News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Metro Crash May Exemplify Paradox of Human-Machine Intera... by tokenadult on Monday June 29, 2009 @09:47AM (#678919)
I think the intentional lack of resolution in civilian GPS is in part because it is not intended to be an air navigation back-up system.
Re:Metro Crash May Exemplify Paradox of Human-Machine Intera... by LogicHoleFlaw on Monday June 29, 2009 @10:28AM (#678983)
I was under the impression that the "degraded civilian" properties of GPS have been disabled for some years now.
Re:Metro Crash May Exemplify Paradox of Human-Machine Intera... by CWuestefeld on Monday June 29, 2009 @12:19PM (#679180)
I believe that IFR-certified GPS systems have the added capability of factoring Differential GPS. This is an additional GPS beacon (aside from the satellites) originating from the airport you're landing at, which have a location that's very accurately known.

High-price civilian GPS receivers are capable of this -- except you rarely have access to such a beacon. I mean, the restaurant I'm going to eat at isn't going to provide my little TomTom with a differential signal. With aviation, it's important enough that high-traffic airports provide the DGPS beacons.

Re:Metro Crash May Exemplify Paradox of Human-Machine Intera... by cameldrv on Monday June 29, 2009 @05:35PM (#679723)
This isn't true. IFR certified GPS units generally don't have Differential receivers. The main reason for this as far as I can tell is integrity. To be IFR certified, the receiver has to be able to tell when a satellite is giving bad data. In the older units, this was done with RAIM, which basically compares what is coming in from all of the satellites, and determines if all of the satellites are providing positioning that is relatively consistent. DGPS is a relatively simple system, and there's no way to check the DGPS signal for integrity. Without the ability to check for integrity, the additional accuracy is useless, as the design of instrument approaches is based on worst-case scenarios.

Now newer IFR certified units do have WAAS, which is similar to DGPS, except the signal is transmitted from a satellite, and is based on measurements from a couple dozen ground stations, the correction interpolated in the unit.

There has been a proposal to implement a system called LAAS for a number of years, which would be like DGPS, but would have the integrity checks that are required for aviation. However, it never really got off the ground.

As it stands, with WAAS, you can be guided to 200 feet above the runway, but this is not as good as the old analog radio ILS, which, if setup in a sophisticated way, can take a plane all the way to the surface.

Re:Metro Crash May Exemplify Paradox of Human-Machine Intera... by lief79 on Monday June 29, 2009 @10:41AM (#679017)
Yes, but I believe they still reserve the right to restore them whenever they choose.
Re:Metro Crash May Exemplify Paradox of Human-Machine Intera... by LogicHoleFlaw on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:02AM (#679052)
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS#Selective_availability):

On 19 September 2007, the United States Department of Defense announced that future GPS III satellites will not be capable of implementing SA,[59] eventually making the policy permanent.[60]

Re:Metro Crash May Exemplify Paradox of Human-Machine Intera... by lief79 on Monday June 29, 2009 @04:54PM (#679651)
Thanks, I did not know that.
Re:Metro Crash May Exemplify Paradox of Human-Machine Intera... by designtofly on Monday June 29, 2009 @01:12PM (#679265)
Aircraft with Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) are certified to use GPS as a primary navigation source. [1] [2]

[1] http://www8.garmin.com/support/faqs/faq.jsp?faq=221

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System