Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.


A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Add Images & Files
    Re: Loran-C
    From: Scott Owen
    Date: 2009 Mar 24, 21:13 -0500

    Lu Abel wrote:
    > The recently updated Federal Radio Navigation Plan, a document jointly
    > created by the departments of Homeland Security and Defense and the
    > Federal Aviation Administration calls for phasing out of Loran-C.  It
    > also calls for moving responsibility for Loran from the Coast Guard to a
    > different part of DHS.
    Do you know the date of the "updated" Federal Radio Navigation Plan?
    Might be easier to kill LORAN-C if the USCG doesn't have a say.
    > The call to preserve Loran-C, which motivated not only the preservation
    > of the system but a call to create e-Loran was the result of an
    > Institute of Defense Analysis study which pointed out the
    > vulnerabilities of GPS for both military and especially civilian use and
    > called for creation of a second high precision navigation system using
    An IDA study that says you need a "independent" second system.  Any good
    navigator could have told them this.  They had to know this before
    commissioning the study, so why have IDA do a LORAN-C/e-LORAN study?
    Funding support.
    > totally separate technology.  I would see this as especially important
    > to the FAA, since a whole bunch of challenges to aircraft navigation
    > (especially so-called zero-zero landings) can be solved with precision
    Zero-Zero is as bad a weather observation as it gets [Zero ceiling and
    Zero visibility, no matter which way you look you can't see your hand].
       I'm not sure if you're a pilot, but Zero-Zero landings are risky.
    IMHO, after one attempt to land in Zero-Zero conditions and if you are
    unable to land safely, you should divert to your designated alternate
    field, regardless of the electronic equipment aboard and experience
    level of the pilots.
    > navigation tools -- but it's pretty scary to think of your airplane on
    > final approach under zero-visibility conditions into a major airport
    > when somebody's TV decides to go on the blink and jam GPS, so I'm really
    > surprised the FAA is accepting this call for eliminating e-Loran.
    I am not surprised as I don't know many aircraft that have LORAN-C
    installed.  Regardless of e-Loran's projected precision, it's unlikely
    to replace the currently installed avionics for precision approaches.
    FWIW, ANY radio signal can be jammed by some very unlikely things.
    There are only two precision approach methods I am aware of.  ILS
    [Instrument Landing System, a radio beaconing system that is very
    accurate in both course and glideslope]and PAR [Precision Approach
    Radar, a narrow beam high PRF radar that allows the radar operator to
    see accurately both course and glideslope and relay that information to
    the pilots via radio].  To my knowledge GPS approaches are still
    considered NON-precision approaches.
    Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
    To post, email NavList@fer3.com
    To unsubscribe, email NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com

    Browse Files

    Drop Files


    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site