Talk:Wide Area Augmentation System

message: I realize this is a nit but:
"WAAS Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance (LPV) approaches with 200-foot minimums will not be published for airports without medium intensity lighting, precision runway markings and a parallel taxiway."
Hardly qualifies as a "WAAS limitation or weakness". It is a limitation of airports that simply got exposed by the low tide.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.2.3.194 (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Limitations of WAAS?

message: I've spent the last month working an improved version of the article in my personal sandbox. I believe it is suitable for posting into the main article at this point, with the group helping to make the final improvements. The article is not perfect (history still needs to be re-written, and the drawbacks are still in list form, etc.) but I feel it is best for the group to improved after my personal fork is re-integrated. 
Since its a complete change it seems some discussion is appropriate first, so I'm posting notice here and asking those interested to review the copy in my sandbox and comment here. 
Here is the sandboxed article: User:Davandron/WAAS
Thank you everyone in advance for the constructive feedback and guideance! Davandron | Talk 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article has been updated. Davandron | Talk 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete Article Update

message: The first few paragraphs contain sentences verbatim from http://gps.faa.gov/Programs/WAAS/waas.htm; is that kosher? --R27182818 05:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: US Government websites are public domain. --Dual Freq 11:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Identical content?

message: I suggest someone merge GPS_WAAS into this article. Ideas? --Dual Freq 01:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong yes. They do seem redundant... -- RevRagnarok 02:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Strong yes, provided that only the redundant information in GPS_WAAS is removed, and the remaining non-redundant information be remain, and the article be expanded to include key info on non-GPS WAAS systems, such as those coming online here in Europe.  Dr1819 18:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Generally, it is wise to add a citation or two when adding 6 paragraphs of content. Also, I think you've left out Omega, LORAN, GEE and that one with the morse code "A" and "N". And what about Canada Wide-Area DGPS (CDGPS)? Don't want to leave that one out. Good job with the GPS article too, no need for references on the technical information there either, I'm sure we can trust you. --Dual Freq 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come now Dual, save this sort of banter for the Usenet. If you have actual complaints about the accuracy of anything I have posted, please feel free to be specific about those points. Given that all six paragraphs refer to other fully qualified articles on the wiki, your call for references is already answered. Look, I'm sorry I disagree with you about what information the article should contain, but you have yet to post a single cogent argument for the removal of this information. I asked, nicely, whether or not you felt this information would better be isolated into a separate section, and instead you responded with these two off-topic comments that could only be described as insults. I can't imagine how it is you feel this supports your case. Maury 14:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability

message: I made some significant updates to content and readability.  I left 99.9% of the content in, but change some of the wording so as to be more precise.  I would like to propose some significant reductions, namely in the content that's more appropriate elsewhere.  While readers of this article do need to know that WAAS will eventually replace Category I ILS approaches, the information/criteria of Cat I, II, and III ILS approaches should not be repeated here, but should be referenced/linked to the ILS page which discusses the approaches in detail.  There are several similar, and I believe unnecessary redundancies which also need to be deleted from here, but perhaps incorporated (if that's not already happened) on the appropriate pages.
What say you folks?  Dr1819 19:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be so optimistic about the "good news" of LAAS in Cat II/III situations. I expect ILS will be around for quite a while for those categories. LAAS is OK for CAT I, but I've heard "back to the drawing board" used to describe the state of II/III LAAS. There is some that doubt LAAS will ever meet CAT III. WAAS will never be CAT III either. Therefore, ILS will be around at least until the new multiple frequency GPS sats and receivers are out. I think the USCG DGPS system is still the primary differential system for rail and waterways. It seems to work better for ground / water usage. --Dual Freq 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates and proposed changes

message: There are now more than one certified receiver. Here is the yahoo copy of garmin's press release for their model series that are certified. link. Also, in some searching I've found other companies that have certified waas equipment.
I changed the article to say "limited number" of certified receiver models. If anyone has more info, please update that area. Davandron | Talk 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawbacks and Limitations 

message: I'm putting the list of ground stations here, since it doesn't seem appropriate in the article but have repeatedly goofed counting the number *laughs* These are from the source cited in the article, just refracted to make for easier reading/counting. - Davandron | Talk 16:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ground Station Count 

message: The article states:
"The satellites also broadcast the same type of range information as normal GPS satellites, effectively increasing the number of satellites available for a position fix."
At this time (Jan 24,2007) it is my understanding that 48 and 51 do not provide ranging information yet.  
I didn't want to edit the article without confirming with other knowledgeable contributors (I do not claim to be an expert), but I do think this is the case (based on discussion with FAA indicating that ranging would not be available for some period after certification of these satellites and experience with my own GPS receivers that do not seem to use 48 and 51 for ranging, but only for WAAS correction).
It add to the overall usefulness of the article if the projected dates of ranging availability could be added to the article - FAA or its contractors may be a good source of information, my ability to get this is quite limited.
(Sorry if I contributed this improperly, but the instructions for adding a comment to the discussion are pretty poor and I'm new to comments.)
Gabbothis 17:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gabbothis: you are correct. The details you mentioned on the new satellites are actually in the article, in the "Future of WAAS" section. I think the confusion is because the space segment does talk about the satellites. I'll move some of the text up to the space segment. Thanks for the help! - Davandron | Talk 17:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range Information 

message: While the NSTB website doesn't say its been integrated, I noticed this weekend that 51 is no longer a "hollow" on my GPS receiver. The receiver locked on and appeared to be using it for ranging (although the sirfIII chipset doesn't use it for differential corrections). The NSTB site does say that this week (4/16-4/23) they will put it back into test mode for some tests of the other new satellite, but after that I will be looking for an FAA / NSTB announcement that it is integrated. Looks like they finished on time! - Davandron | Talk 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVN 51 / PRN 135 / Anik F1R may be integrated 

message: Hey. This is clearly a very technical article, and is a topic I'm wholly unfamiliar with, but I'm going to try to give my opinion here anyway. In particular, I'm looking at edits such as this one and this one. Basically, I think that you guys should strive to make the article as approachable to an outsider as possible. To that end, I prefer the versions that start with saying "is an air navigation aid", "monitor and measure the GPS", and so on. In particular, I like Davandron's idea of solving the use of "use them to improve accuracy" or "apply the corrections while computing their position" to "a GPS receiver uses the corrections while computing its position to improve accuracy." If one of you is pushing for more technical wording and the other for more simplistic wording, why not try to combine them both into one sentence, so that the article is approachable to people like me, but also has the information that more experienced people would want.
What do you guys think? Is there any other way I can help? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: HelloAnnyong, thanks for helping out with a third opinion! - Davandron | Talk 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: *Existing GPS satellites did not have any additional channels that could be used for this feature, so instead it was planned to add broadcasters to existing communications satellites.
*[eLORAN Repeatability] 10 m / 10 m 
*[Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) Specification] 1.0 m / 1.0 m 
*This ultimately limits the operational area and accuracy due to undersampling. 
Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  contested statements removed 

message: Is there any reason why we're using nine decimal places in the coordinates on this article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, 9 decimals suggests a precision on the order of 0.1 millimeters.  If these are region centroids as mentioned, of such a size they serve multiple airports, e.g. Fort Worth Air Route Traffic Control Center, I think we could easily get by with 1 or 2 decimals (1-10 km precision).  Maybe go nuts and use 3. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 04:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, looking at the elevations (also given to millimeter precision over hundred-thousand-square-kilometer regions) where some are negative (Miami, Puerto Rico) makes it fairly obvious that it was the trivial average (including subaquatic locations) of everywhere within some polygon.  Removing elevation and 7 decimals from all coordinates. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 04:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And just what do you mean by "polygon"?  Those were the centroids of the triangles formed by the three receiving antennas at each WAAS reference station, not the centroids of some thousand-or-so-square-kilometre areas.  By dropping the precision of each of those coordinates by seven orders of magnitude, now those coordinates are hundreds of metres away from those antennas. --  Denelson83  23:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue precision 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Wide Area Augmentation System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004122449/http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/library/documents/media/waas/2892bC2a.pdf to http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/library/documents/media/waas/2892bC2a.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614020313/http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/cgsicMeetings/47/%5B12%5D%20WAAS-LAAS-CGSIC-07.pdf to http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/cgsicMeetings/47/%5B12%5D%20WAAS-LAAS-CGSIC-07.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828225454/http://www.nas-architecture.faa.gov/nas/mechanism/mech_data.cfm?mid=7054 to http://www.nas-architecture.faa.gov/nas/mechanism/mech_data.cfm?mid=7054
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727142321/http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/augmentation-assistance/news/waas-prn-135-resumes-normal-operation-11243 to http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/augmentation-assistance/news/waas-prn-135-resumes-normal-operation-11243
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004122449/http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/library/documents/media/waas/2892bC2a.pdf to http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/library/documents/media/waas/2892bC2a.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I came to this article to learn about how to get WAAS corrections on my Android smartphone.  I understand that a different source is probably the best, but I at least hoped that I would be directed to that source.   How about including such a source?  Hal9009az (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAAS with Android Smartphone?