3 ms·

Hm, that's interesting to me. Is it just regulators (FAA I guess?) falling behind the times? Or is the GPS version really not adequate for some use case that is

by ketzo 5y ago

Hm, that's interesting to me. Is it just regulators (FAA I guess?) falling behind the times? Or is the GPS version really not adequate for some use case that is only satisfied by ILS (not sure what that is but I assume it's the "gold standard" landing approach?)

c1yd3i 5y ago
Airports served only by an RNAV (GPS) approach with LPV minimums have different alternate minimums (for planning purposes). That’s the only real distinction. LPV approaches are classified as non-precision due to an ICAO technicality over the lack of a ground transmitter at the airport. GLS approaches compensate for this.
p_l 5y ago
There are different categories of ILS approaches (one of them is actually impossible to implement at this time, as it requires tech that is at best in testing), and most importantly GPS is not considered "safe enough". Most use in heavy aviation is due to easier operation (especially with autopilot) but in better conditions only (i.e. at best equivalent of ILS Category 1)
tjohns 5y ago
GPS notoriously has poor altitude resolution. For this reason, GPS approaches are technically not considered "precision" approaches. WAAS (GPS plus a correction signal transmitted by separate geostationary satellites) improves the resolution to CAT I standards - an "LPV" approach. However, it's still not sufficient for CAT II/III approaches.
- jillesvangurp 5y ago
  You basically use the regular altimeter for altitude during such approaches. It's accurate enough to get to the decision height of a few hundred feet AGL after which you have to fly the rest of the approach manually anyway. That is true with CAT I ILS as well. A CAT III ILS approach requires very specialized equipment and training because you basically fly it all the way down to the runway with no requirement for visibility until moments before touchdown. However, GPS is a lot better when it is not being obstructed by buildings around you. Planes have the benefit of unobstructed paths to GPS satellites and would get a better quality and accuracy then you might get with a phone in a city. Also, using good antennas helps. So, the altitude accuracy would be fine mostly.
  - op00to 5y ago
    Fine mostly, until it’s not. Then maybe those last couple meters might count.
    - jillesvangurp 5y ago
      Fine as in common practice and the way aviation has been operating safely for the past few decades.
supernova87a 5y ago
To count as a precision approach (which ILS is), the equipment and procedure has to meet certain accuracy requirements (e.g. <x> feet error at <y> distance/height from touchdown) as well as the ability for the equipment itself to alert the user that things are out of tolerance within <z> seconds of being detected faulty. I.e. the transmitter on the ground must be able to detect that something is wrong and immediately cut out the signal / report it as inop to the receiver on the plane. When you're seconds from hitting the ground, that is a requirement. Although GPS based approaches have some aspects of this, I believe that they just don't meet the exact requirements as written currently, although they are close.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  Outside of the U.S., there are GPS-based precision approaches. I say GPS-based because they all require SBAS (space-based augmentation systems, like WAAS or EGNOS) rather than being pure GPS systems. ICAO recognizes SBAS Cat I as a precision approach, and there are dozens of them in Europe (France, Austria at least).

by ketzo 5y ago

c1yd3i 5y ago

Airports served only by an RNAV (GPS) approach with LPV minimums have different alternate minimums (for planning purposes). That’s the only real distinction. LPV approaches are classified as non-precision due to an ICAO technicality over the lack of a ground transmitter at the airport. GLS approaches compensate for this.

p_l 5y ago

There are different categories of ILS approaches (one of them is actually impossible to implement at this time, as it requires tech that is at best in testing), and most importantly GPS is not considered "safe enough". Most use in heavy aviation is due to easier operation (especially with autopilot) but in better conditions only (i.e. at best equivalent of ILS Category 1)

tjohns 5y ago

GPS notoriously has poor altitude resolution. For this reason, GPS approaches are technically not considered "precision" approaches. WAAS (GPS plus a correction signal transmitted by separate geostationary satellites) improves the resolution to CAT I standards - an "LPV" approach. However, it's still not sufficient for CAT II/III approaches.

jillesvangurp 5y ago
You basically use the regular altimeter for altitude during such approaches. It's accurate enough to get to the decision height of a few hundred feet AGL after which you have to fly the rest of the approach manually anyway. That is true with CAT I ILS as well. A CAT III ILS approach requires very specialized equipment and training because you basically fly it all the way down to the runway with no requirement for visibility until moments before touchdown. However, GPS is a lot better when it is not being obstructed by buildings around you. Planes have the benefit of unobstructed paths to GPS satellites and would get a better quality and accuracy then you might get with a phone in a city. Also, using good antennas helps. So, the altitude accuracy would be fine mostly.
- op00to 5y ago
  Fine mostly, until it’s not. Then maybe those last couple meters might count.
  - jillesvangurp 5y ago
    Fine as in common practice and the way aviation has been operating safely for the past few decades.

supernova87a 5y ago

To count as a precision approach (which ILS is), the equipment and procedure has to meet certain accuracy requirements (e.g. <x> feet error at <y> distance/height from touchdown) as well as the ability for the equipment itself to alert the user that things are out of tolerance within <z> seconds of being detected faulty. I.e. the transmitter on the ground must be able to detect that something is wrong and immediately cut out the signal / report it as inop to the receiver on the plane. When you're seconds from hitting the ground, that is a requirement. Although GPS based approaches have some aspects of this, I believe that they just don't meet the exact requirements as written currently, although they are close.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
Outside of the U.S., there are GPS-based precision approaches. I say GPS-based because they all require SBAS (space-based augmentation systems, like WAAS or EGNOS) rather than being pure GPS systems. ICAO recognizes SBAS Cat I as a precision approach, and there are dozens of them in Europe (France, Austria at least).