable for position. But it is very easy to fake a barograph. A drum-type baro, yes, it has unfortunately been done and some cases have been publicised in the public domain. Not easy if it is an electronic pressure sensor embedded in a secure GNSS flight recorder. You have to fake both the pressure and GNSS-altitude traces and make them similar. Now that is less that straightforward, I think. Yes, you could probably fake one, or the other. But both together is not easy. How many people have access to a GPS simulator and a pressure chamber? And the ability to co-ordinate the two into a plausible IGC flight data file that still passes the security checks? Also, the faked fixes would have to agree with the weather of the day, thermal/wave conditions, winds with height, etc. All of which can be checked against other flights done on that date and in the same area. Finally, on flights to be validated an OO has to observe the recorder in the glider and the time and place of takeoff and landing. How do you fake this beforehand? Yes, I suppose that anything is possible but I suggest that the "height of the fence" that IGC has put up against cheating or malpractice with GNSS flight recorders, is suitably high. Make it too high and we would not fly because there would be too many checks to do first! -- Ian Strachan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WAAS and Garmin 430/530 | DoodyButch | Owning | 23 | October 13th 03 04:06 AM |
Updated IGC approval documents for Cambridge GNSS flight recorders | Ian Strachan | Soaring | 0 | August 27th 03 05:28 PM |
Terminology of New WAAS, VNAV, LPV approach types | Tarver Engineering | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | August 5th 03 03:50 AM |
WAAS | Big John | Piloting | 8 | July 22nd 03 01:06 PM |
Garmin Behind the Curve on WAAS GPS VNAV Approaches | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | July 18th 03 01:43 PM |