Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10
User avatar
By TLRippon
#1839620
Sooty25 wrote:
CloudHound wrote:
Personally, I'd rather see the creation of "UKAS". Lets face it, we have the technology and ability to do it.

Sooty - it's just around the corner.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/space-based-pnt-programme
If 10 to 15 years is the accurate view from industry then we need EGNOS as an interim measure to fill the gap.


We'd probably already have it if we hadn't bankrolled EGNOS and everything else.

Image

€9.7bn ( £8.42bn) may seem like a lot of money to an individual but as the UK funds £842bn a year in government spending, it’s a very small drop in the ocean. In actual fact it’s 1%.
Last edited by TLRippon on Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
johnm liked this
By IMCR
#1839633
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:@Sooty25 From that post it is clear I am not going to see a cogent rational argument in my inbox anytime soon. Thought you did not want to drag this thread into the forbidden arena?

Tsk, tsk.


Some circles cant be squared, best left at that sometimes.

:D
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By Adrian
#1839636
There was the possibility of an interesting discussion in this thread on aviation issues like the usefulness of LPV approaches vs LNAV or the importance of "high end" GA if some airports are to survive; and on wider issues like is Galileo worth it (yes), should the UK be part of it (yes), should a service that is technically unchanged be made unavailable, etc.

But instead, seeing as all that's quite difficult, let's bring the thread back into some people's comfort zone and talk about the UK's budget contribution to the EU.
Flyin'Dutch', AlanM, AndyR and 1 others liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839658
riverrock wrote:Why is Galileo worth the billions if we can get all we need for free from USA & Russia?

It's EGNOS which is the loss.


Galileo and EGNOS are closely integrated I refer you to Oscar Wilde once more
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839663
Currently there is no technological link between them. EGNOS is only due to provide augmentation data on Galileo in 2025 (EGNOS V3 second generation).

Plenty of management, political and cost links.
Is it ironic that 2 of the 3 satellites that broadcast EGNOS are provided and run by Immersat, a British company.
User avatar
By TLRippon
#1839669
Adrian wrote:There was the possibility of an interesting discussion in this thread on aviation issues like the usefulness of LPV approaches vs LNAV or the importance of "high end" GA if some airports are to survive; and on wider issues like is Galileo worth it (yes), should the UK be part of it (yes), should a service that is technically unchanged be made unavailable, etc.

But instead, seeing as all that's quite difficult, let's bring the thread back into some people's comfort zone and talk about the UK's budget contribution to the EU.

Unfortunately this is not a technical problem, it’s a political one. It will be solved by a political solution.
User avatar
By Tall_Guy_In_a_PA28
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839671
riverrock wrote:@Lefty a few corrections.
The genetic term is SBAS ( Satellite Based Augmentation Systems).
EGNOS and WAAS are regional versions of SBAS
EGNOS is broadcast from 3 dedicated geostationary satilites.

Galileo and GPS ( and GLONASS) are global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs). They broadcast the timing signals which can be used to triangulate your position. Each is a constellation of satellites in low earth orbit.

A correction to your correction - Galileo and GPS satellites are in medium Earth orbit (MEO). The constellations would have to be at least an order of magnitude bigger in low orbit.
riverrock liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839684
@riverrock I should perhaps have said that the design of Galileo and EGNOS are closely integrated and it is no surprise that UK based firms are contractors to the project.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1839687
AlanM wrote:@Sooty25 - step back from the gates of hell. Please!


With the greatest respect, don't blame me. This thread was political within the first 3 posts.
User avatar
By kanga
#1839729
BoeingBoy wrote:.. how many people are really going to go out and use LPV minima over LNAV in the average UK GA fleet every day.

..the limits for LNAV are such that if you really needed LPV I have to ask why you were flying in the first place.

Commercial interests are different but even then we're talking about one or two airports with one or two third level operators being affected on a handful of days per year.


But if CPLs/ATPLs are going to have to master and demonstrate skills to fly to the lower minima, then aspirant ones are going to have to learn at a school with such facilities there or nearby. ISTR the FSs which trained ME/IR (and CPL groundschool) at Staverton sending students to fly ILSs elsewhere (at Filton, commonly) before Staverton had one. I believe there are CPL students training (and IR holders renewing) from elsewhere, and UK military training, using the Staverton facilities for various sorts of Approach. I regularly see them from our house and allotment (slightly South of the 27 IFR Approach, a bit closer than the FAF over Cleeve Hill). And these are happening in all weather conditions including CAVOK. As a 'proxy shareholder' (by virtue of living in Cheltenham Borough), I'm glad to see them: the Approach/Landing fees and fuel sale profits all add to municipal coffers :)

So maybe more than "one or two airports .. one or two third level operators .. on a handful of days per year" ?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10