Current SNA at Kingsville - Send Questions

[jollygreen07]

As long as Naval Aircraft are required to shoot TACAN approaches, they are going to have a hard time removing the VOR approaches in the Southeast/Texas.

The T-6 does not have a TACAN, so the closest we can get to “tail of the needle” flying is the VOR. VOR approaches are required in every T-6 syllabus.

 

[Pags]

As long as Naval Aircraft are required to shoot TACAN approaches, they are going to have a hard time removing the VOR approaches in the Southeast/Texas.

The T-6 does not have a TACAN, so the closest we can get to “tail of the needle” flying is the VOR. VOR approaches are required in every T-6 syllabus.

I doubt that factors much into the FAA's calculus.

 

[jollygreen07]

I doubt that factors much into the FAA's calculus.

Then why bother asking? They apparently asked somebody at CNATRA.

 

[wlawr005]

The FAA operates a minimum VOR network and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. It's literally called the VOR Minimum Operational Network.

 

[jollygreen07]

The stations themselves aren’t in danger, the FAA doesn’t want to pay to keep certifying the approaches.

 

[Pags]

Then why bother asking? They apparently asked somebody at CNATRA.

Well you didn't say that.

That said, was the question along the lines of, "hey are you navy guys gonna pay to keep this thing going?" Or "what's the bare minimum you need for safety of flight?" I just have a hard time seeing the FAA paying to keep VORs going ISO navy specific training requirements.

 

[wlawr005]

So I skimmed the FAA's page on GBAS which probably means I missed something, but...some questions that maybe you have more info on. Does the overall GBAS system require another receiver beyond what's already installed (WAAS and ILS)? I wasn't really clear on that given that it merges signals, but seems to also send correction signals via VHF (and does the GPS need a software update to integrate the signal?). And wouldn't GBAS still require a GPS signal? Jamming isn't going to help with that, and if it uses available ILS hardware, then why not just use the ILS (which may or may not be at a given airport)?

GBAS seems like a more robust and useful version of WAAS, but I'm not convinced (due to my ignorance, no doubt) it's "as robust" as a dedicated ILS in a (self-induced) denied environment, which obviously isn't a long-term solution.

GBAS is Local Area Augmentation Service renamed to match ICAO standards. It fills in the gaps and provides error correction signals where GPS and/or WAAS experience dead zones or anomalies. As for interoperability with ILS, one ground based GBAS system can support multiple approaches to multiple runways and even airports as opposed to a separate system for each approach.

 

[jollygreen07]

Well you didn't say that.

That said, was the question along the lines of, "hey are you navy guys gonna pay to keep this thing going?" Or "what's the bare minimum you need for safety of flight?" I just have a hard time seeing the FAA paying to keep VORs going ISO navy specific training requirements.

Sorry, I thought it was mentioned already.

Apparently they want to get rid of most of the VOR approaches in the southeast and asked for an impact statement of sorts.

I agree, but there’s definitely an argument to be made in defense of keeping them. I hope the people that can make the argument, do.

 

[wlawr005]

It's very simply a function of economic impact. If the FAA mandates one certain type of approach system then it's up to the local airport to upgrade the system using its own money. If the airport refuses to upgrade then pilots have to accept higher minimums, less approach capability, and/or the airport loses significant revenue. I'm certain that many state and local governments have lobbied against a new and expensive federally mandated system without any subsidy to go along with it. As a result, the high cost of maintaining old VORs becomes less expensive than paying for mandating the new system.

 

[Gatordev]

GBAS is Local Area Augmentation Service renamed to match ICAO standards. It fills in the gaps and provides error correction signals where GPS and/or WAAS experience dead zones or anomalies. As for interoperability with ILS, one ground based GBAS system can support multiple approaches to multiple runways and even airports as opposed to a separate system for each approach.

Which is interesting, but how does it fill in gaps when GPS isn't working? More of a rhetorical question for the group, but it's an interesting technical question. WAAS (as I understand it) resolves artificial discontinuity injected into the system by the USG. That same resolution is solved by the military through encryption. But all of that requires a stable GPS signal, so how does GBAS resolve signal degradation from "testing" (jamming)?

All that said, pretty cool that it can function with one ILS station for multiple approaches.

If the airport refuses to upgrade then pilots have to accept higher minimums, less approach capability, and/or the airport loses significant revenue.

Another piece of the puzzle is that airports get (or used to, pre-COVID) some "large" sub-set of money from the feds to maintain airfield infrastructure, which can also help.

 

[wlawr005]

Like WAAS, GBAS uses surveyed ground reference stations to provide error detection and correction for GPS signals in order to provide the required accuracy to shoot an approach.

 

[Pags]

It's very simply a function of economic impact. If the FAA mandates one certain type of approach system then it's up to the local airport to upgrade the system using its own money. If the airport refuses to upgrade then pilots have to accept higher minimums, less approach capability, and/or the airport loses significant revenue. I'm certain that many state and local governments have lobbied against a new and expensive federally mandated system without any subsidy to go along with it. As a result, the high cost of maintaining old VORs becomes less expensive than paying for mandating the new system.

Who plays for the navaids? I kind of assumed the FAA... But I don't know?

 

[wlawr005]

Not sure exactly how it plays out. I think the FAA maintains the VOR system but if you wanna install a CAT III ILS so you're attracting the G650 crew to your golf courses then that's on you.

 

[JTS11]

Who plays for the navaids? I kind of assumed the FAA... But I don't know?

Interesting question that I've never thought of...Are there any USAJOBS openings for like a VORTAC lighthouse keeper in BFE Texas? If so, I'd be interested.

 

[Pags]

Not sure exactly how it plays out. I think the FAA maintains the VOR system but if you wanna install a CAT III ILS so you're attracting the G650 crew to your golf courses then that's on you.

I could believe that.