Herhaalde malen beklaagt men zich dat ik vooral verwijs naar ENGELSTALIGE website daarom nu even kijken bij onze NEDERLANDSE vrienden welk intresante aspecten toelichten in hun
One of the vital aspects for a delegate of a particular AIRSPACE USER ACTIVITY is also to have
knowledge of the requirements for the activity of other AIERSPACE USERS
There is ONLY ONE AIRSPACE in whitch the various ACTIVITY are taken place;
One of the major problem is thad many of the DELEGATES have very good knowmedge of their
own activty but not of the other AIRSPACE USERS
This is one of the advantages I have by beeing involved myself in MILITARY and GENERAL
AVIATION activity and also the knowledge I have obtained by my presence in the various
AVIATION related meetings since 1980 on a almost daily base and having contacts with the various AIRSPACE USERS organisations içn the EU-INSTITUTIONS in BRUSSELS
I also have developed a NETWORK of contacts with persons in the various organisations on a
Some persons are proposing to have GALILEO as back up for GPS
Acordint to the obtained information is GPS, GALILEO and GLONAS using the same
FREQUENCY SPECTRUM and under the influance of SUNSPOTS or a unlawfull transmission wil have effect in a large AREA the utulisation of any of the three GNSS systems
For the moment whe have stil the NDB's and VOR's but this is a very costly groundbased system
where the GNSS will be much less costly and more homogene and precise navigation system
A intresting subject concers te BACK UP for GNSS failure
The present ATSP and CAA are trying to decrease the presence of NDB and VOR for RADIONAVIGATION in vieuw of the present avaiblity of GPS( a GNSS)
Also in the future the avaiblity of GPS, GLONAS, GALILEO and other SATELITE NAVIGATION.
BUT ....... there is a need for a BACK UP incase of the failure of the GNSS because al this systems are subject to failure by SUN SPOTS or by TERORISME.
The CAT is for this proposing the DME/DME
but this is not avaible for lichter AIRCRAFT operating in IFR.
for this whe have evazluated in a certain group of IAOPA thad the best solution is the already esisting LORAN "C" used by the US-NAVY and also the FRENCH MILITARY.
Whe have made this proposal already in 1990 toward the FAA and EUROCO0NTROL without succes
But there is again a danger toward the US-NAVY LORZN "C" via a footnote to the USA BUDGET to abolisch the LORAN "C" in vieuw to reduce the budget with 190 milion $ over five years.
From inside USA information this proposal will be again rejected
At EUROCONTROL there is a team of experts pro LORAN C as back-up for GALILEO, andalso in the SESII and SESAR this is mentiones as a solution
On behave of GA & AW operating IFR do whe need strongly support the LORAN "C" to be maintained and developed as back up for GNSS, acording us there is no other solutions the DME/DME is to HEAVY in WEIGHT and to COSTLY.
