home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!hotmomma!acc1bbs!dick.zeitlin
- From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin)
- Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
- Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
- Message-ID: <401.185.uupcb@ssr.com>
- Date: 30 Dec 92 21:46:00 GMT
- Distribution: world
- Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
- Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin)
- Lines: 60
-
- O> .GPS is line-of-sight. To provide coverage down to the DH it (the
- > .DGPS ground station) will be sited in manner similiar to MLS. Thus,
- > .you can't have wide-area DGPS.
-
- You misunderstand the principle of DGPS. The correction signal can be
- sent over any frequency. The Coast Guard is using DGPS
- corrections transmitted over existing NDB beacons and usable at
- the limits of the NDB reception range. Line of sight is not a factor.
- The FAA has successfully tested wide-area DGPS at up to 250 miles for
- approach use. (I don't know what frequency was used, but you can be sure
- it wasn't subject to line-of-sight considerations.)
-
- O> .2. There's good evidence that DGPS will *not* have the availability
- > .of current nav systems for precision approaches wrt sufficiently
- > .low VDOP.
-
- There's equally good evidence that it will. There are several
- techniques that are being discussed for dealing with potential VDOP
- concerns. The availability of sufficient SVs for adequate RAIM in some
- mountain environments is an issue, but a pseudolite at or near the
- airport seems to be a more-than adequate solution. A pseudolite is
- cheaper to install and maintain than an ILS/DME.
-
- O> .4. what I meant to get across was: I lot of what I read about GPS (of
- > .any flavor) gushes about the accuracy (usually under ideal conditions)
- > .and completely ignores the other requirements that must be met
- > .by precision approach systems.
-
- Talk to anyone that's got a GPS unit in their aircraft now. I know of
- several people that have pulled their LORANs in favor of GPS. That's
- under real-world, current conditions, without the full constellation of
- SVs up. GPS at its worst is better than LORAN at its best.
-
- O> . My general impression is that GPS
- > .proponents are puzzled as to why the FAA isn't embracing GPS
- > .(after all, it's a very accurate system).
-
- But the FAA _IS_ embracing GPS. And at a pace far faster than they have
- with any other advance. (Even TCAS! <~> ) The first GPS TSO is
- released, and there _will_ be many overlay non-precision approaches
- certified in less than a year. Compare this to LORAN, where there are a
- handful of non-precision approaches, but all NOTAMed OTS. (And I
- suspect they always will be...)
-
- There's no question that the GPS environment has the potential to
- completely replace the current VOR/DME environment as the primary
- enroute nav. source. There's also no question that it can be used
- for CAT-I approaches. There are no apparent issues preventing its use
- for CAT-III approaches. (This includes both integrity and availability
- issues...) At least one manufacturer has said outright that their
- current unit could easily handle the database for the precision
- approaches without major change.
-
- Expect to see LOTS of movement from the FAA towards GPS in the near
- future. It's happening...
-
- D/
- ---
- . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!! Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
-
-