How much would it be to to run your own SBAS?
You just need to rent a satellite with a transponder on it. The UK already has the ground monitoring stations.
They could get Ireland to pay for some of it 
After all, the UK is paying £9BN/year to keep N Ireland afloat and to prevent its population emigrating across the border That’s gotta be worth, what do ya reckon, 4.5BN?
Then you could do a private deal with France for some more money, because UK SBAS provides coverage for LPV approaches in N France too.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Or the ESSP wanted any disputes to be decided by the ECJ…
ESSP is a French LLC – therefore service contracts with ESSP would be subject to French law in the first place. If any company or agency in the UK would license ESSP services, it would be a normal commercial contract as I they bought a bottle of wine from chateaux migraine.
That is exactly why EC has set it up that way.
As in any commercial contract the most likely reason that it did not happen would be, that they could not agree on price.
Peter wrote:
After all, the UK is paying £9BN/year to keep N Ireland afloat and to prevent its population emigrating across the border That’s gotta be worth, what do ya reckon, 4.5BN?
I’m not sure that is worth anything, economically or politically, to the Republic of Ireland. Wouldn’t immigration into the Republic of Ireland be positive for its economy? More available labour, all that? Politically/strategically, if the UK wants to get rid of the charge, I’m under the impression that the Republic of Ireland would be more than happy to integrate the whole island into their territory.
Peter wrote:
Then you could do a private deal with France for some more money, because UK SBAS provides coverage for LPV approaches in N France too.
I’m under the impression that the French state pays for the EGNOS usage of all airports on its territory, at no charge to the airport itself. I may be mistaken. I fail to see how France, as a whole, would be attracted to participating in two SBAS systems rather than one. If they have to pay for it individually, individual aerodromes in Northern France could be interested in switching to the putative UK one, “obviously”.
I think the numbers were given as ~£5B-£10B to build, and around ~£1B to maintaine for your own system, vs. £35M requested by EGNOS to continue using SoL as it was before. I can’t remember where I read them though…
With the latest GTN and Avidyne software, +V does not require SBAS.
As far as ground stations are concerned, I would expect that those in the UK are of benefit to the rest of mainland Europe. The ground stations west of the continent enable better corrections, particularly those involving the ionosphere. Hawaii has a single ground station, but since it is not near the CONUS, it is not able to provide LPV service. Also, the west coast has poorer performance of WAAS and has a higher rate of LPV downgrades to LNAV because of the lack of ground stations to the west in the Pacific.
Note the attached graphic, the fewer outages of LPV200 service are in the center of the country and the areas facing the oceans do not have as good a reliability.
With the latest GTN and Avidyne software, +V does not require SBAS.
That is really important, and renders the loss of LPV “not a huge deal”. Is there going to be any LPV IAP which when flown on the +V glideslope to the LPV minima going to compromise obstacle clearance? I know it isn’t legal, but on LPV/ILS there should be nothing there, before the LPV/ILS DH.
Also some may want to keep a spare navdata card from May 2021 and use that to fly LPV, for ever 
Well, until the GPS refuses to fly an old IAP. Which ones do that? We did that here and you probably get only a couple of months…
Peter wrote:
That is really important, and renders the loss of LPV “not a huge deal”. Is there going to be any LPV IAP which when flown on the +V glideslope to the LPV minima going to compromise obstacle clearance? I know it isn’t legal, but on LPV/ILS there should be nothing there, before the LPV/ILS DH.
IIRC, for LNAV without SBAS the CDI shows linear deviation, while with SBAS it shows angular deviation. With LPV, of course, the CDI always shows angular deviation. That means that near the threshold, obstacles will be considered within a narrower area for LPV compared to non-SBAS LNAV. So yes, it could compromise obstacle clearance.
+V provides guidance only, not real APV. FAA:
“Depending on the manufacturer, WAAS-enabled GPS units might provide advisory vertical guidance in association with LP or LNAV minima. The manufacturer should use a notation to distinguish advisory vertical guidance (e.g. LNAV+V). The system includes an artificially created advisory glide path from the final approach fix to the touchdown point on the runway. The intent is to aid the pilot in flying constant descent to the MDA. LNAV+V is not the same as LNAV/VNAV or LPV. Pilots must use the barometric altimeter as the primary altitude reference to meet all altitude restriction”
Which means if you follow the +V guidance, you might hit the ground, you HAVE to check the altitude at certain points of your descent.
Plus no angular deviation as Airborne_Again mentions above, only a linear one.
Been thinking about this. I guess the real issue is not the difference between the LPV and the LNAV minima as such. The issue is going to be with the legality of many flights to the UK with regards to weather minima for the required alternate(s). The degraded procedure for an LPV will be the LNAV minima – I think we can agree x- feet is not going to make that much of a difference – but the degraded LNAV is going to be the NDB for which minima will be much higher. UK in winter this is not legally going to work for filing as also the RVR increases by a lot.
Which means if you follow the +V guidance, you might hit the ground
I don’t think so, unless you go below the nonprecision IAP DH. The +V slope is supposed to be drafted to be above all the stepdown fixes (SDFs). Otherwise, what is the point of having it, especially autopilot coupled?
The issue is going to be with the legality of many flights to the UK with regards to weather minima for the required alternate(s).
Is there a minima based planning requirement?
I don’t know EASA but in FAA-land the legal requirement is the famous 3-2-1: if the weather at your destination isn’t at least 3 SM of visibility and 2000’ AGL ceilings from 1 hour before to 1 hour after your ETA, you need to file an alternate.
You can 100% legally fly to an airport which is reporting OVC001, provided the RVR (and only then if RVR is being officially reported) is > 800m at 1000ft AAL but that applies only when you are about to descend through 1000ft AAL.
