Activism Change

FAA GPS Seminar

Question:

: : VOR/DME                       2005                  2010 : Don’t forget VOR/TAC’s : The TACAN part of VOR/TAC’s are already dying.  There are a number of : indefintely out of service TACANs around as the military doesn’t figure it’s : worth fixing them. Sorry, didn’t think too many civilians cared about TACAN. The FRP says TACAN will start to phase out in 2000, but it’s a little more complicated than that.   The military maintains the stand-alone TACANs (173 according to the FRP), while the FAA maintains those colocated with VORs (663 VORTACs).  The FAA considers the DME portion of the VORTACs part of the VOR/DME system and so will keep the DME portion operating, but if the ‘radial’ function of the TACAN goes down it’s not so clear cut. Normally they fix it, but if they don’t have the (expensive) parts (a common occurence), they often go to the military and say "Give us the parts if you want it fixed."  It may or may not get fixed based on the military’s priorities. Several years ago, when I was in the AF, the AF had decided they would not buy any more replacement antennas for TACAN. This was due to costs (AFAIR, about $400K ea.) and the pending phase out. They had prioritized all the TACANs and would fix units by cannibalizing from the bottom of the list.  So you are right, Ron. While TACAN doesn’t officially start to phase out until 2000, attrition is taking its toll. Gerry —   Gerry Caron               "Opinions are mine, not my employer’s."   Terra Corp.  ABQ           FAX: 505-884-2384

Response:

[snip] So my question is, if this system eliminates the GPS signal error and will be available to all who fly inside the US borders and is approved by the DOD, what’s the point of the keeping the original satellite signal error functional?  And if this system does the same thing as eliminating the signal error in the first place, then why not just turn the signal error off and save a bundle of money? What am I missing here?  It must be something, it can’t be that simple, can it?

Turning off SA still would not result in a signal accurate enough for Cat II and Cat III landings.  And the availability of Cat I accuracy would be significantly limited. — Bob Noel aka Kobyashi Maru my views are my own not MITRE’s (why use a disclaimer when people are

Response:

OK, one of the guys who presented information at the seminar called me and we had a good conversation about the points that my posting raised.  The controller offered some answers and it turns out I’d mistakenly added a comment he made to the wrong question and I’d like to correct that. I went to a GPS Seminar last night at Lebanon Airport in West Lebanon NH.  I was hoping to learn about using GPS for navigational purposes. That wasn’t really what happened though, the agenda was for the FAA to tell us to mind our P’s and Q’s about regulations and paperwork and to show us how to fly a GPS approach.   The entire thrust of the night was exclusively IFR.  This isn’t "bad" I guess but I’d have to say that the majority of the pilots at this seminar, and it was heavily attended, weren’t IFR rated.

The ATC person agreed with me on this point and thought that perhaps 75% of the attendees were not IFR rated and therefore would not have tremendous interest in the presentation as it mostly focused on IFR policies and techniques as befitting GPS technology. We got some interesting information.  They said that VOR’s and NDB’s were being phased out as was Loran-C.  All this I knew before but did not know the time table.  All those navigational sources will be out of operation within about 10 years, if I remember correctly.  They also said that you could not fly a GPS approach unless you had a back up system that utilised VOR or NDB systems…….  They kept insisting that GPS was to be used only if there was backup.  What happens when the backup systems are shut down as planned?

When those systems go offline, the plan is for the WAAS or Wide Area Augmentation System to be in effect.  This is the system that will make the GPS signals highly accurate so that aircraft will be able to make precision approaches using it.  Backup would likely take the form of a second receiver, although we didn’t discuss this. They also showed as a video of how to fly a GPS approach and it’s no wonder the IFR rated GPS receivers cost so much, there’s just all kinds of automatic functions they are supposed to do as you approach the runway.  The best laugh of the night was when the FAA lady matter of factly stated at the end of the last approach that it was easy.  She had just gotten done explaining all the do’s and don’ts, and better nots which all had to be borne in mind while making this approach.

This comment goes with the first one above in that if you aren’t IFR rated, the video shown depicting three different GPS IFR approaches would probably be a little intimidating.  The controller volunteered that he felt the video could be redone to make it more interesting.  I WAS interested but thought the video was only relevant to me in future terms if and when I get an IFR rating. Then one of several paradoxes.  There was an ATC talking about using GPS (in IFR of course)  Someone asked why couldn’t they request clearance from point A to point B direct rather than having to use all the intersections, which was afterall what GPS allows you to do.  The ATC guy then said, that’s my job to guide you through those intersections, are you trying to put me out of a job?  Really, that’s what he said.

This is where I have to apologise.  There were actually two questions several minutes apart dealing with this issue and I put one answer to the wrong question.  What the controller had said in response to someone asking about going from A to B via GPS is that his radar coverage has certain parameters beyond which he cannot legally control the aircraft.  Fly outside those parameters and he cannot give you seperation or traffic updates.  Since the corridors currently go from one intersection to the next, that’s where you have to fly in order to benefit from controlled flight. The remark I originally ascribed to this question came in response to another question, or rather statement, in which one person pointed out that R-Nav had a model of GPS receiver that was capable of overlaying weather and traffic advisories on top of their moving map display giving the pilot the opportunity to guide him or herself using GPS.  It was then that the ATC joked that he was being put out of a job.  My apologies for getting this point mixed up. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Then they discussed the GPS satellites and the deliberately offset signal required by the DOD.  We all know why the DOD does this, it’s to prevent a foreign country from using our system to navigate a GPS guided missile or plane to a precision hit inside our borders.  So they screw up the signal enough to degrade navigation by 300 meters off center.  This is still accurate enough for VFR navigation.  But here’s the kicker; they (the FAA) are in the process of developing a system that incorporates a number of differential ground stations that take the GPS signal and corrects it then uplinks the signal to overhead communications satallites which then downlink the signal to your GPS receiver eliminating the offset mandated by the DOD!!  This they said will permit precision approaches in the future and is being tested right now.  This is occurring apparently with the approval of the DOD. So my question is, if this system eliminates the GPS signal error and will be available to all who fly inside the US borders and is approved by the DOD, what’s the point of the keeping the original satellite signal error functional?  And if this system does the same thing as eliminating the signal error in the first place, then why not just turn the signal error off and save a bundle of money? What am I missing here?  It must be something, it can’t be that simple, can it?

It turns out, I was missing something else.  the controller allowed that this wasn’t his area of expertise but he did know that the military did not inform the FAA of everything they were planning with their GPS satellites, so it would be folly for the FAA to depend on the DOD when they might change the opperational parameters in some way. Also, even with the diffuser turned off, there were still atmospheric and clocking errors that while seemingly small, could spell the difference between a safe IFR approach and an unsafe one.  The WAAS system, when implemented, will simply be more accurate than the unchanged satellite signal. Oh yes, one last thing.  A student pilot asked the following question. Why, she said, was she being taught ONLY VOR navigation when the airplane was equipped with GPS.  She then told them that the CFI only gets credit for teaching VOR, not GPS.  Here they were pushing GPS in an obviously concentrated effort to get people to accept GPS and discard VOR and the rest of the navigational systems (they even showed a graphic with a trash can on the screen indicating that’s where VOR, NDB and Loran-C were heading) but nobody in the FAA had thought to change the training procedures of the CFI’s so that they would stop stressing VOR navigation and get credit for teaching GPS.  The FAA guys said: "Good question".

And the guy repeated that this was a good question and that it was true they weren’t moving as fast as the developing GPS technology but that question he assured me would be dealt with. They said good bye but saying "call us if you have a question, we’re not bad guys, really".

This person was sure a nice guy, he left me with the impression they were struggling to inform the public about what’s going to be happening with GPS navigation so that it isn’t suddenly a surprise when VOR’s, NDB’s and Loran-C all go poof.  He thought that perhaps the seminar was maybe a little too devoted to IFR navigation and also that perhaps they seemed a little menacing in the presentation in that they stressed many items of paperwork and notams and penalties for ignoring them.  All in all it was a good talk and I just wanted to post the corrections and also to correct the impression that the FAA seemed out of touch.  They ARE in touch and my impression was, after talking with the controller, that they are trying hard to stay abreast of a streaking technology. Corky Scott

Response:

: : We got some interesting information.  They said that VOR’s and NDB’s : : were being phased out as was Loran-C.  All this I knew before but did : : not know the time table.  All those navigational sources will be out of : : operation within about 10 years, if I remember correctly.  They also : : said that you could not fly a GPS approach unless you had a back up : : system that utilised VOR or NDB systems…….  They kept insisting : : that GPS was to be used only if there was backup.  What happens when : : the backup systems are shut down as planned? : Guess they’ll have to change the rules.  I find the use of the term : backup here a bit confusing.  What you must have is an alternate : with an non-GPS approach (can be anything as long as it is not : GPS). OK, here are the phase out dates from the current Federal Radionavigation Plan:   System                 Begin Phase-out         Phase-out Complete Loran-C                                             2000 VOR/DME                       2005                  2010 ILS (Cat I)                   2005                  2010 NDB                           2000                  2005 These phase-out dates (except for Loran-C) are dependent on the implementation of WAAS for GPS.  Until WAAS is available, GPS is not authorized for sole means and a backup (VOR enroute and non-GPS appr) must be available onboard.  Once WAAS is available, GPS will be approved for sole means and no other system will be required. According to the latest WAAS schedule, Wilcox (the contractor) is required to have initial capability by the end of 1997, and full capability by the end of 1999.  The 6 years after this, before the VOR/DME/ILS phase-outs, is to allow operators to equip their a/c and the FAA to publish the new IAPs. For the full story, download the FRP from ftp.fedworld.gov Gerry —   Gerry Caron               "Opinions are mine, not my employer’s."   Terra Corp.  ABQ           FAX: 505-884-2384

Response:

: For the full story, download the FRP from ftp.fedworld.gov Correction.  The FRP is available from the Nav Information Service server (USCG).  Note: This is an Adobe Acrobat (,PDF) file. You need the Acrobat reader to view it. It can be downloaded from the same server. WEB:   http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/ FTP:    ftp.navcen.uscg.mil/radionav/frp/FRP.EXE Sorry if anyone was searching in vain at fedworld. Gerry —   Gerry Caron               "Opinions are mine, not my employer’s."   Terra Corp.  ABQ           FAX: 505-884-2384

Response:

: So my question is, if this system eliminates the GPS signal error and : will be available to all who fly inside the US borders and is approved : by the DOD, what’s the point of the keeping the original satellite : signal error functional? Selective Availability (SA) as it is called reduces the accuracy to 100 meters 2drms horizontal. Statistically, this means that you will be within a 100 meter radius of where the GPS says you are 95% of the time. The point is that this is good enough for most nav requirements, but not good enough for bombing. It is also world-wide, so it has an effect in Bosnia and the Persian Gulf and in every other place we have a conflict. Since WAAS (the FAA’s system), only improves the signal in the US, it doesn’t help our enemies elsewhere in the world.  And if a war really did come home, WAAS could be turned off. It wouldn’t really affect civilian air traffic, since the ‘war’ would effectively shut that down anyway. BTW, the terrorist argument is good political fodder, but doesn’t hold much water. As Ok City, and the World Trade Center point out, you don’t need GPS to be an effective terrorist. : And if this system does the same thing as : eliminating the signal error in the first place, then why not just turn : the signal error off and save a bundle of money? Because it is not the same, and turning it off wouldn’t give you what you (and the FAA) need. Turning SA off would improve accuracy to the 20 meter range. Better, but not good enough to give you any new capability such as CAT I approaches. The 100 m is good enough for non-precision, but CAT I requirements are in the 3-5 meter range. WAAS will provide both the accuracy for CAT I (much better than turning SA off) and a GPS Integrity Channel (GIC). The GIC will warn you when the system is out of tolerance for a CAT I approach within 6 seconds. The GIC is also what will allow you to use GPS as a sole-means of nav, so you don’t need to have that other equipment. The GIC is the real driver for WAAS since it allows the replacement of all those VORs, etc with GPS. Saves big bucks in the long term. The CAT I capability is a real bonus, since it will provide CAT I capability into almost all airports without spending ~$1 million for an ILS. : What am I missing here?  It must be something, it can’t be that simple, : can it? Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. : Oh yes, one last thing.  A student pilot asked the following question. : Why, she said, was she being taught ONLY VOR navigation when the : airplane was equipped with GPS.  She then told them that the CFI only : gets credit for teaching VOR, not GPS. Sort of.  The real problem is the PTS. GPS is not included in the PTS, so your CFI has no reason to teach it, since you are not required to demonstrate it during your check ride.  Similarly, the instrument PTS includes ADF approaches but not GPS. So you spend all that time learning to use a system on its way out, but have no requirement to learn the new system. Definitely time for a change. I suspect there is some behind the scene lobbying by FBO/flight schools to put this change off as long as possible. When it occurs, they’ll have to spend a bunch to upgrade their planes. While the big schools can handle it (and some are already adding GPSs), a lot of little guys operate on a shoestring. Gerry —   Gerry Caron               "Opinions are mine, not my employer’s."   Terra Corp.  ABQ           FAX: 505-884-2384

Response:

: VOR/DME                       2005                  2010 Don’t forget VOR/TAC’s The TACAN part of VOR/TAC’s are already dying.  There are a number of indefintely out of service TACANs around as the military doesn’t figure it’s worth fixing them.

Response:

: We got some interesting information.  They said that VOR’s and NDB’s : were being phased out as was Loran-C.  All this I knew before but did : not know the time table.  All those navigational sources will be out of : operation within about 10 years, if I remember correctly.  They also : said that you could not fly a GPS approach unless you had a back up : system that utilised VOR or NDB systems…….  They kept insisting : that GPS was to be used only if there was backup.  What happens when : the backup systems are shut down as planned? Guess they’ll have to change the rules.  I find the use of the term backup here a bit confusing.  What you must have is an alternate with an non-GPS approach (can be anything as long as it is not GPS). -Ron

Response:

Chee, Corky.  You arn’t supposed to ask questions like THAT! Actually, the reason the instructors teach VOR and NOT GPS is the FAA requirement to have an operating VOR in the aircraft to take the check ride.  The PTS calls for locating youself using the VOR but you are NOT ALLOWED to use the GPS.   I taught students at SIU material they needed to take the FCC test that allows them to do work on avionics.  This test has printed on the bottom the date of the last revision.  I happen to remember it, because it was my birthday, in the year I started at the University of Minnesota in Aeronautical Engineering.  The last revision of the test was May 11, 1955. Obviously the test covers ALL of the changes in avionics and electronics that have occured in MY lifetime! John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I went to a GPS Seminar last night at Lebanon Airport in West Lebanon NH.  I was hoping to learn about using GPS for navigational purposes. That wasn’t really what happened though, the agenda was for the FAA to tell us to mind our P’s and Q’s about regulations and paperwork and to show us how to fly a GPS approach.   The entire thrust of the night was exclusively IFR.  This isn’t "bad" I guess but I’d have to say that the majority of the pilots at this seminar, and it was heavily attended, weren’t IFR rated. We got some interesting information.  They said that VOR’s and NDB’s were being phased out as was Loran-C.  All this I knew before but did not know the time table.  All those navigational sources will be out of operation within about 10 years, if I remember correctly.  They also said that you could not fly a GPS approach unless you had a back up system that utilised VOR or NDB systems…….  They kept insisting that GPS was to be used only if there was backup.  What happens when the backup systems are shut down as planned? They also showed as a video of how to fly a GPS approach and it’s no wonder the IFR rated GPS receivers cost so much, there’s just all kinds of automatic functions they are supposed to do as you approach the runway.  The best laugh of the night was when the FAA lady matter of factly stated at the end of the last approach that it was easy.  She had just gotten done explaining all the do’s and don’ts, and better nots which all had to be borne in mind while making this approach. Then one of several paradoxes.  There was an ATC talking about using GPS (in IFR of course)  Someone asked why couldn’t they request clearance from point A to point B direct rather than having to use all the intersections, which was afterall what GPS allows you to do.  The ATC guy then said, that’s my job to guide you through those intersections, are you trying to put me out of a job?  Really, that’s what he said. Then they discussed the GPS satellites and the deliberately offset signal required by the DOD.  We all know why the DOD does this, it’s to prevent a foreign country from using our system to navigate a GPS guided missile or plane to a precision hit inside our borders.  So they screw up the signal enough to degrade navigation by 300 meters off center.  This is still accurate enough for VFR navigation.  But here’s the kicker; they (the FAA) are in the process of developing a system that incorporates a number of differential ground stations that take the GPS signal and corrects it then uplinks the signal to overhead communications satallites which then downlink the signal to your GPS receiver eliminating the offset mandated by the DOD!!  This they said will permit precision approaches in the future and is being tested right now.  This is occurring apparently with the approval of the DOD. So my question is, if this system eliminates the GPS signal error and will be available to all who fly inside the US borders and is approved by the DOD, what’s the point of the keeping the original satellite signal error functional?  And if this system does the same thing as eliminating the signal error in the first place, then why not just turn the signal error off and save a bundle of money? What am I missing here?  It must be something, it can’t be that simple, can it? Oh yes, one last thing.  A student pilot asked the following question. Why, she said, was she being taught ONLY VOR navigation when the airplane was equipped with GPS.  She then told them that the CFI only gets credit for teaching VOR, not GPS.  Here they were pushing GPS in an obviously concentrated effort to get people to accept GPS and discard VOR and the rest of the navigational systems (they even showed a graphic with a trash can on the screen indicating that’s where VOR, NDB and Loran-C were heading) but nobody in the FAA had thought to change the training procedures of the CFI’s so that they would stop stressing VOR navigation and get credit for teaching GPS.  The FAA guys said: "Good question". They said good bye but saying "call us if you have a question, we’re not bad guys, really". Corky Scott

Response:

I went to a GPS Seminar last night at Lebanon Airport in West Lebanon NH.  I was hoping to learn about using GPS for navigational purposes. That wasn’t really what happened though, the agenda was for the FAA to tell us to mind our P’s and Q’s about regulations and paperwork and to show us how to fly a GPS approach.   The entire thrust of the night was exclusively IFR.  This isn’t "bad" I guess but I’d have to say that the majority of the pilots at this seminar, and it was heavily attended, weren’t IFR rated. We got some interesting information.  They said that VOR’s and NDB’s were being phased out as was Loran-C.  All this I knew before but did not know the time table.  All those navigational sources will be out of operation within about 10 years, if I remember correctly.  They also said that you could not fly a GPS approach unless you had a back up system that utilised VOR or NDB systems…….  They kept insisting that GPS was to be used only if there was backup.  What happens when the backup systems are shut down as planned? They also showed as a video of how to fly a GPS approach and it’s no wonder the IFR rated GPS receivers cost so much, there’s just all kinds of automatic functions they are supposed to do as you approach the runway.  The best laugh of the night was when the FAA lady matter of factly stated at the end of the last approach that it was easy.  She had just gotten done explaining all the do’s and don’ts, and better nots which all had to be borne in mind while making this approach. Then one of several paradoxes.  There was an ATC talking about using GPS (in IFR of course)  Someone asked why couldn’t they request clearance from point A to point B direct rather than having to use all the intersections, which was afterall what GPS allows you to do.  The ATC guy then said, that’s my job to guide you through those intersections, are you trying to put me out of a job?  Really, that’s what he said. Then they discussed the GPS satellites and the deliberately offset signal required by the DOD.  We all know why the DOD does this, it’s to prevent a foreign country from using our system to navigate a GPS guided missile or plane to a precision hit inside our borders.  So they screw up the signal enough to degrade navigation by 300 meters off center.  This is still accurate enough for VFR navigation.  But here’s the kicker; they (the FAA) are in the process of developing a system that incorporates a number of differential ground stations that take the GPS signal and corrects it then uplinks the signal to overhead communications satallites which then downlink the signal to your GPS receiver eliminating the offset mandated by the DOD!!  This they said will permit precision approaches in the future and is being tested right now.  This is occurring apparently with the approval of the DOD. So my question is, if this system eliminates the GPS signal error and will be available to all who fly inside the US borders and is approved by the DOD, what’s the point of the keeping the original satellite signal error functional?  And if this system does the same thing as eliminating the signal error in the first place, then why not just turn the signal error off and save a bundle of money? What am I missing here?  It must be something, it can’t be that simple, can it? Oh yes, one last thing.  A student pilot asked the following question. Why, she said, was she being taught ONLY VOR navigation when the airplane was equipped with GPS.  She then told them that the CFI only gets credit for teaching VOR, not GPS.  Here they were pushing GPS in an obviously concentrated effort to get people to accept GPS and discard VOR and the rest of the navigational systems (they even showed a graphic with a trash can on the screen indicating that’s where VOR, NDB and Loran-C were heading) but nobody in the FAA had thought to change the training procedures of the CFI’s so that they would stop stressing VOR navigation and get credit for teaching GPS.  The FAA guys said: "Good question". They said good bye but saying "call us if you have a question, we’re not bad guys, really". Corky Scott

Response:

Filed under: Lobbying

Related Posts

• Kentucky Violates Physcians Constitutional "Free-Speech Rights - ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE POLITICS
• Gov. Lackys at Israeli Rally - don't vote for them in the next election - take back your nation
• heat from yeast activity?
• Looking For Proof
• Subaru Cop-Out? Why the WRX isn't "Coming to America"
• It's all I can do - MY CONTRACT WITH MY GRANDCHILDREN
• Hmm.. the Blue Ribbon Coalition seems to want it both ways...
• WSJ story on Cessna water/fuel contamination
• SCOTLAND - Off Road Heaven !
• Fid's Photos