WAAS In OZ..........
Thread Starter
WAAS In OZ..........
From AvWeb.......
"WAAS Approaches Outnumber ILS
The FAA recently commissioned its 1,333rd WAAS approach (technically known as Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance or LPV) and that means there are now more of them than ILS approaches. The agency calls it a milestone in the transition to universal space-based navigation. The system is in use at 833 airports and the agency says it's planning to add 500 approaches a year until every qualifying runway in the U.S. has one. "This is clearly a turning point for aviation and the way pilots navigate," the agency said in a news release.
Something the agency doesn't mention but which is undoubtedly a factor in the rapid deployment of LPVs is they cost of a fraction of the millions of dollars that ILS systems cost. WAAS, or Wide Area Augmentation System, was commissioned in 2003...."
Note the last para re the cost......
And OZ has how many? I wonder why?
"WAAS Approaches Outnumber ILS
The FAA recently commissioned its 1,333rd WAAS approach (technically known as Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance or LPV) and that means there are now more of them than ILS approaches. The agency calls it a milestone in the transition to universal space-based navigation. The system is in use at 833 airports and the agency says it's planning to add 500 approaches a year until every qualifying runway in the U.S. has one. "This is clearly a turning point for aviation and the way pilots navigate," the agency said in a news release.
Something the agency doesn't mention but which is undoubtedly a factor in the rapid deployment of LPVs is they cost of a fraction of the millions of dollars that ILS systems cost. WAAS, or Wide Area Augmentation System, was commissioned in 2003...."
Note the last para re the cost......
And OZ has how many? I wonder why?
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 60
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
it's planning to add 500 approaches a year until every qualifying runway in the U.S. has one.
Would be much simpler than trying to workout which waypoints I am between and how many miles there are to go!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone like to put an estimated price on providing WAAS in Australia?
And compare it to 230,000 active GA aircraft in the USA and its land mass?
The WAAS decision is still with the consultants. GRAS has been cancelled. Who knows, there may be other ways of achieving it.
Not trying to defend ASA, just tell me how to make a business case for WAAS for aviation in Oz. I always used to ask my sub-managers "Would you do this if it was your business"
The key to "WAAS" is to look across the whole spectrum of potential users - most of whom are outside aviation - and enlist the NFF amongst other powerful organisations, in my opinion.
And compare it to 230,000 active GA aircraft in the USA and its land mass?
The WAAS decision is still with the consultants. GRAS has been cancelled. Who knows, there may be other ways of achieving it.
Not trying to defend ASA, just tell me how to make a business case for WAAS for aviation in Oz. I always used to ask my sub-managers "Would you do this if it was your business"
The key to "WAAS" is to look across the whole spectrum of potential users - most of whom are outside aviation - and enlist the NFF amongst other powerful organisations, in my opinion.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And there JM you have succinctly, but unconciously, summed up what's wrong with the approach to aviation in this country. Airservices should not be a bloody "business"!! This is not about making money; this is about investment in infrastructure (WAAS) that benefits all Australians. Having said that, I agree your point on ensliting the wider users. However, ultimately our taxes should pay for the myriad of benefits that would be delivered and "business" shouldn't come into it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howabout
Agreed entirely.
There may however be method in their madness.
I don't know if this is even feasible but I understand there is some research at an Oz Uni into 'augmentation' via other satellite constellations, versus massive ground expense.
Take it purely as speculation. I'll keep researching.
Agreed entirely.
There may however be method in their madness.
I don't know if this is even feasible but I understand there is some research at an Oz Uni into 'augmentation' via other satellite constellations, versus massive ground expense.
Take it purely as speculation. I'll keep researching.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks JM. If there is an alternative, read cheaper, means of augmentation on the horizon then we should keep an open mind. Provided, of course, that whatever the gurus come up with is not a unique fix.
My main point, however, is that whatever form of augmentation is decided, it needs to service the widest possible range of applications if we are to derive maximum benefit as a nation. Hence my comment on the "aviation business case" vs the fact that if we get a system that has universal application then the expense should not come out of the hide of aviation exclusively. And the only way to ensure equity right across the range of potential users is for the money to come out of federal taxation.
From a purely aviation, and selfish point of view, I want to see a system that has the potential to offer precision approaches into anywhere, provided that the destination has an appropriate plate. From where I sit, that was the failure of GRAS.
My main point, however, is that whatever form of augmentation is decided, it needs to service the widest possible range of applications if we are to derive maximum benefit as a nation. Hence my comment on the "aviation business case" vs the fact that if we get a system that has universal application then the expense should not come out of the hide of aviation exclusively. And the only way to ensure equity right across the range of potential users is for the money to come out of federal taxation.
From a purely aviation, and selfish point of view, I want to see a system that has the potential to offer precision approaches into anywhere, provided that the destination has an appropriate plate. From where I sit, that was the failure of GRAS.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doc
Based on what I've paid to vets over the years - you should have no trouble contributing to about $200M. Just sell your avionics
Given MTSAS and Galileo, I'm prepared to hope someone else has paid enough to get them up to save you and I "fork"ing out.
There is evidently some very complex mathematics involved in all this and I honestly don't know if a second constellation reference is adequate to provide WAAS equivalence.
On the 'commercial' side - what's the real demand for LPV? That's the burning question.
Based on what I've paid to vets over the years - you should have no trouble contributing to about $200M. Just sell your avionics
Given MTSAS and Galileo, I'm prepared to hope someone else has paid enough to get them up to save you and I "fork"ing out.
There is evidently some very complex mathematics involved in all this and I honestly don't know if a second constellation reference is adequate to provide WAAS equivalence.
On the 'commercial' side - what's the real demand for LPV? That's the burning question.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
JM
Being such an avid researcher see if you can find out the cost of Missed Approaches at aerodromes around the country by the regional airlines alone. Then add to that the RFDS and some charter.Then add to that some Private ops, which would be a small amount.
See how the numbers add up (assuming the difference in minima.
Now the safety benefit probably works the other way, Private then Charter, RFDS etc, then RPT. Add the value of that in.
Now that we have done aviation over, lets get to the bigger end users being Agriculture and mining and shipping.
I am convinced without the numbers, but get the numbers and I bet its a no brainer!
J
Being such an avid researcher see if you can find out the cost of Missed Approaches at aerodromes around the country by the regional airlines alone. Then add to that the RFDS and some charter.Then add to that some Private ops, which would be a small amount.
See how the numbers add up (assuming the difference in minima.
Now the safety benefit probably works the other way, Private then Charter, RFDS etc, then RPT. Add the value of that in.
Now that we have done aviation over, lets get to the bigger end users being Agriculture and mining and shipping.
I am convinced without the numbers, but get the numbers and I bet its a no brainer!
J
The real value of WAAS is not in aviation at all. It's in mining, agriculture and transport.
BTW, JM, the mathematics of handling the relativistic effects in the GPS system are so complex as to be unpredictable. It's all to do with the clocks. The relativistic effects include the different velocities of earth and satellite. Tangential velocity depending on your latitude, then the relativistic gravitational redshift which depends in part on the position of the Sun and Moon. Each satellite gets sent corrections once a day otherwise the system's accuracy would degrade to useless very quickly.
WAAS allows receivers to make some of the corrections on a local basis.
BTW, JM, the mathematics of handling the relativistic effects in the GPS system are so complex as to be unpredictable. It's all to do with the clocks. The relativistic effects include the different velocities of earth and satellite. Tangential velocity depending on your latitude, then the relativistic gravitational redshift which depends in part on the position of the Sun and Moon. Each satellite gets sent corrections once a day otherwise the system's accuracy would degrade to useless very quickly.
WAAS allows receivers to make some of the corrections on a local basis.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunny
Agreed and even more complex with Galileo which is not geostationary. But, mathematics has altered since supercomputers and the impossible is now possible.
I think Galileo and the USA system share the same frequency band therefore it comes down to PRN codes for WAAS enabled Rx to communicate. But I am not yet in depth on this. I should add that I lost all faith in maths after 12 school years when I was told you could not sqrt a negative then arrived at the college of knowledge to find you had to for electrical things to work, might 'i' say
Jabba
It's a good point and one no-one has an answer to. I am told on good authority it may not be as great as we think. Also told that it increases the chances of the big bang for those who push minima.
I know the point Sunny made re the spread across industry has already been put to ASA. Hopefully the research will provide a meaningful answer by the time the consultants report emerges. The concept of existing WAAS enabled receivers is far far ahead of the GRAS concept that required yet another Rx that had not yet been designed much less constructed, TSO, etc.
Agreed and even more complex with Galileo which is not geostationary. But, mathematics has altered since supercomputers and the impossible is now possible.
I think Galileo and the USA system share the same frequency band therefore it comes down to PRN codes for WAAS enabled Rx to communicate. But I am not yet in depth on this. I should add that I lost all faith in maths after 12 school years when I was told you could not sqrt a negative then arrived at the college of knowledge to find you had to for electrical things to work, might 'i' say
Jabba
It's a good point and one no-one has an answer to. I am told on good authority it may not be as great as we think. Also told that it increases the chances of the big bang for those who push minima.
I know the point Sunny made re the spread across industry has already been put to ASA. Hopefully the research will provide a meaningful answer by the time the consultants report emerges. The concept of existing WAAS enabled receivers is far far ahead of the GRAS concept that required yet another Rx that had not yet been designed much less constructed, TSO, etc.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Also told that it increases the chances of the big bang for those who push minima.
If so we should shut down all the ILS systems at major airports.
J
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabba
Twas only an aside, not to be taken as a big issue.
Minima will usually be pushed where ATC are not watching. It is unfortunately a mix of human nature and commercial pressure not to divert.
Another example the amount of non-qualified "IFR" that could perhaps be occurring with the mix of autopilots and glass cockpits in aircraft like the Cirrus. I believe the USA is looking at it. Unfortunately, give some the tools and they revert to fools.
Not a major issue, as I noted. Let it not stand in the way of some form of WAAS arrival as we should not allow the one-percenters to prejudice the rest (unlike governmental knee jerk legislations )
Twas only an aside, not to be taken as a big issue.
Minima will usually be pushed where ATC are not watching. It is unfortunately a mix of human nature and commercial pressure not to divert.
Another example the amount of non-qualified "IFR" that could perhaps be occurring with the mix of autopilots and glass cockpits in aircraft like the Cirrus. I believe the USA is looking at it. Unfortunately, give some the tools and they revert to fools.
Not a major issue, as I noted. Let it not stand in the way of some form of WAAS arrival as we should not allow the one-percenters to prejudice the rest (unlike governmental knee jerk legislations
)
Also told that it increases the chances of the big bang for those who push minima
Minima will usually be pushed where ATC are not watching
How many prangs have we had that clearly occurred because someone busted the minima off an NDB approach into Woop Woop? Very few that I can recall.
As for unqualified pilots pushing their luck in aeroplanes full of fancy equipment like the G1000 generation of Cirruses, Cessnas Mooneys, Bonanzas etc. That sort of thing has been going on for years - and quite a few life cycles have ended as a consequence.
None of the above is justification for denying those who are appropriately qualified and experienced access to technology that will enhance utility, flexiblity and safety.
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 13th Nov 2008 at 01:23.
Howard,
Hear Hear!
Well, at least you'd be in the landing config and clobber the threshold given the minima is so low...
WAAS? Couldn't think of anything better, myself. Except ADSB.
Oh oh. Here comes Binghi!
Would be much simpler than trying to workout which waypoints I am between and how many miles there are to go!
it increases the chances of the big bang for those who push minima.
WAAS? Couldn't think of anything better, myself. Except ADSB.
Oh oh. Here comes Binghi!
Having vertical guidance enhances safety several fold, that on it's own should be enough to sell the advantages of WAAS for aviation uses.
GPS approaches without vertical guidance are more dangerous than your normal VOR/DME or NDB/DME approach due to the fact that there are two countdown distances on the GPS approach compared to just the one distance on the VOR/DME NDB/DME approaches.
Profile monitoring on a GPS approach is nowhere as simple as it is for the other approaches. You cannot run the 3 times profile in your head when you are outside the final fix. Also it would be easy for a pilot to read off the wrong distance particularly in difficult conditions and descend below profile.
GPS approaches without vertical guidance are more dangerous than your normal VOR/DME or NDB/DME approach due to the fact that there are two countdown distances on the GPS approach compared to just the one distance on the VOR/DME NDB/DME approaches.
Profile monitoring on a GPS approach is nowhere as simple as it is for the other approaches. You cannot run the 3 times profile in your head when you are outside the final fix. Also it would be easy for a pilot to read off the wrong distance particularly in difficult conditions and descend below profile.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JM:
Couldn't agree more.
Implementing WAAS capability in Oz is not simply a case of just equipping aircraft with the required functionality and pilots using it.
Just like with CAT II/III ILS installations, in order to maximise the lower minima (LPV) benefits afforded by the WAAS equipment, a holistic systems approach would be required to implement WAAS LPV procedures and create the necessary operational/airspace environment to allow pilots to operate safely to the lower minima.
In particular, Australian airports would be required to significantly upgrade their airports in terms of runway width, approach/runway lighting, standby power supplies and runway security. Unless airports put these infrastructure upgrades in place, WAAS could not offer any improved operational benefits as the approach minima would essentially have to be the same as the existing minima afforded by our conventional NPAs.
Notwithstanding the above, I acknowledge that there are some safety benefits to the pilot in terms of improved descent profile management but I doubt whether these benefits would justify the cost of national WAAS implementation considering the generally good (VMC) conditions that many airports experience throughout the year.
"....just tell me how to make a business case for WAAS for aviation in Oz. I always used to ask my sub-managers "Would you do this if it was your business"
Implementing WAAS capability in Oz is not simply a case of just equipping aircraft with the required functionality and pilots using it.
Just like with CAT II/III ILS installations, in order to maximise the lower minima (LPV) benefits afforded by the WAAS equipment, a holistic systems approach would be required to implement WAAS LPV procedures and create the necessary operational/airspace environment to allow pilots to operate safely to the lower minima.
In particular, Australian airports would be required to significantly upgrade their airports in terms of runway width, approach/runway lighting, standby power supplies and runway security. Unless airports put these infrastructure upgrades in place, WAAS could not offer any improved operational benefits as the approach minima would essentially have to be the same as the existing minima afforded by our conventional NPAs.
Notwithstanding the above, I acknowledge that there are some safety benefits to the pilot in terms of improved descent profile management but I doubt whether these benefits would justify the cost of national WAAS implementation considering the generally good (VMC) conditions that many airports experience throughout the year.
QSK,
To my knowledge, no extra/improved infrastructure has been put in place for RNP approaches at regional airports, but the minimas have come down to around 250ft AGL from the GPS NPA average of 400ft AGL. Why wouldn't the situation be the same for WAAS approaches?
Unless airports put these infrastructure upgrades in place, WAAS could not offer any improved operational benefits as the approach minima would essentially have to be the same as the existing minima afforded by our conventional NPAs.