Ibra wrote:
Alaska & Hawaii is still no GPS+WAAS land
What is meant by this? Hawaii has WAAS coverage, but the HPL/VPL is not good enough to support RNAV (GPS) with LP/LPV minimums. Alaska has good WAAS coverage and has LPV/LP and LPV200 service. Both Alaska and Hawaii have support for RNP APCH specification with or without WAAS. Alaska has 104 LPV procedures.
NCYankee wrote:
Alaska has good WAAS coverage and has LPV/LP and LPV200 service
You are right, good to know maybe I was reading a very outdated doc !
Ibra wrote:
the Royal Navigation Society now has evolved and they ask pilots to avoid using “1:60 rule” for OCAS track corrections: it leads to airspace busts, instead they need to use “SCA (standard closing angle) rule”Here is one presentation on the new hot topic,
https://slideplayer.com/slide/1508647/
Very interesting! The TK syllabus for the PPL(A) actually only mentions “Off-track corrections” – not exactly how it should be done. Unfortunately the Swedish CAA clarifies this as meaning the 1-in-60 rule….
Royal Navigation Society
Their greatest field of expertise is recruiting members of the ex HM Forces landed gentry.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The TK syllabus for the PPL(A) actually only mentions “Off-track corrections” – not exactly how it should be done
Yes, I was told to use 1:60 to resume my track but end up pressing Direct-TO, which carry the same risk
The question of “off-track correction” is indeed intresting, it does not relate much to the type of navigation mean used (e.g. visual DR nav, VOR, GPS, LOC), you can have someone pressing Direct-To on GPS or reseting OBS on VOR every 1min with all risks of hitting airspace & terrain…
Same for chasing LOC/GS signal with bank & pitch all over place with no stable heading correction & pitch/power setting in mind
People go off-track and when they go back they may hit airspace or terrain even with GPS due to pilot distraction or aircraft performance, so it’s not just UK RIN methods fault
Airborne_Again wrote:
Sure, but still a step backwards
Isn’t all IFR navigation rather arcane. It’s all based on beacons of some sort. Basically a low frequency version of smoke/fire on hills that has been used for thousands of years to navigate. The next step surely must be based on INS combined with recognition of the surroundings based on passive sensors independent on beacons.
LeSving wrote:
Isn’t all IFR navigation rather arcane
Something like this: ESV with GPS as primary & EFVS with Lidar Radar & InfraRed as backup, so we can go back to map & watch for Night & IMC flying
Bonus: you get an IR with 45h PPL course
From the first wikipedia article:
An EFVS can be mounted on any type of craft. The typical platform is a small passenger plane, since it is more cost-effective to use an EFVS than an instrumental landing system, which is used in larger passenger airplanes.
There you go
LeSving wrote:
The next step surely must be based on INS
An interesting thought. Given the enormous technological advance and miniaturization in the recent past, especially the replacement of vac gyro devices with inexpensive ADHRS micro-technology, one would have thought to come up with a similarly inexpensive INS device that only needs to be reset at startup before each flight.
LeSving wrote:
Isn’t all IFR navigation rather arcane. It’s all based on beacons of some sort. Basically a low frequency version of smoke/fire on hills that has been used for thousands of years to navigate. The next step surely must be based on INS combined with recognition of the surroundings based on passive sensors independent on beacons.
Traditional IFR navigation yes. Performance-Based Navigation, no. (The whole point of PBN is to get free of the dependencies of particular systems like beacons.)