The FAA is marching toward sole dependence on GPS.

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.

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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
Sam Spade wrote:

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

The FAA does not OWN LORAN.


Nor does the FAA OWN GPS.


True Steven but they do own WAAS (a GPS augmentation system) which
they seem to make essential to many programs such as ADS-B Out.

Ron Lee

Mitch Narins is still at AJW-41; give him a call. He can also be reached
through the Google Earth Community, where he posted about loran stations
(UK, Saudi Arabia, Norway) as recently as the 19th.

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.

In article ,
(Ron Lee) wrote:

True Steven but they do own WAAS (a GPS augmentation system) which
they seem to make essential to many programs such as ADS-B Out.

huh? What is the relationship/interaction between WAAS and ADS-B?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob Noel wrote:

(Ron Lee) wrote:

True Steven but they do own WAAS (a GPS augmentation system) which
they seem to make essential to many programs such as ADS-B Out.

huh? What is the relationship/interaction between WAAS and ADS-B?

Bob Noel

Look at the ADS-B Out NPRM, page 56956, third column (right side of
page) for these points which IMO seems that the FAA conveniently
specify ADS-B Out performance requirements that can only be met using
GPS augmented with WAAS.

"This proposal specifies performance standards for aircraft avionics
equipment for operation to enable ADS B Out. These performance
standards would accommodate and facilitate the use of new technology.
Presently, GPS augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)
is the only navigation position service that provides the level of
accuracy and integrity (NIC, NACp, and NACv) to enable ADS-B Out to be
used for NAS based surveillance operations with sufficient
availability."

Plus near the bottom of that column:

"In order to meet the proposed performance requirements using the
GPS/WAAS system, aircraft would be required to have equipment
installed onboard the aircraft that meets one of the following: (1)
TSO C145b, Airborne Navigation Sensors using the GPS augmented by
WAAS; or (2) TSO-C146b Stand-Alone Airborne Navigation Equipment using
the GPS augmented by WAAS."

Ron Lee

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

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

Ron Lee wrote:
Bob Noel wrote:


(Ron Lee) wrote:


True Steven but they do own WAAS (a GPS augmentation system) which
they seem to make essential to many programs such as ADS-B Out.

huh? What is the relationship/interaction between WAAS and ADS-B?

Bob Noel


Look at the ADS-B Out NPRM, page 56956, third column (right side of
page) for these points which IMO seems that the FAA conveniently
specify ADS-B Out performance requirements that can only be met using
GPS augmented with WAAS.

"This proposal specifies performance standards for aircraft avionics
equipment for operation to enable ADS B Out. These performance
standards would accommodate and facilitate the use of new technology.
Presently, GPS augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)
is the only navigation position service that provides the level of
accuracy and integrity (NIC, NACp, and NACv) to enable ADS-B Out to be
used for NAS based surveillance operations with sufficient
availability."

Plus near the bottom of that column:

"In order to meet the proposed performance requirements using the
GPS/WAAS system, aircraft would be required to have equipment
installed onboard the aircraft that meets one of the following: (1)
TSO C145b, Airborne Navigation Sensors using the GPS augmented by
WAAS; or (2) TSO-C146b Stand-Alone Airborne Navigation Equipment using
the GPS augmented by WAAS."

Ron Lee

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?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In article ,
"John Collins" wrote:

Bob Noel wrote:

"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."

Technically speaking, the FAA NPRM doesn't require a C146a or C145a WAAS GPS
for the position information, although in the body of the NPRM they state:


"Presently, GPS augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is the
only navigation position service that provides the level of accuracy and
integrity (NIC, NACp, and NACv) to enable ADS-B Out to be used for NAS-based
surveillance operations with sufficient availability."

Which leads to the fundamental question of why that level of accuracy needs
to be required for ADS-B? ADS-B with something suitable for, say, RNP-1,
apparently isn't good enough. I'd love to see the requirement analysis that
lead to the FAA deciding to allocate that level of accuracy, integrity,
availability, and continuity to ADS-B out.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In the proposed change to the FAR's, Appendix H is added to part 91 which
specifies the technical requirements for the navigation source, WAAS is not
mentioned. Instead, specific requirements for the values of NIC, NAC, and
SIL are specified. Of course, a WAAS GPS can meet these requirements. It
is not clear to me that a standard GPS can not be modified (software) to
also meet the requirements. SIL (Surveillance Integrity Category) is a
static value based on the specific hardware and software and can be met by a
GPS without WAAS.

John, that the proposed FAA does not mention a technical solution
(GPS/WAAS) as the only currently known way to meet their specs, the
FAA in this NPRM does state that:

"Presently, GPS augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)
is the only navigation position service that provides the level of
accuracy and integrity (NIC, NACp, and NACv) to enable ADS-B Out to be
used for NAS based surveillance operations with sufficient
availability."

Now did they define the operational use of this system, analytically
determine that each spec was the right number and magically ONLY
GPS/WAAS could handle it or did they do it backwards and define specs
that only GPS/WAAS could meet and then define the operational utility.

Ron Lee