In Loving Memory Of
Founder of AVSIM Online
Hot Spots:Latest News & Homepage
File Library - What's New
Latest Product Reviews
FS9/FSX/P3D CTD Guide v3
FSX / P3D Config Guide
Bargain Hunters Forum
Classified, Want, Swap Ads
News (1999 to 2012)
Product Reviews (2006-2012)
Advertise on AVSIM!
Sim Site Rankings
The AVSIM Staff
AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!
Airport and Navigation aids
22 replies to this topic
Posted 01 March 2006 - 06:57 AM
The future of LORAN C in Europe is far from certain. Stations are already being closed. See my earlier post.
Posted 28 February 2006 - 07:50 PM
>example, the King KLN-88 can be purchased for less than 20>percent of its initial list price and has virtually all of the>same features of the $8,000 KLN-90 that replaced it! Virtually all of the same features? KLN-88 is only enroute IFR certfied, KLN-90 is also IFR approach certified, for me this is a huge difference. So the price may in fact be much less but in this case I am afraid you get what you pay for.Michael J.http://www.precision...m/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim...banner-beta.jpg
Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:50 PM
Hy Cklyu. Well that is what I figured out too. I thought it was more widely used in Northern America as well as for oceanic flights. The fact is that every aircraft I have flown here in the US (5) were LORAN equipped.But maybe most of the people do not use it, or maybe most of the answer I got were from European simmers that are of course not accustomed to Loran. In any case, that is a nice article I found about Loran on http://www.avionix.com/. (well it is written by someone who sell avionics, both LORAN and GPS system. So there might be a bias.."LORAN IS HERE TO STAY! Many outstanding LORAN systems are out there for prices thousands of dollars less than what they sold for brand new. The world of LORAN has unfortunately taken a back seat to GPS lately and that brings a unique opportunity to the smart buyer. IFR certified LORANs are an especially good buy. As an example, the King KLN-88 can be purchased for less than 20 percent of its initial list price and has virtually all of the same features of the $8,000 KLN-90 that replaced it! At this time, the U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the LORAN system. However, with ongoing budget cuts, the Coast Guard has been looking to get the Department of Transportation or another branch of the Federal Government to maintain LORAN. Their rationale is that since LORAN has become much more than a marine navigation aid, they should not be solely responsible for its maintenance. Consequently 2 years ago the Congress made additional appropriations for LORAN. The government spent a fortune installing the new NOCUS and SOCUS LORAN chains only a few years ago. They know it's the only viable alternative to GPS for precision navigation and that it is in extensive use in aircraft, ships, and boats. Additionally, IFR certified GPS installations under TSO-C115 require a LORAN interface, meaning that the FAA will also fight any plans to eliminate LORAN. Furthermore, the cost to maintain a few LORAN ground stations is peanuts relative to the cost to maintaining GPS satellites and hundreds of aging VOR stations. The bottom line is that the VOR system is probably more likely to go before LORAN ever does -- in fact, the FAA has already mentioned the possible phasing out of VOR stations over the mid-term. For the budget conscious pilot seeking to upgrade from VOR and ADF navigation systems, buying a full-featured LORAN is a viable and affordable way to go, particularly if you consider going with a reconditioned unit. For a fraction of the cost, you can have all the database and flight planning features of many of the best GPS units, installed and operational in your airplane. You can even use the cost savings to buy a moving map! While GPS is considered a status symbol these days, the features you will get from a good LORAN are really what will count once you are airborne. Additionally, although GPS owners will tell you that LORAN isn't quite as accurate (it might be off a quarter of a mile, for instance), most VFR pilots won't ever need to navigate within a 50 foot tolerance in any case. "Cheers guys.CJ
Posted 27 February 2006 - 08:59 AM
Well maybe I am showing my niavity and lack of knowledge here, but I'd never really heard or paid much attention to LORANs until it was mentioned here - and it seems most people here are the same. IRS have been used on aircraft for a very long time, the Delco system you were linked to I believe dates from the 60/70s. The Vickers VC10 (big fan of that) had IRS with at least one backup and that's from the 60s and I don't think it had a Lorens reciever.The fact of the matter is there seems to be very little interest in it (this topic would seem to indicate so) and most users seem happy to use GPS and/or IRS. It also appears that they are already begining to decomission it (at least in Europe) and it seems silly to model a system which is being phased out and few people will use. LORANs does NOT cover any of South America nor does it cover much of Africa. Greenland and Northern Canada have no coverage and neither does anything south of Malaysia (so that's Australia and New Zealand). LORANs also has changed over the years, LORAN-A was the initial version before LORAN-C and LORAN-C didn't come about until the widespread use of INS.It all boils down to that same arguement really, limited time and resources and making the most of them. I think that LORANs will be pretty low down the priorities list considering there is (apparently) so little demand.The fact is you can model LORANs in FS now if you want. If there was enough demand it would have already been done. You don't need any fancy stuff, a sophisticated enough gauge could accurately model LORANs, the only thing it needs from the sim is position information. It can simulate the rest of it within the gauge code.As for OMEGA I have never heard or seen of it at all but have since read up on it, and as far as I can tell has always been predominately a military system and furthermore it is no longer available."Due to the success of the Global Positioning System the use of Omega declined during the 1990s, to a point where the cost of operating Omega could no longer be justified. Omega was permanently terminated on September 30, 1997 and all stations ceased operation". - No point modelling that then. The Rusian counterpart, Alpha, is still in use but no doubt that usage in civillian quarters is probably extremely limited.
Chris Liu, proud supporter of ViaIntercity.com
Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:59 PM
Portable GPS (handheld) is not an accepted instrument for navigation..In what is it obsolete? Let's hear your technology point... Furthermore, it is more accurate in urban environment than GPS (of course of little utility for aviation...but do not burry it until it is dead..) But I would like to hear your point about absolete...I tend to believe it will bring some interesting points that my avionics classes have not shown me till now...Piper Warrior II, a retro aircraft? OK, it is not a G1000 equipped C172, but it is not a Piper Cub too...Also thanks for pointing me a nice INS station. You made my day!Cheers,Cedric
Posted 26 February 2006 - 07:15 PM
>Loran is for instance of the utmost usefullness for crossing>the North Pacific and North Atlantic without any GPS. Does it make sense to anyone, to me it does not. Any pilot who can afford crossing the Atlantic in his aircraft would surely afford to purchase a portable GPS for $500, he would not be relying on obsolete technology. And in 99.9% of cases he would actually be flying with a panel mounted IFR certified GPS receiver. Sorry, I don't think it makes sense to demand that MS simulates technology that may be used today by 0.0001% of pilots who fancy flying in "retro-equipped" aircraft. These days even DC-3s still in operation tend to have state of the art GPS equipment unless their use is restricted to local VFR only.Michael J.http://www.precision...m/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim...banner-beta.jpg
Posted 27 February 2006 - 02:06 PM
According to the SIA chart, Etrepagny (LFFY) has an unpaved runway, no comms, naviads or lighting. It's not open to the general public ("Usage Restreint") and its use is "reserved for home based and neighbouring AD ACFT" with a specified list of neighbouring ADs. Saint Valery Vittefleur (LFOS) is open to the public but otherwise is very similar, and I can't find any information about Yvetot in the AIP. Where is Microsoft expected to draw the line in selecting aerodromes? Anyway, it's so easy to model simple aerodromes like these that those who really wanted it could do it themselves with AFCAD and FstFlatten if necessary.
Posted 27 February 2006 - 08:14 AM
LORAN C in Europe is/was operated under the NELS agreement between six European nations (Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, The Netherlands and Norway). NELS organisation announced that NELS would be discontinued on January 1st, 2006, although the Norwegian government announced the closure of its stations at Berlevag, Bo,Vaerlandet and Jan Mayen, they have been given a reprieve, as has a Danish station at Edje.Decisions on LORAN's future in Europe "depends on whether it will be possible to find a binding and sustainable new concept for LORAN C applying to all of Europe."
Posted 26 February 2006 - 07:10 PM
>And a good INS would be great too. I remember Staffan used to>have a nice INS gauge modelled for his DC-10 panel. However, I>have not seen any new one for freeware panels. One directly>from FS would be really great!>>Regards,>CJ>>edit: And the aircraft I flew was Loran equipped but not GPS>(fixed or handheld) equipped.. :-)Delco Carousel INS free for MSFS 9: http://www.simufly.com/ins/used in older 747, dc-10, a300....
Gustavo 'Omykron' Rodrigues - SBBR/BSB, Brazil
Posted 27 February 2006 - 02:38 AM
>I think to get back to the point of the original post, I>should point out that MS is probably limited by the source of>their data. I'm sure they aren't left out intentionally. Correct. We get data from the FAA, Jeppesen and DAFIF. If an airport isn't in those databases it likely won't be in FS.>That is, nobody at MS manually goes through and enters>airports into FS, but instead they by a database from>somebody, and run the data through a compiler to get basic>info about airports, buildings and navaids. Airports (locations and runways, only) and navaids we get. Buildings (and taxiways and aprons), alas, are all entered by hand. >Now it is>probable that when somebody was creating the database for your>country, they probably thought "is it even worth mentioning>this 800ft runway?", and therefore it got left out of the>database. Correct. It's not our call. FAA covers North America and has a provision for self-reported airfields, hence lots of small ones. Jeppesen is just an aggregator for government sources and DAFIF, well, I don't really know where they get their data.
>It seems reasonable to assume that many>of these airports would eventually get published to a database>(or AIP) and then MS would likely gladly add them to the>scenery base. If it arrives inside a database, we'll gladly take it.>I guess that>the decision was made not to include Loran based on how many>people would bother to use it.Just like evrything else in this business. ;)
Posted 27 February 2006 - 01:38 AM
I think to get back to the point of the original post, I should point out that MS is probably limited by the source of their data. I'm sure they aren't left out intentionally. That is, nobody at MS manually goes through and enters airports into FS, but instead they by a database from somebody, and run the data through a compiler to get basic info about airports, buildings and navaids. Now it is probable that when somebody was creating the database for your country, they probably thought "is it even worth mentioning this 800ft runway?", and therefore it got left out of the database. I own the AIP for Thailand (only $25!) and have received all the subsequent updates, and I can tell you that there are many airports not listed in there, including a couple with runways over 5000ft (private airports). Of course, I wouldn't expect MS to know about these airports if there isn't any info published about them. It seems reasonable to assume that many of these airports would eventually get published to a database (or AIP) and then MS would likely gladly add them to the scenery base. As for the alternate navigation methods (Loran, etc), well, I think that this may be more about drawing the line somewhere. It seems obvious that they would include GPS navigation, and ridiculous that they would include Celestial navigation. Everything else comes somewhere in between, and I guess that the decision was made not to include Loran based on how many people would bother to use it. If you do a search for "Loran" in the forum, you get a surprising number of results, which tells me that more people are aware of it than I first suspected.- Martin
My site: www.martinstrong.com/FS_Project.htm
Posted 26 February 2006 - 06:37 PM
>I don't really like your attitude...you seem to despise every>single bit I write. I am pointing out some stuff that are>missing. You're free not to share my views but not to try to>poke fun at me as if everything I say was stupid.LOL, don't worry Minos, he has that same attitude with everyone in every post. :-lol Marco
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." [Abraham Lincoln]
Posted 26 February 2006 - 06:31 PM
Hey, INS are not US restricted... where does that comes from??And if you're speaking about Loran, first you're partly incorrect since LORAN signal can be received even in Ireland and Canada and then what is your point? As far as I know, LORAN coverage does not extend to Australia. That's all..I don't really like your attitude...you seem to despise every single bit I write. I am pointing out some stuff that are missing. You're free not to share my views but not to try to poke fun at me as if everything I say was stupid.If I tell you that LORAN stations are not decommissionned yet (and probably won't be in the near future), it is simply because they are not decommissionned yet. Maybe you don't use it, but I use it and I guess some other people use it.No they shouldn't add any radio transmitters that broadcast simply because not all of them are on official aviation maps.However, there are many more official airports with official information and official Visual Approach Charts that are not included. So you might be lucky to have nearly all of them in the US, but that is not the case for some other country. And because I fly everywhere in the FS world, I just would like MS to model all the general aviation ***public*** airfield. I simply don't understand why MS stick with that magic number of 24,000 airports.Regards,CJEdit; Hopefully C47 and DC-6 did not stopped flying in the 40's... There are still C47 in service. And once Loran was fully available, I doubt they continued shouting the stars...
Posted 26 February 2006 - 03:24 PM
ah, so now you want something exclusive to the US?C-47s would not use LORAN even in the 1940s, they'd use sextants and shoot the stars. That is they'd do that on the few occasions they wouldn't have NDB navigation to rely on or were incapable of DF'ing a public broadcast station.Maybe Microsoft should incorporate every single public radio transmitter in the world so you could do that?Just a "small fix" after all...
Posted 26 February 2006 - 12:02 PM
As for the comment you did: I said I was not sure because there are more than what 10,000? 20,000? airliners and more than 60,000? GA planes in the world and I have not checked the cockpit of every single one.In any case, if that is simple to model by a FS team, I am right to wonder why it is not done...in FS. We have a DC-3 with a Garmin GPS... In the historical version of FS9, it would have been more appropriate to equip it with a LORAN or LORAN-C receiver.Anyway, I think that some Northwest aircraft still have Loran but I can be wrong. Whether they are biggies or small DC-9 I can't tell anymore. Anyway, the truth of the matter is that the Loran is still used and available widely. And it will still be available for a long time as a good alternative to the GPS (low frequency vs high frequency, ground based vs satellite based). Maybe the US will keep it running untill the new Galileo is available as a backup to GPS?As for sticking a GPS, well handheld GPS are not legal for IFR navigation, so you have to go to the full new installation of a GPS receiver inside the cokpit.Finally sure they have INS. I never said the opposite and on the contrary I believe every aircraft still have them and i would be very pleased that MS add some INS instruments (and not only the SHIFT Z....). But are you sure those airliners did not also have LORAN receivers? I thought that for NAT tracks you were obliged to have two different type of primary long range navigation systems in order to check for the error of the instruments. Remember that an INS is fine but it integrate twice your assumed accelerations. So errors keep on aggregating along your way... And because the GPS went accepted for civil airliners only recently (90's?), I don't know what they were using during the 60's, 70's and 80's as a backup for INS. Loran, Omega?In any case, the more the better. We have flocks of birds flying in FSX. Why not having the 21 Loran emitters as well as a nice Loran receiver that would simulate the Loran to its actual accuracy: accurate when near those emitting stations, less accurate when far away.And a good INS would be great too. I remember Staffan used to have a nice INS gauge modelled for his DC-10 panel. However, I have not seen any new one for freeware panels. One directly from FS would be really great!Regards,CJedit: And the aircraft I flew was Loran equipped but not GPS (fixed or handheld) equipped.. :-)