Navigation transition from ground based to satellite

[Dan B]

The latest FAA Navigation Services, SatNavNews, has some good information about reducing the number of VORs and transitioning to RNAV and systems for NextGen. FAA Navigation Services provides the funding to purchase and maintain the FAA systems.

This information may assist you in decisions if you are considering new avionics.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...Winter2012.pdf

[panhandler1956]

I have no ground based navigation capability in my aircraft - it's all GPS. Two separate units (one IFR, one VFR) with battery back ups.

Granted, if I was counting on the airplane for hard IFR on a scheduled run I would have it, but for the kind of flying I do I didn't see the need.

My 2 cents.

[rv9av8tr]

OK... I'm an engineer... I think in terms of "What If". In nuclear power we design and plan around low risk/hi probability and high consequence/low probability. Managing risk in the national air system is much the same. Frankly, I really worry about depending on all GPS navigation because there are numerous single events that could entirely wipe out navigation capability on the sea as well as air. Large solar flares can certaintly happen. I know this sounds a little "off the wall", but what I worry about most is a space based EMF detionation that could easily be done by any number of nations. Then what is the back up plan? Back to dead reckoning? I've just never liked having all my eggs in one basket.

I really don't think it's in our national security interest to rely solely on GPS for finding our way around. I think it's short sighted. It's just my thoughts on the subject.

[Ron Lee]

Mike, read the newsletter. Your answer is in there.

Also download/read the Federal Radionavigation Plan

[David-aviator]

Originally Posted by rv9av8tr

OK... I'm an engineer... I think in terms of "What If". In nuclear power we design and plan around low risk/hi probability and high consequence/low probability. Managing risk in the national air system is much the same. Frankly, I really worry about depending on all GPS navigation because there are numerous single events that could entirely wipe out navigation capability on the sea as well as air. Large solar flares can certaintly happen. I know this sounds a little "off the wall", but what I worry about most is a space based EMF detionation that could easily be done by any number of nations. Then what is the back up plan? Back to dead reckoning? I've just never liked having all my eggs in one basket.

I really don't think it's in our national security interest to rely solely on GPS for finding our way around. I think it's short sighted. It's just my thoughts on the subject.

I agree with your concern, Mike. The fundamental problem with government thinking on any subject is it is a closed loop. Certain "What Ifs" are unthinkable and not in the plan.

Take for example pre 9-11 federally mandated security training for flight crews. It presumed no hijacker would commit suicide to complete the mission. The prescribed response to a hijacking was do not resist and land as soon as possible. Once on the ground, do everything to stay there. No thought of a suicide mission. It was unthinkable - before 9-11.

The proposal to transition from ground based to satellite navigation is driven be money. There will be no back up for GPS except IRS RNAV capability which has been around for years. IRS does require a DME fix to insure its accuracy and that is a part of the plan - DME's and eventually just a few emergency VOR's. But that will not provide for safe precision low approaches. If the GPS system collapses due to natural or man made causes, the policy will be to find VFR conditions and land, the same as it is today with equipment failure.

At least that's what I get out of the official read on the subject.

[apkp777]

People think I am crazy when I say this, but I think LORAN would have been an excellent backup to a "all" GPS based primary navigation system. I have never had a glitch in GPS reception, had lot's of them with VOR's. LORAN, would be a lot cheaper than maintaining 50% of the VOR's as backups. Maybe the feds could come up with a cellular based nav system using existing towers?

[Ron Lee]

Tony, I agree with LORAN, but the fix may have been in to get rid of it. I suspect that if LORAN had been kept as a component of the US navigation system, then manufacturers would have come up with combined GPS/LORAN receivers.

Instead, LORAN's fate was in limbo for many years in the FRP so guess what? No one invested in it.

[L.Adamson]

Originally Posted by apkp777

People think I am crazy when I say this, but I think LORAN would have been an excellent backup to a "all" GPS based primary navigation system. I have never had a glitch in GPS reception, had lot's of them with VOR's. LORAN, would be a lot cheaper than maintaining 50% of the VOR's as backups. Maybe the feds could come up with a cellular based nav system using existing towers?

I had one for about a minute or so, back in '93 or 94.

[NickAir]

I have read of GPS satilite outages. There are regular GPS satilites taken down on purpose for various reasons. Also, I have heard of areas that may be out of service for GPS temporary periods. I am always learning.

Some one on here likely knows enough to educate us about this issue.

My bottom line: Keep "paper" charts.

[Ron Lee]

Sure there are satellite outages and maintenance actions. However, when you may have eight (plus/minus) satellites visible at a given time, you still have plenty of useable satellites to derive a position solution.