The following question was posed by Earl M. Waesche, representing the
National Boating Federation, at the FRP Users Conference and is entered here
for the record:
> >
"Given the Volpe Center Report citing the vulnerability of GPS to either
intentional or nonintentional jamming, the recent attempt in Iraq at the
outset of the war to jam GPS signals and that the technology and capability
to do this is well known to the DoD and others, the recreational boating
community is very concerned about the loss of GPS as a navaid.   We see this
as a significant safety issue when, in a time of peril at sea or a terrorist
attack on our communications infrastructure, our primary navaid is lost, we
need a dependable backup.  When in a critical situation, there would not be
sufficient time to revert to manual methods.  We continue to make the case
that Loran C should be maintained as a backup to and complement for GPS.
> >
"While the emphasis at this meeting was clearly for aviation, there are 14
million registered boats in this country, most of which use either GPS or
Loran C.  This is a significant portion, perhaps the majority numerically,
who have apparently not been considered in the decision to maintain and
continue the operation of the Loran C system.   As was stated today,
improvements have been made to the system, more are scheduled and the
funding is available.   The system is in place, reliable, fully redundant
and cost effective; thus an ideal backup.
> >
"As for the new marine requirement for a high-accuracy harbor approach,
this is not a requirement  of the recreational boating community.  The
current Loran C, along with the cited improvements, provides all the
accuracy and reliability we require.  The problem we do have is that with
the absence of a final DOT statement on the continuation of Loran C, user
support and any new development is becoming nonexistent as there is no
commercial incentive.
> >
"Therefore, and given the problems cited above, does the DOT plan to
continue Loran C as a fully operational navaid for the boating community?
> >
Earl M. Waesche
Legislative Director
National Boating Federation

Having attended the FRP User Conference in Albuquerque I find the DOT
position on LORAN to be shortsighted and possibly anti-LORAN.

As a GA pilot I have a system that incorporates GPS, VOR, ILS and Comm
in one unit.  Thus I have three approach systems of varying capability.  This
is consistent with the Volpe Study that strongly suggests not relying upon one
system only.

However, I only have one RNAV system (GPS).  GPS, along with a moving
map, offers unprecedented safety and situational awareness benefits to me.
However, interference would negate that benefit.  Sure I could resort to
VOR or ATC vectors but why drop to such an antiquated and substandard
capability when another RNAV system is available?  That would be like
dropping back to a slide rule if my calculator dies.  I could but does anyone really
expect me to do that?

That the DOT would only accept LORAN as a viable aviation navigation system
if it achieves NPA is not supportable.  I have three approach systems (GPS, VOR
and ILS).   I don't have to have a fourth.

What I need is another RNAV system.  LORAN certainly offers that potential to
the GA community .

My suggestion for the 2003 FRP is that you drop the NPA requirement for LORAN.
[Here I should have mentioned making the NPA an objective]

As far as market share, etc,  that will never be fixed until the commitment to retain
LORAN is made, so make a decision one way or the other and quit the foot dragging.