Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [65.33.166.82] (account marv@lancaironline.net)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.2.5)
  with HTTP id 589218 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:50:29 -0500
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: WAAS or not.
To: lml
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser Interface v.4.2.5
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:50:29 -0500
Message-ID: <web-589218@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <683501c4f0d0$954d2020$e010020a@nvidia.com>
References: <41D78204.2010308@Logan.com>
 <683501c4f0d0$954d2020$e010020a@nvidia.com>
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "colyncase on earthlink" <colyncase@earthlink.net>:

  I don't know why the gps unit goes offline instead of just backing off to
  non-Waas but as to the
  use it or lose it option I think we should use it.
  sooner or later we will end up paying for all this IFR stuff.   I would
  rather have WAAS which
  has a prayer of working at my airport than ILS which will never be there.
  ,,,but more to the point
  I would rather not have to pay a fee for keeping every ILS that I use
  running.