GPS backup

Salty said:
I don’t know what happened, but I never posted what’s in the quote box with my name on it.
Click to expand...
That’s just odd. You indeed didn’t post that. Someone else did. How was that even possible?
 
Salty said:
I don’t know what happened, but I never posted what’s in the quote box with my name on it.
Click to expand...
Yeah! That was MY post! But you might agree that with 592 AM radio stations in Florida it would be nice to have a simple device that keeps a running estimate of your position by utilizing them as a backup to GPS. https://radiostation.info/am/florida/
 
WDD said:
That’s just odd. You indeed didn’t post that. Someone else did. How was that even possible?
Click to expand...
A quote tag got deleted somehow. It can happen when one deletes part of a post they are trying to quote.
 
dtuuri said:
Yeah! That was MY post! But you might agree that with 592 AM radio stations in Florida it would be nice to have a simple device that keeps a running estimate of your position by utilizing them as a backup to GPS. https://radiostation.info/am/florida/
Click to expand...
I guess a DF antenna could be installed for that purpose. The receiver would need to have a database of station frequencies and locations. The receiver would need to know the last GPS position in order to differentiate between broadcast stations on the same frequency.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Sure, If you have nothing else, all bets are off and the rules don't matter.
Click to expand...

Your comment and article earlier prompted me to go back and read the AFMS for my GTN650. Thank you.

Amazingly, the Abnormal Procedures section describes the outcomes when there’s a loss of GPS/SBAS Nav signal and what actions to take; same for approach downgrades.
 
TCABM said:
Amazingly, the Abnormal Procedures section describes the outcomes when there’s a loss of GPS/SBAS Nav signal and what actions to take; same for approach downgrades.
Click to expand...
Not so amazing since "here is where we think you are" mode has been there since the GNS-WAAS models
 
Palmpilot said:
The receiver would need to know the last GPS position in order to differentiate between broadcast stations on the same frequency.
Click to expand...
Brainstorming with you, why is GPS needed? Each location, say pixel on a map of, say, Florida, would have one set of theoretical bearings that should exist over that point. So, the device would only need to find the pixel with the highest number of matching bearings — and there's where you probably are. No?
 
MikeNY said:
If useful as heads up,
FLIGHT ADVISORY - GPS Interference Testing - Patuxent River (29 July-16 August)
(weekdays, 7am-11am lcl)
"testing ... may result in unreliable or unavailable GPS signal"

View attachment 131736
"This notice is being sent to you because you selected "Selected ATC Notices" in your preferences on FAASafety.gov."
[faasafety.gov > My Preferences and Profile > Email Notification Preferences]
... or full list under Resources > Notices

Addition to checking NOTAMs, RAIM check, etc., 'email notification' for Flight Advisory, (VIP TFRs, etc.) can be helpful as ... heads up.
Click to expand...
GPS interference testing in a similar time frame in the Fort Drum area of NY, which will potentially affect Syracuse and points south in Central NY depending on altitude.
 
chemgeek said:
GPS interference testing in a similar time frame in the Fort Drum area of NY, which will potentially affect Syracuse and points south in Central NY depending on altitude.
Click to expand...
We get those periodically at Fort Liberty in North Carolina.
 
Half Fast said:
So please explain how that AM broadcast station will let you fly an IFR approach, unless it happens to have its broadcast tower located on the airport runway, which seems unlikely.

Can you triangulate between multiple broadcast stations? Yes, if you have some sort of steerable antenna, but the accuracy probably won’t be sufficient for an IFR approach, and you will want some automation that doesn’t exist yet. If you have to develop something new, maybe it makes sense to use a better method.

So yes, the geeks are indeed “ruining” a concept that doesn’t work and suggesting concepts that might.
Click to expand...

Hmm, there were approaches before VORs and TACAN (which includes DME).

NDB approaches did not require the station to be ON the field. Just fairly nearby.

Multi station triangulation would certainly allow you to shoot an approach. NO, not to ILS minimums, but at least better than no approach.

And an ADF did the DFing without anything complicated.

Many years ago, some drafted an approach plate based on a commercial broadcast station to a local airport that had no approaches. It looked like the real thing. I don't KNOW that anyone ever flew that approach for real, but I know that it was flown for fun in VFR conditions.
 
dtuuri said:
Brainstorming with you, why is GPS needed? Each location, say pixel on a map of, say, Florida, would have one set of theoretical bearings that should exist over that point. So, the device would only need to find the pixel with the highest number of matching bearings — and there's where you probably are. No?
Click to expand...
The problem is that each frequency is used by multiple stations around the country and around the world. It sounds like your database would need to include a unique set of bearings, frequencies, and hours of operation for every pixel on the chart. Maybe the size of the database could be made more manageable by limiting the scan to "clear channel" frequencies.
 
William Pete Hodges said:
Not too long ago I flew through an area where GPS coverage was interrupted or possibly jammed for about ½ hour. I continued navigating by dead reckoning and dialed up the nearest VOR to use as a reference. Fortunately there was an active VOR along my route, but VORs are being decommissioned every day and the number remaining is dwindling fast along with their NDB counterparts.

The GPS network is a remarkable system allowing navigation flexibility and ease of use, but it is only as good as the signals available. My recent flight proved to me it's vulnerability to be interrupted. My situation occurred mid flight so it was easy for me to maintain my flight but what if it had happened during IMC conditions or during an IFR approach?

I have been doing some research into this and I think the FAA needs to rethink this policy and add back some ground based radio navigation systems especially NDBs. Why NDBs? NDBs are the least expensive ground based navigation system available. They are easy to maintain as they require minimal maintenance. In the cockpit they are less precise and harder to use than VORs but they have the advantage of using not only dedicated NDBs but also AM radio station signals that require zero maintenance costs incurred by the FAA.

In short I think the FAA should reevaluate their position on NDBs and reinstate many of them for use as navigation aids as a backup to GPS. I realize I am likely in the minority in this line of thinking, but I am intending to reinstall an ADF in my airplane for this reason.

I am interested on your thoughts on this subject. What do you think?
Click to expand...
How would the children of the purple line learn how to naviagate using an NDB?
 
Clip4 said:
How would the children of the purple line learn how to naviagate using an NDB?
Click to expand...
Ahhh, but the children of the purple are learning to use bearing pointers - standard with glass. Not as well as they should, and maybe not even for the checkride, but they are learning.
 
Palmpilot said:
The problem is that each frequency is used by multiple stations around the country and around the world. It sounds like your database would need to include a unique set of bearings, frequencies, and hours of operation for every pixel on the chart. Maybe the size of the database could be made more manageable by limiting the scan to "clear channel" frequencies.
Click to expand...
Easier to maintain position with GPS and confirm with ADF cross bearings. And if GPS goes away (and it knows when it does) you have a known starting position.

DME/DME or VOR/DME is easier.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Ahhh, but the children of the purple are learning to use bearing pointers - standard with glass. Not as well as they should, and maybe not even for the checkride, but they are learning.
Click to expand...
Using a pointer and tracking is a bit of a different skill set.
 
Pinecone said:
DME/DME or VOR/DME is easier.
Click to expand...

Some agree, some don’t. But in any case VOR and DME stations are going away because of cost, maintenance and reliability issues, etc. So I would say a GPS back up isn’t going to use VOR / DMEs.

And that doesn’t help you with shooting an approach in IMC what with ILS transmitters also being shut down for the same reasons.

………………..
BTW - If the military is jamming GPS signals to deny others the ability to precisely guide/navigate, wouldn’t they also have to learn how to and practice jamming the back up system?

A back up system would also have to be able to survive solar weather. And MicroSoft security upgrades.
 
WDD said:
BTW - If the military is jamming GPS signals to deny others the ability to precisely guide/navigate, wouldn’t they also have to learn how to and practice jamming the back up system?
Click to expand...

That's not what's happening within CONUS. Typically the US military is testing whether US equipment can function properly in a GPS-denied environment, such as an enemy using jammers. All the outages I've been involved with have been very brief, like a few minutes, even though a NOTAM might give an hour or two.

As an example, suppose the AF is testing a weapon. They might have a range launch window of two hours, even though the engagement will only last a few minutes. The warning of GPS outage has to cover that entire window, but in reality the jamming will begin shortly before launch and end immediately after the flight is terminated.

Without getting into too many specifics, a missile will often use GPS to get within a capture "basket" inside of which the weapon will engage with IR or radar or the end game. The jammer is located near the target, so the weapon has to be capable of lifting the GPS signal out of the jamming noise or rejecting a spoofed signal until it flies within range for the terminal guidance to take over. Often the missile is flying inertially and using GPS signals whenever it can get them to inform the inertial guidance.

There's a lot more complexity, both technical and tactical, to all of this but it wouldn't be appropriate to dig deeply into it all on the forum.
 
WDD said:
Some agree, some don’t. But in any case VOR and DME stations are going away because of cost, maintenance and reliability issues, etc. So I would say a GPS back up isn’t going to use VOR / DMEs.

And that doesn’t help you with shooting an approach in IMC what with ILS transmitters also being shut down for the same reasons.
Click to expand...
They are shutting down VORs, not DMEs. MUCH small footprint and less maintenance.

Airlines and some bizjets use DME/DME/INS or DME/DME/DME as primary nav.
 
StraightnLevel said:
OK....but if GPS goes out for everyone and nobody else in the air has a backup, how many aircraft does ATC have the bandwidth to support?
Click to expand...
After the 9/11 attacks, ATC got over 4,500 aircraft on the ground in less than 3 hours. And that was before the days of RNAV/GPS being so prevalent.


As for the question at hand, I disagree that NDBs are any kind of navaid that should still be in use. Over the last 3 years, I've flown 8 or 9 different GA aircraft. None of them have an ADF on board. They all, however have VOR capabilities. The ages of these planes range from a 1963 C172 to a 2024 Ranger. If the government is going to pick a legacy system to stick with, I'd prefer VOR. This comes from a perspective of both pilot and radio nerd. When you consider the limitations of NDBs compared to the advantages, reliability, and capabilities of VOR (including instrument approaches (yes, I know NDB approaches exist, we have one here on Cape but VOR approaches are significantly safer)) then I'd prefer money well-spent in maintaining the skeleton VOR receivers as planned.
 
KE5BM said:
....... If the government is going to pick a legacy system to stick with, I'd prefer VOR. This comes from a perspective of both pilot and radio nerd. When you consider the limitations of NDBs compared to the advantages, reliability, and capabilities of VOR (including instrument approaches (yes, I know NDB approaches exist, we have one here on Cape but VOR approaches are significantly safer)) then I'd prefer money well-spent in maintaining the skeleton VOR receivers as planned.
Click to expand...
yeah, I doubt if many would disagree in that preference from a useability perspective....IF it's gotta be a legacy system.
but for the purposes of never gonna happen discussions.....the reason I default back to NDB as the better, is only because of simplicity. I think there was real beauty in the simplicity of it, especially considering that when married with modern microelectronics, all the vacuum tubes go away. AND granted it's low precision, but as a last ditch backup (for small GA anyway) it's enough...and it really was easy for a simple approach where the NDB was on airport. Time and steer the needle and watch the altitude.
 
Pinecone said:
They are shutting down VORs, not DMEs. MUCH small footprint and less maintenance.

Airlines and some bizjets use DME/DME/INS or DME/DME/DME as primary nav.
Click to expand...
Ah - I had thought a DME was coupled with a VOR. So there are DMEs separate from VOR towers / cones.
 
WDD said:
Ah - I had thought a DME was coupled with a VOR. So there are DMEs separate from VOR towers / cones.
Click to expand...
DME stations are, and always have been, completely separate from VORs. A VOR-DME or VORTAC is a VOR or TACAN that is co-located with a DME station. DME stations have also been co-located with NDBs.

DME operates on a higher frequency than VOR. DME is UHF in the 960–1215 MHz band.

Each VOR and LOC channel is paired with a DME channel, just as each LOC channel is paired with a DME channel. When you tune a VOR or LOC frequency on your radio, the paired DME frequency is also tuned on the radio's DME receiver.

In the rare case where a DME station is installed without a VOR or LOC, the chart will list the paired VOR or LOC frequency so that you can tune it on a NAV radio.
 
WDD said:
Ah - I had thought a DME was coupled with a VOR. So there are DMEs separate from VOR towers / cones.
Click to expand...
Looks like this on the chart (Quitman):
1722096136745.png
 
Larry in TN said:
In the rare case where a DME station is installed without a VOR or LOC………
Click to expand...
So it’s rare that a DME would be installed without a VOR. So if there are very few VOR stations left, there would be very few DME stations left.

Are there enough left to be used in some fashion / data source for an effective GPS back up?
 
asicer said:
Looks like this on the chart (Quitman):
Click to expand...
That's a good example. Notice how the DME chart symbol is the box that we see surrounding the VOR symbol on a VOR-DME

WDD said:
So it’s rare that a DME would be installed without a VOR. So if there are very few VOR stations left, there would be very few DME stations left.
Click to expand...
No, they aren't removing all the DMEs when they remove the VORs. Some DMEs will remain but those were installed as a stand-alone DMEs and remain operational after the VOR was decommissioned.. They were installed as part of a VOR-DME or VORTAC.
 
WDD said:
So it’s rare that a DME would be installed without a VOR. So if there are very few VOR stations left, there would be very few DME stations left.

Are there enough left to be used in some fashion / data source for an effective GPS back up?
Click to expand...
There are many DMEs collated with localizer antennas as well, providing DME along an ILS.

Yes, DME is ALREADY used as a effective GPS backup. DME/DME positioning is already included in thousands of turbine aircraft FMSes. It would not be any kind of technological problem to make units for light GA.
 
RussR said:
It would not be any kind of technological problem to make units for light GA.
Click to expand...
Or better yet - just build that capability into existing units and make it automatic ( GTNs, Aspens, etc. )

No tuning, no frequency look up. It just works.
 
Larry in TN said:
That's a good example. Notice how the DME chart symbol is the box that we see surrounding the VOR symbol on a VOR-DME
...
Some DMEs will remain but those were installed as a stand-alone DMEs and remain operational after the VOR was decommissioned.. They were installed as part of a VOR-DME or VORTAC.
Click to expand...
I think Quitman might also be an example of your second paragraph. I seem to recall it being one of the VOR/DME on my private pilot written test or in the King test prep materials.
 
It hasn't been mentioned here yet so in case we have any readers that aren't aware of the FAA's plan for VORs in the future...

The FAA has stated that their intention with VORs is that at any given location in the United States, there will be a VOR that can be used in conjunction with an instrument approach to an airport within 100nm. The theory being, if you have VOR capability then you can at least capture a localizer (hopefully the glideslope, too). So if GPS were to fail, you could still revert back to VORs to get you TO the airport and LOC/ILS to get you ON the airport.

I have admittedly very little experience so far, but I've seen VORs work at all but the lowest altitudes out pretty far. Many times over 100nm. Obviously if you're out in the western mountains where terrain is much more of an issue, your mileage will vary. My understanding is that the "skeleton" VOR constellation is accounting for this. But...federal government. I know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two.
 
Last edited:
WDD said:
Ah - I had thought a DME was coupled with a VOR. So there are DMEs separate from VOR towers / cones.
Click to expand...
DME is part of TACAN. Which is why some many VORs are actually VORTACs.

But you can have TACAN or just DME without the VOR portion.
 
Yes, different systems.... VOR, DME, Tacan....when considering the actual infrastructure from the standpoint of maintaining some and decommissioning others, I'm curious about the actual hardware
You have some that look like an oversized horizontal trampoline platform structure, without the actual fabric tramp...
and you have others that are a small building with a round flat roof and a large boneheaded coupala on top
and probably other styles too....

I understand that they are separate electronics systems, likely using different antenna, etc... but I wonder how integrated they all are inside these structures.
Is it a simple matter to rip out the dead VOR leaving something that makes sense? for DME only?
I imagine that most of the structure is related to the VOR portion (and/or the TACAN)

Just this weekend I drove past SSI and was thinking of this thread while pondering that little building. It's sitting in the salt marshland, and it's probably an old building (maybe built 40-50 years ago?). How many leaks and floods has it seen? Constant corrosion in the salt environment.... seems like a nightmare to me.

I don't know if this VOR is part of the Minimum network or not, but I'd imagine that there are many of these in places like this that have gone on the fritz and they have decided to not repair. Maybe the VOR is shot but the DME still works.
Would it make sense really, to maintain that building if they are only keeping the DME?
Is the DME stuff inside there all tangled up with the VOR so it would be a difficult task to clean out the dead wood?
 
VOR is the big round flat building with the witch's hat in the center. And there is an outer ring of antennas.

TACAN is a small cylinder. On a VORTAC it is the top of the witch's hat were it becomes cylindrical. TACAN is designed to be flown into anywhere and put on the air in a few hours. For my recollection, it is not quite as precise as VOR. They can even be man portable.

VOR and TACAN need to be oriented to North. DME does not.

DME only station is a box and an antenna.

VORTAC

1722354793420.png

TACAN
1722354894446.png

DME Only Station
1722354924389.png
 
cool.
Is the DME in that photo only just the fencepost thing with a small box mounted on the side, or does it include the red and white building behind it?
 
I think it includes the red/white enclosure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top