According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), space weather forecasters have observed “at least seven coronal mass ejections [CMEs] from the sun, with impacts expected to arrive on Earth as early as midday Friday, May 10, and persist through Sunday, May 12.”

The prediction prompted a warning for pilots from the FAA.

“Geomagnetic storms can disrupt navigational aids and high frequency radio transmissions used in aviation. The FAA advises airlines and pilots to plan ahead to mitigate possible disruptions,” the agency said in a statement.

NOAA issued a Severe (G4) Geomagnetic Storm Watch and states these watches will be updated through the weekend.

First G4 (Severe) geomagnetic since 2005 has been issued.

The aurora tonight (5/10) /tomorrow morning (5/11) may become visible over much of the northern half of the country, & possibly as far south as Alabama to northern California. https://t.co/upPlNYuNev@NWSSWPC @NWS pic.twitter.com/JTHmXtRKOc

— NOAA (@NOAA) May 10, 2024

According to NOAA, coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are explosions of plasma and magnetic fields from the sun’s corona. These storms can disrupt satellites and infrastructure in near-Earth orbit, “potentially disrupting communications, the electric power grid, navigation, [and] radio and satellite operations.”

The agency refers to the situation as “an unusual and potentially historic event” and warns satellite navigation (GPS) may be degraded or inoperable for hours, and high frequency radio propagation could be sporadic or blacked out.

These storms are also visible from the Earth as displays of aurora and  may result in displays being seen as far south as Alabama.

This is a developing story.

• READ MORE: How to see the northern lights: Tonight may be the best chance in years

WATCH: NOAA’s GOES-16 satellite captured activity at sunspot AR3664 at around 2 p.m. EDT, Thursday

The post Strong Geomagnetic Storm Could Impact GPS Navigation, FAA Warns appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Is there a particular way the FAA wants the pilot to measure distances, navigate, and pick a route?

• READ MORE: New Airman Certification Standards for CFIs Is Released

Answer: According to FAR 61.1(b)(ii), to meet the aeronautical experience requirements for a private pilot certificate, a commercial pilot certificate, an instrument rating, or for the purpose of exercising recreational pilot privileges, cross-country flight time must include a landing at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nm from the original point of departure. Measure that with a plotter and paper sectional, and it’s best if the distance is a bit past 50 nm—like at least 53 nm.

• READ MORE: Is a Medical Certificate Required for a Private Pilot Check Ride?

As far as navigation goes, FAR 61.1(b)(i) navigation for cross-country flights can be ded reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigational aids (GPS), radio aids (VOR), and other navigation systems. Keep in mind that many designated pilot examiners (DPEs) will fail the GPS or ForeFlight to test the applicant’s use of the more basic navigational skills. 

Pro tip: Carry a current paper sectional with you and make sure you can read it. Andexpect to be told to divert to another airport during the check ride using the sectional as your guide.

• READ MORE: The Potentially Deadly Distraction of Social Media

As far as if it is legal to reposition an aircraft to an airport that is not a pilot’s home base, then use it as a starting point to give them a straight-line distance of more than 50 nm, we asked the FAA directly. The answer: Yes, it is legal to do this.

The post How to Make Sure Your Cross-Country Hours Count appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The runway isn’t long—a mere 3,501 feet—so depending on your aircraft performance, it might be shorter than many runways you use regularly. That being said, once you arrive and park, your aircraft may be the last motorized vehicle you use until you leave an island where time appears to have stood still. Enjoy the horse and buggy or bicycle ride into town or to the historic Grand Hotel. But before you get to relax, you just might find yourself in need of an approach to this airport where clouds often develop even in the summer months, thanks to the cool waters of Lakes Michigan and Huron that surround the island.

During one personal experience on an IFR flight to Mackinac, I found myself needing the VOR/DME-A approach and a circle-to-land because of GPS system testing (signal blocking), thanks to a summer military exercise conducted to the south of the island.

A) IAF AT PELLSTON VOR

A pilot flying this approach might expect to start at the PLN VOR for it. While they might be able to continue from the enroute environment directly inbound as the chart indicates, “NoPT for arrivals on the PLN VORTAC airway radials 131 CW 219” (meaning in general from the south), they should expect a turn in the hold otherwise. Coming from other directions would require the pilot to conduct a course reversal to establish inbound. A hold is depicted to do this.

B) VOR COURSE WIDENS AT DISTANCE

This VOR isn’t on the destination field, but instead at the point where the approach starts. Traveling 14 miles to the missed approach point at MABEH, a pilot should expect this VOR course to widen as they travel farther from the VOR. This might mean they won’t be perfectly aligned with the center of the airport.

C) CIRCLING IS THE ONLY OPTION

With only circling minimums published, and an approach to the runway on a south-to-north line for a runway that is generally east-west, a pilot is going to need to circle to land. Relatively low minimums are present—well below a normal traffic pattern altitude at 579 feet agl. Plus, if you are going to attempt this approach at night, a note indicates it would not be allowed for Runway 8.

D) DME IS THE MISSED

A DME point at MABEH is noted at 14 nm from the PLN VOR for the missed approach point. No other time or cross radials are given on this approach, so make sure you have the DME tuned properly. An IFR GPS can substitute for this normally, but if you were in the scenario I had to use this approach for when GPS was being blocked, the GPS in your aircraft could not substitute for DME. If I didn’t have a separate DME receiver, I wouldn’t have been able to fly this approach because of a lack of ability to identify the missed approach point under those NOTAMed conditions.

This column first appeared in the November 2023/Issue 943 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Chart Wise: Mackinac Island VOR/DME-A appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In a statement sent to FLYING, Garmin advised that “due to multiple component availability limitations, comprehensive repair service for Garmin’s GNS 430/530 series is estimated to become limited in the years ahead. This includes all GPS/COM and GPS-only variants, as well as all WAAS models. Initially, these limitations are estimated to impact a small percentage of repairs in 2024.”

The GNS 430/530 was introduced in 1998 and produced until 2011, which included 25 years of repairs.

• READ MORE: Bidding Farewell to the Garmin GNS Line

“We will continue to do so until serviceable components become unavailable,” the company statement said.

Garmin noted that it plans to continue offering repair service when the components required for a specific repair remain available. Database updates and technical support will also remain available.

The company added that products that Garmin must return as unrepairable due to the announced unavailability of repair parts will incur a $500 processing fee per unit.

Garmin is encouraging customers to transition to newer-generation products.

The post Garmin Announces Repair Service Limitation on GNS 430 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Early in training, I made a night instrument takeoff from Lunken Airport (now KLUK) in Ohio, using a runway adjacent to a hillside with traffic on a busy highway at the base and well-lit neighborhoods climbing the slope. I unearthed a hood that was extra wide and allowed me to cheat a little with a glimpse of terrain on the sides. What seemed like a great idea was a bad mistake and an excellent lesson in vertigo. As I began to climb, I was almost hypnotized—totally confused—by moving lights I could see under the left side of the hood. I’m pretty sure we would have flown into the hill if Roger hadn’t taken the controls…and, yes, smacked me on the head.

The test presented some challenges—in night training I hadn’t experienced the turbulence of sunny, hot afternoons. Inspector Ropp and I weren’t using headsets and, unfortunately, he’d eaten something with lots of garlic the night before. On the plus side, it was pretty simple since I had one VOR receiver for approaches and holds. And, yes, I passed!

No, wait, that was the test in 1967.

In those days, the normal progression of certificates and ratings took you from private pilot to commercial, to flight instructor, and then you went on for an instrument rating. It was five years from the time I became a genuine private pilot in 1962 to accumulate the time and pass the writtens and flight tests for the commercial certificate and a flight instructor rating. And getting that CFI was critical because the only way I could eat regularly and earn enough to keep flying was to instruct. And, boy, did I instruct…about 6,000 hours total over the next 10 years.

First, I worked part time for Cincinnati Aircraft, a Cessna dealer. The Cessna 150s and 172s were great trainers but had the world’s worst radios—the Cessna 300 series. We reentered traffic patterns on lights nearly as often as we did communicating over the radio waves with the tower. When the Midwest winter was grounding the airplanes, owner Witham Smith demanded those of us with instrument ratings file IFR, climb above the overcast, give an hour of basic dual, make a VOR approach into Greater Cincinnati Airport (KCVG), and then fly VFR underneath the 13 miles back to Lunken. At best, an “hour” of dual was closer to two. I “declined,” got fired, instructed for Johnny Lane at Lebanon (I68), and then started my own flight school.

Well, fast-forward 56 years and here I am back at it again. During the year of enforced downtime after the “bridge” revocation, I crammed and passed the private and (wickedly brutal) instrument writtens. Then, on Christmas Eve 2021, I did the private practical in a Cessna 150. So, I assumed getting the instrument rating in my Cessna 180 would be a piece of cake. Wrong again.

• READ MORE: Martha Lunken Earns Her Wings (Again)

At risk of boring you with a lengthy tale of woe, it was another year before the airplane and I felt the sprinkle of holy water. I sat out a lengthy annual inspection in January and February and miserable weather during the Midwest’s February and March. But late in March 2022, I hooked up with Steve Reinhardt, a CFI who is consummately patient and intimately familiar with my Garmin GNS 430 (about which I knew little more than “direct-to”) and ForeFlight (which was a total mystery). Best of all, Steve doesn’t hit students on the head. Then my elderly DG failed, so I put 72B in the shop for installation of two flush-mounted Garmin G5s. Three weeks passed, and I was struggling to learn the equipment while precisely hand flying my “very light on the controls” 1956 Cessna 180. And the various intricate approaches and holds were at airports about 10 miles apart—it was a bitch!

Next, a guy ran into the tail of the 180 on the ground at Lebanon, and it would be close to a month until we got the vertical stabilizer and rudder back from Williams Airmotive in northern Indiana. They’re great people with an outstanding shop for control surfaces. At one point, a very special guy named Dean Mallory, who hangs out at Waynesville’s Red Stewart Airfield (40I), offered me the use of his Cessna 182. Talk about friends!

But the delay wasn’t only damage, avionics installations, and weather. It was a steep learning curve for me to master the intricacies of the Garmin equipment and ForeFlight. More than once, I nearly lost heart.

GPS technology wasn’t intuitive for me. Thermals on sunny days below 4,000 feet made for lots of turbulence, and the variety of approach procedures and holds mandated by the FAA at three or four airports within 10 miles of each other was difficult. I was scrambling to enter the information and push the right buttons while trying to hand fly the 180 precisely on altitudes and headings.

Yeah, I did it, and Steve recommended me one month short of my 81st birthday, and I flew a no-holds-barred, good practical test with Brian Trapp at John Lane Field (I68) in Lebanon, Ohio. Brian holds more designations than anyone in my experience and travels across the country—even to remote places like the Fiji islands—as an examiner, administering everything from medical check rides to re-exams and every conceivable airplane and lighter-than-air certificate or rating. Additionally, he owns and operates the Gentle Breeze Hot Air Balloon Co. with his talented and delightful pilot/partner, Laurie Givin. Brian knows his stuff, cutting no corners on the test.

Was so much time, effort, and expense worth it. Yes! Steve pounded the intricacies of the GPS equipment and procedures into my head, and I became more adept at precision flying in the 180. So many people kept me going—superb instructor Reinhardt, Mallory (“Hey, use my airplane.”), Flying Neutrons Club members at I68 (many of whom I’d certificated), IA mechanic Mark Day, and Givin, and Trapp, who flew in late the night before from Phoenix for the test.

As Henry Ford rightly said, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t—you’re right.”

This column first appeared in the October 2023/Issue 942 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Martha’s Return to IFR Skies appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Answer: Broadly speaking, the Y approach is more geared toward single-engine, piston-powered aircraft, and the Z approach more appropriate for jets.

Put the approach plates side by side and you’ll note the Z has lower weather minimums than the Y. They may also require different aircraft equipment and pilot certification, step-down fixes, and altitudes. The devil can be in the details, as a side-by-side comparison may reveal different missed approach instructions and one with a virtual glideslope that is not coincident with the RNAV glide path. One may allow circling, while the other does not.

• READ MORE: Everything You Need to Know about RNAV GPS Approaches

When requesting an approach at an airport with both the Z and Y variant, make sure you ask for the one most appropriate for your aircraft and pilot qualifications. If you (or your aircraft) don’t meet the approach criteria, be sure to tell ATC “unable.”

The post What Is the Difference Between RNAV Z and Y Approaches? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

A. Multiple Places to Start

A pilot approaching from different directions might choose different waypoints across which they could make a transition to the one official IAF listed at CIPLU. An approach from the north might have a pilot choose (or ATC assign) crossing the POURS waypoint. A pilot approaching from the south might utilize the Phoenix (PHX) VOR. In these cases, they would need to complete a course reversal to establish onto the approach either using a lapin the hold or a procedure turn on the protected side of the hold before proceeding inbound on the approach course.

B. Hold and Inbound Courses

A slight but important difference, the inbound course on the hold at CIPLU is 259 degrees, while the inbound course from this point along the final approach path is 254 degrees. The good news is that the GPS should sequence this, and if you are utilizing an autopilot, it should follow the course change. If you are hand-flyingthe approach, be aware that a slight change will be needed to avoid a course-needle deflection.

C. Parallel Runways

While one runway may be nearly double the size of the other, if you are flying this approach, be sure you know the one for which you have been cleared to land. Closely situated parallel runway scan keep traffic close by and add to confusion at times.

D. Circling South, but Not at Night

If you happen to be circling to Runway 7R, be sure to take note that the indication on the chart is that a circle is “not authorized north of Runway 7R-25L. ”This means a circle to the south for right traffic: This is non-standard. Also worth noting is that circling, even though it may seem like a simple side step, is not authorized at night to 25R. Expect to land on the big runway from this approach at night.

E. Multi-Step Missed Approach

The missed approach isn’t just a straight-to-a-point-and-hold event. If a pilot has a need to go missed upon reaching the decision height on the LPV, or at the MAP if flying the LNAV on this approach, it will first take them to the BOLES waypoint while climbing to 6,000 feet msl. From there, they will turn and head to the HEVRO waypoint, and then turn again to the BANYO waypoint. Here is where they would hold and wait for either further instructions from ATC, or potentially head back to the IAF at CIPLU if they were going to try the approach again.

F. DME Distance Holds

Holds aren’t just established by time now. Although one-minute holds still exist, there are other means of determining leg length. On this approach plate, both the depicted holds are based on nautical mile distances, not timing. The hold depicted at CIPLU has a pilot fly 5-nm legs on the inbound course, and the hold at BANYO for the missed approach has a pilot fly 6-nm legs on the inbound leg. GPS certainly helps make this easier—and it’s the only way to do them on a GPS-based approach—but they are different from what many pilots might have become accustomed to from their initial training.

This article was originally published in the March 2023 Issue 935 of  FLYING.

The post RNAV (GPS) RWY 25L: Deer Valley, Arizona appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The event marked the first successful demonstration of the technology known as MagNav on a Department of Defense aircraft, the Air Force said. The technology is meant as a backup in case GPS navigation is disrupted by jamming or other countermeasures.

For the demonstration, members of the AIA MagNav team, with personnel from MIT, the MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Air Force Research Laboratory Sensors Directorate and, the Air Force Institute of Technology Autonomy and Navigation Center flew three sorties in the C-17 to Edwards Air Force Base in California during an exercise in May called “Golden Phoenix.”

To aid navigation, the teams used a neural network architecture that tracks the aircraft’s position based on a magnetic map while removing magnetic noise from the aircraft. The network had to be “trained” during flight using machine learning and artificial intelligence. The 60th Air Mobility Wing provided the aircraft used to assemble and train the MagNav prototype.

“Every pilot fears single points of failure,” said Maj. Kyle McAlpin, the AIA MagNav liaison. “Our strategy documents lament the DOD’s overreliance on GPS, a single point of failure in our ability to navigate precisely. The next fight demands unassailable positioning and navigation. We can achieve that by augmenting GPS with alternatives like celestial navigation, signals of opportunity, visual navigation, and magnetic navigation. 

“This week, we took an important step towards making one of those modalities a reality by transitioning MagNav from the minds of MIT and MIT Lincoln Laboratory onto an operational aircraft, blazing the trail for our sister services and expansion to new platforms.”

The Air Force said the collaboration between AIA, MIT, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, and other partners “paves the way for further innovation in navigation technologies, benefiting not only the Air Force but also the broader aviation community.”

The post Air Force Demonstrates New Magnetic Navigation System appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

You can fly at least one approach at this airport without the use of GPS, or even DME. And you don’t have to be psychic or sift through every airport and all the approaches they have to know this. You can tell by the note on the IFR enroute low altitude chart denoting “MON,” or minimum operational network, over the airport information box.

Transition to MON VORS

The FAA is decommissioning a significant number of VORs as we transition our national airspace system to rely upon performance-based navigation and area navigation systems. Most of us are familiar with these systems in the form of GPS.

There remains a potential for a GPS outage, signal blocking, or a failure of GPS systems onboard an aircraft. In each of these cases, a pilot should have a backup plan that doesn’t rely on GPS to get safely to the ground.

One of these options lies in the designation of MON-serviced airports. These airports are called out as a part of the FAA’s decommissioning of 30 percent of the VOR network by 2025.

What ‘MON’ Means on a Chart

MON airports are a relatively recent addition to IFR charts, indicating the airport offers an approach a pilot could complete without assistance from ATC, GPS, or DME systems. MON designations on low altitude enroute charts are the FAA’s method of indicating to a pilot that the airport has at least one approach not requiring GPS or DME systems.

These airports will ensure that a pilot will always be within 100 nm of an airport with an instrument approach not dependent on GPS or DME. The VOR MON is designed to be a reversionary service maintained by the FAA for use by aircraft unable to navigate using RNAV-based services during GPS outages. This is not to say all approaches at such an airport will be possible without using GPS or DME, but at least one approach will be available. The FAA’s goal is to ensure airports throughout the national airspace system are available in the event of a GPS outage.

MON Approach Options

The approach(es) not requiring GPS or DME might include straight-in and/or circling approach options. There is no guarantee that an available approach will be a precision one, however.

These airports may include an ILS approach to provide a glideslope option for lower approach minimums, or one without a glideslope, such as LOC-only or VOR-only approaches. In each of these cases, a pilot can get down to the lowest possible height above the ground in an emergency when one of these approaches becomes critically needed. With these options, the pilot will likely start the approach with a transition from the enroute environment to an approach utilizing a VOR as a transition point.

Longer Distances

A key part of making this transition possible has been the expansion of the ranges of use for remaining VOR stations. As the FAA has decommissioned some VORs, it has enhanced the service volumes of those that comprise the MON network.

The FAA included the new service volumes for VORs in the 2022 issue of the Aeronautical Information Manual. Most notable is that a pilot flying above 5,000 feet agl can expect the VOR service volume to be reliable for 70 nm from the station, an expansion from the previous 40 nm—which is still applicable when flying below 5,000 feet agl. This enhanced volume allows a pilot to transition to a VOR and onto an approach at greater distances than in the past.

About Alternatives

When we plan for alternate airports as IFR pilots, we most commonly think about weather requirement considerations. It might also be a good idea to research what navigation services an alternate airport might have.

Using a MON airport as an alternate allows a pilot to use a different navigation system if a transition to an alternate becomes necessary after a missed approach. Making MON part of your alternate selection process could become part of your best practices when filing IFR flight plans. Giving yourself all possible options isn’t a bad thing. While a MON airport might be slightly further away than another potential alternate, it does guarantee more navigation options.

A word of caution: It is always a good idea to make sure no NOTAMs are in effect that might affect your smooth transition to an alternate airport. Just because an airport is printed on the chart doesn’t mean it is always an option.

Non-WAAS GPS Aircraft

Some aircraft may be required to use airports that meet MON status. It may depend on the navigation systems and limitations of that particular aircraft.

For aircraft with GPS but not WAAS-capable systems, the benefit of filing alternate airports with approaches that do not require the use of GPS is still applicable. While many aircraft are equipped withWAAS-capable GPS navigators, some have not been upgraded. 

In these cases, a pilot seeking to file an alternate airport that doesn’t require GPS might find that MON airports are suitable—and handy—options.

Not Always the Biggest—or Busiest

I have noticed that airports designated as MON are not always the biggest or busiest. I suspect this is by design. If we experienced a period when a large number of aircraft needed to transition to a backup plan, we might not want them all going to airports with large traffic volumes. Also, the MON airports won’t always have runways long enough for larger aircraft.

Making the transition to considering MON airports and what that means for an IFR pilot may seem confusing at the outset, but through clear identification on enroute charts, pilots can quickly make planning decisions about alternates. Potentially more critically, a pilot can identify the best option to get on the ground during an in-flight loss of GPS service. Learning a little about MON airports might give you the information to safely manage a change of available navigation system service in flight. The LOC Runway 11 at Olney-Noble Airport (KOLY) in Illinois, with an approach you can fly without GPS or DME systems, might not be a location you planned to visit—but it might be where you end up if things didn’t go as planned at your original destination.

This approach can be established and flown without the help of ATC. An example of an approach critical to the MON system, it allows a pilot to get down safely in the event of a GPS outage. This approach is a critical part of the infrastructure of backup options and an example of many around the country in place to give pilots an option if they cannot complete an approach that requires DME or GPS services.

Establishing onto the Approach

A “full approach” is something most pilots don’t have to do often, instead taking advantage of air traffic control vectoring services to establish onto the final approach path of most procedures. But if ATC is unavailable or unable to offer those services, a pilot might need to get themself established. On the LOC Runway 11 approach at KOLY, this could be done by flying to either the Bible Grove (BIB) or Centralia (ENL) VORs that serve as initial approach fixes (IAFs). From either of these points, a pilot could travel in boundon feeder routes to intercept the localizer course of 110 degrees using the 110.5 localizer frequency.

LOC Only

This approach offers localizer (LOC) only services, therefore it does not include glide slope options. The approach is technically non-precision, but certainly more accurate laterally than just a VOR approach, and it guides a pilot along the 110-degree inbound course to the airport.

DME Available, but Not Required

While it is helpful if an aircraft is equipped with either an IFR-capable GPS or DME, it is not required for this particular approach. A pilot might choose to identify the ALAKE or LYMON waypoints using DME, but the final approach fix at LYMON could also be identified using a cross radial on the localizer with the BIB VOR on the 134-degree radial. This could identify the LYMON FAF from which the pilot could continue the descent to either the appropriate straight-in localizer minimums, or the circling minimums suited for their approach speed if they were circling to another runway for landing.

Timing Might Become Critical

Using a timer on this approach might be required and is a commonly overlooked item for many pilots when transitioning beyond the FAF. In the absence of DME or a GPS to help identify when to go missed, a pilot on this approach needs to rely on timing. 

A pilot starting a timer at the LYMON FAF needs to estimate their ground speed and use the table on the chart to determine when they would reach the missed approach point. A pilot flying the approach at 120 knots would fly for two minutes and 18 seconds while descending to their minimum descent altitude, and go missed if they had not seen the runway environment. This skill can easily get rusty for pilots who rely on GPS to tell them when to go missed. Practice the move in case you need it on an approach such as this.

Missed Via Radials

Even if the pilot goes missed, the DME (or substituted GPS) would not be required for flying the climbing right turn to 2,400 feet on a 290-degree heading, intercepting the BIB VOR R-172, and then holding at the ALAKE intersection where the BIB VOR and LOC have a holding pattern depicted. This might require a pilot to shake some rust off their cross-radial skills, but the process remains valid and potentially critical for use if GPS systems become unavailable.

A more traditional approach like those many old school pilots (a label I am identifying with more and more as years go by) flew as the standard still has strong validity in our current system. Keep your skills sharp for approaches such as this in case you ever need to use them.

This article was originally published in the February 2023 Issue 934 of FLYING.

The post Flying the MON appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Deliveries for the GPS units are slated to begin in July this year, with additional options for continuous deliveries throughout the U.S. Air Force’s current program.

The Boeing T-7A Red Hawk is an advanced pilot training system developed to train the next generation of fighter and bomber pilots. Designed using a digital thread, the T-7A enables the integration of concepts and capabilities through virtual testing, saving time and expense.

This is the fourth OEM current production contract for IS&S, adding to an existing program with Boeing for its KC-46A, in addition to contracts with Pilatus Aircraft for its PC-24 and Textron Aviation for its Beechcraft King Airs.

• READ MORE: Upgrades Offer New Life for Legacy Turboprops

The IS&S GPS/WAAS Beta-3 Receiver utilizes signals from the GPS satellite constellation and satellite-based augmentation systems, and it has been undergoing testing in the jet trainer for several years. The primary function of the receiver is to compute position, aircraft velocity, and time. In addition, the receiver can detect and exclude failed satellites using an autonomous integrity monitoring algorithm. 

“We are pleased to have our product on the T-7 which is the premier training platform for our next generation of Warfighters,” IS&S said in a statement. “IS&S is proud to serve a broad array of aerospace customers with increasingly sophisticated and technically advanced products such as our GPS Sensor Unit. IS&S continues to develop a new generation of products which will meet the increasing demands of customers and regulators as requirements for air traffic management, fuel savings and environmentally friendly aircraft increase.”

The post IS&S To Provide GPS Units for Boeing’s T-7A Red Hawk Trainer appeared first on FLYING Magazine.