What does this refer to?
LPV has been around for years.
The article mentions LPV 200 which has not been around for years. Only from last year, I think.
OTOH you would think that someone writing for a magazine called “Flight Training News” would know that EGNOS was around before LPV 200.
Or that LPV 200 has been around in the US for many years.
NCYankee wrote:
Or that LPV 200 has been around in the US for many years.
But not with EGNOS.
OK, but is this “LPV 200” anything technically meaningful, or is it just an administrative acceptance that LPV is good enough for 200ft rather than whatever the current absolute system minimum is (250ft?)?
They haven’t launched new satellites or upgraded the existing ones…
It reminds me of a presentation by a UK CAA head of [something] about 7-8 years ago who said, in response to a question on why the UK is so slow in adopting GPS approaches, that they had to make sure they were safe, and they asked the FAA if they had ever done a study of GPS reliability, and the answer was “no”. Obviously the answer came from some lavatory cleaner in Oklahoma… So the CAA did its own study and found, ahem, that they were OK.
Peter wrote:
OK, but is this “LPV 200” anything technically meaningful, or is it just an administrative acceptance that LPV is good enough for 200ft rather than whatever the current absolute system minimum is (250ft?)?
Administrative. Previously the strategy for precision approaches was GBAS for which there are several installations (Bremen being the first one in Europe IIRC). The mantra used to be that SBAS is not suitable for going below DA 250. Obviously it takes time to reverse this view…
I believe a similar case is MLS in the UK — it was very strategic at some point so there was extra resistance to LPV. But isn’t the official strategy in the UK Loran? 
I listened to an almost comical presentation on Loran a few years ago at some PPL/IR meeting, the guy was really convinced about what he was saying.
MLS has been dead for decades – except that BA reportedly still operate it at EGLL (that might be old news too).
I don’t find eLoran comical. Given the fragility of GNSS, I consider our reliance on it irresponsible to the point of suicidal stupidity.
I am not so concerned about its navigational function (though that is bad enough) but how long will it be before the “bad guys” discover that the whole banking, business, communication and administrative systems could be brought down, and their aim of taking us back to the Middle Ages realised, simply by interfering with a few minuscule perturbations of the electromagnetic spectrum?
Incidentally, a question was asked at a UK government meeting about navigation reversion and the answer came back, I kid you not, that there is a plan to develop the use of ADF/ADF.
Loran is much easier to take out than GNSS. There is no value it would add. What’s the fragility of GNSS? 22 years of flawless operation and multiple redundant systems operational today. Just a way to get government money for some obscure project in my view.
Even mentioning ADF is beyond sanity I think the official European strategy is DME/DME as backup which works fine for airliners given their altitude but not so much for low level GA. I would however say that there is no need for a backup system for GA, the risk is small and the impact as well.
achimha wrote:
Loran is much easier to take out than GNSS. There is no value it would add. What’s the fragility of GNSS? 22 years of flawless operation and multiple redundant systems operational today. Just a way to get government money for some obscure project in my view.Just wait for the next Carrington event.
