« previous 1 2

"Sole service" versus "sole means"

These plans have been secretly dusted off. Despite warnings issued in the studies cited above, Eurocontrol emphasised in 2000 that, "the ultimate goal of the GNSS civil global satellite navigation system is to be the sole service used in future", at first just for aviation; not all ground-based navigation systems will be done away with immediately. This characterization as "sole service" versus "sole means" is also used in the foreword of a Eurocontrol study published in 2003. However, in the body text both terms are not only used synonymously, but the authors make it clear that Galileo will also completely replace ground-based navigation systems as such. Another Eurocontrol study from 1999 stated that the actual goal was for GNSS to be the sole means of navigation on the condition that it proved to be the least expensive.

The intention to make GNSS the sole navigation service, therefore, is based on the commercial pressure to which civil aviation is exposed. Ground based navigation systems therefore, threaten to fall victim to the pressure of economisation. Eurocontrol concludes that it will be possible to make GNSS a sole option if it proves to be robust enough and can ensure worldwide service. Accordingly, Galileo will serve as a possible backup for GPS on the condition that it can fulfil the requirements of precision, availability, continuity and reliability.

Since (ICAO) emphasised that a comprehensive set of regulations was necessary to regulate satellite navigation and communications, there should be public debate over the issue so that "sole means" is not secretly pushed through, slipping past all national parliamentary controls, as was the case previously when ICAO helped push biometric security systems.

In September of 2003, the ICAO assembly discussed the necessity to regulate CNS/ATM systems (communications, navigation and surveillance systems for air traffic management), which combine communication and navigation. This concept was previously called FANS (Future Air navigation System). ICAO made it clear that the development of the Galileo European satellite navigation system requires legal regulation and institutional inquiry more than ever. The commission published a study dealing with the development of a future radionavigation plan for the European Union, which would include Galileo and Egnos. "Sole means" appears to have slipped through this backdoor to land once again on the agenda. In this way aviation associations and the aviation industry could be made to foot the bill for Galileo. To the extent that other forms of navigation are done away with, cost savings are possible. However, this would be to the detriment of security.

[subtitle]Problems with interference from military radar[/subtitle]

That is why Francisco Salabert's talks at the Galileo conference in Munich set off indignant responses from the experts. The congregation of experts had just heard, in a lecture delivered by the Head of Business Development and R&D Management at IFEN GmbH, Dr. Guenter Heinrichs, that military radar causes massive disruptions to Galileo. The international satellite experts listened appalled as the lecturer, with his three engineering degrees, described the failure of Galileo's GATE testing facility of all things. "We have an tremendous problems with military interference," announced Heinrichs.

The German Galileo Test and Development Environment Facility, near Berchtesgaden that is supposed to test Galileo was delayed in its work for more than a half a year. "We discovered that Austrian military aviation radar was causing massive interference with the E 5 B and E 6 Galileo frequencies." The clincher: in that area, of all places, one of Galileo's safety of life applications is supposed to be operated. Despite the economic losses, there was a silver lining for GATE. Because of the consequences of this discovery, the European space organization ESA has commissioned the company to study disruptions in Galileo caused by interference. "This is when we found out that there is no database of military radar," explained Dr. Guenter Heinrichs in an interview with Telepolis. There is also no overview of possible sources of interference. In order to learn more about the disruption in Galileo the regulation authority, RegTP, was contacted; they declined comment. Information about potential sources of interference could not be given for reasons of information security.

In the face of indignant questioning, Eurocontrol's Francisco Salabert explained that until such safety risks involving Galileo are remedied, "sole service" was a long way off.

« previous 1 2