GPS and old-fashioned thinking?

G Farris wrote:
With all these questions about how to integrate GPS into our everyday
operations, I'm tempted to believe we have allowed the advent of this
wonderful new technology to send our thinking back to the dark ages!

We want GPS to simply replace everything else - then all that "legacy"
stuff just becomes a backup, in case the GPS signal or on-board equipment
should become unreliable. This presents problems - as has been pointed
out in the above threads - as we are not usually flying airways and
overlays (at least that's the idea) so transitioning to the "legacy"
stuff is not always that quick and easy, especially in high workload
moments like approaches or missed approach procedures. I don't know why
we don't simply weave GPS into the RNAV web that was already part of our
mentality before GPS came along. With one integrator box, receiving
signals from VOR/DME/ILS/eLORAN and GPS we could fly random routes, RNAV
waypoints and approaches even with one primary system (GPS for example)
inoperative or unreliable. An in-flight failure of one such system would
still leave us with full RNAV capability, but might be our clue to fly an
overlay, such that the (unlikely) failure of a second system would make
transitioning easier.

We consider the old KNS-80 style RNAV boxes to be obsolete today - but in
a way they were more forward-looking than the way we're going about GPS
today.

G Faris


The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes. This
will take a long time, but it will happen.

And, it's all about Required Navigation Performance (RNP). RNP, by
definition, is sensor independent, although that has some practical
limitations today.

The new RNAV (RNP) procedures are premised on the possibility the GPS
will fail. Without this assumption, the target level of safety required
for small RNP containment areas cannot be achieved. This is
particularly true of the missed approach segment.

Note that the first FAA RNP procedure at KDCA does not require RNP for
the missed approach, just for the approach segments. OTOH, the newer
RNP procedure at KSUN requires RNP for the missed approach because of
terrain.

The DCA procedure can be flown without a second system of RNAV. The SUN
procedure cannot. Presently, the only approved second system is two
(preferably three) IRUs feeding at least two flight management systems.

Eventually, IRUs, or something quite similar, will become affordable for
light aircraft.

These concepts are where the forward thinkers are going, and not just in
this country by any means.

In article xl0kf.62898$qw.59268@fed1read07, wrote:

The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.

DME, and probably MLS, will be around for a while longer.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

Bob Noel wrote:

In article xl0kf.62898$qw.59268@fed1read07, wrote:


The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.


DME, and probably MLS, will be around for a while longer.

Alas, where are the MLSes?

DME will remain only if the legacy carriers can keep flying, and keep
their first-generation, non-GPS, LNAV aircraft flying to need the arcane
DME/DME update protocol.

In article z67kf.62948$qw.39145@fed1read07, wrote:

The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.

DME, and probably MLS, will be around for a while longer.

Alas, where are the MLSes?

Outside of the US

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

Bob Noel wrote:

In article xl0kf.62898$qw.59268@fed1read07, wrote:

The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.

DME, and probably MLS, will be around for a while longer.

Don't count on it...elimination of all ground-based navaids. Even the
FAA has reconsidered this flawed from the beginning concept.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
Bob Noel wrote:


In article xl0kf.62898$qw.59268@fed1read07, wrote:


The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.

DME, and probably MLS, will be around for a while longer.


Don't count on it...elimination of all ground-based navaids. Even the
FAA has reconsidered this flawed from the beginning concept.

Ron Lee

Which FAA? ;-)

As the budget crunch deepens, and it will, the pressure to do away with
most ground facilities other than ILS will be irresistable.

One variation is to shut down the VORs but leave "geometrically
desirable" DME facilites going until the legacy air carrer LNAV
platforms retire. That would be a whole lot less expensive than
maintaining aging VOR facilities.

The bean counters want to do away with primary radars, too. But, so
far, the security-minded have stopped that planning.

wrote:
The bean counters want to do away with primary radars, too. But, so
far, the security-minded have stopped that planning.

What does it mean to "do away with primary radar"? The antennae are
co-located and the systems are already built. What money would be saved by
turning the primary part of the system off? It's not even like they rotate
on different shafts so you can save a little on lubricating the bearings or
powering down the motor that makes it go round and round.

Anyway, if we turn off the primary radar, we'll only be able to see things
that want to be seen. The libertarian in me likes that idea, but I'm
enough of a realist to understand that the people intent on blowing things
up are probably smart enough to turn their transponders off.

Bob Noel wrote On 12/02/05 15:50,:
In article xl0kf.62898$qw.59268@fed1read07, wrote:


The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.


DME, and probably MLS, will be around for a while longer.


I suspect that having more than 3 levels of backup is counterproductive.
I.e., GPS backed up by Loran backed up by VOR backed up by ADF, etc.
That represents a lot of onboard equipment to go wrong, forget how to
use, etc.

The obvious candidates to go are ADF, marker beacons, and DME.

DME isn't going away soon because the airlines use it. If the airlines
wanted toliets on ballons in the sky, they'ed get them.

The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.


Uhm, not quite. The JAA is all hot about DME-DME area navigation. They
thing GPS is not reliable enough. Go figure...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
says...


The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.


Uhm, not quite. The JAA is all hot about DME-DME area navigation. They
thing GPS is not reliable enough. Go figure...


The Europeans are ready to use every available argument (the threat of the US
unilaterally invoking Selective Availability being their favorite) to
denigrate GPS, so as to pave the way for their competing system, Galileo.
They see a huge market potential in a pay-per-use system, designed to
generate windfall profits for the usual group of sweetheart companies, but
they are threatened by the free availability of GPS. They have to denigrate
it to get funding for their system, then find regulatory means to make GPS
receivers illegal.

GF