A decision was made by FAA, USCG & OST yesterday morning (6/29/98) to 
 continue the operation of Loran-C beyond its currently planned 
 12/31/00 termination date.  Present at the meeting for FAA were Monte 
 Belger, Steve Zaidman and Guy Gardner.  Joe Canny (acting P-1) and 
 Heywood Shirer represented OST.  Admiral James Loy, Coast Guard 
 Commandant, was connected via speakerphone.    

 1.  All parties (FAA/USCG/OST) recognized the unending political 
 pressure to continue operating Loran beyond 2000.  Recent example:  
 Aviation Subcmte of House Cmte on Transportation & Infrastructure, as 
 part of FAA Reauthorization Bill:  "The Secretary shall maintain and 
 upgrade Loran-C navigation facilities throughout the transition period 
 to satellite-based navigation."  CG getting similar help in their FY-99 
 authorization.
 
 2.  CG said they'd continue to cover (indefinitely) the O&M costs 
 (estimated $28M annually) in their budget.  FAA will help cover 
 capital costs to keep the Loran system going.  Costs need to be 
 apportioned between CG & FAA.  OST, CG & FAA will need to work 
 together on "a formula".
 
 3.  CG & FAA have different perspectives on how long to extend 
 Loran.  
 
    a.  CG plan is to invest an approximate $109M capital (total) in 
 FY-00-02.  This "recapitalization" would be sufficient to operate the 
 system through about 2008...which is apparently what the CG would like 
 to do.  [Another decision would be needed about 2005; an additional

 capital investment would then be required in 2006-07 if the system is

 operate beyond 2008.]  
 
    b. When GPS Selective Availability (SA) is turned off (scheduled 
 to happen by 2006 or sooner), maritime GPS users will for the first 
 time obtain the same or better "repeatable" accuracy with GPS as they 
 do with Loran.  Operating the system an additional 2 years (i.e., to 
 2008) will provide a transition period.
 
    c. FAA, on the other hand, wants to avoid locking itself into a 
 (potentially indefinite, considering the out-years) Loran funding 
 stream unless (and until) we determine there is an aviation 
 requirement.  We don't want the users to misinterpret that this policy 
 stems from an FAA requirement.  We should be guided by user demand 
 instead of by the lobbying efforts of Loran equipment manufacturers.  
 
    d. Aviation users will be in a better position to assess their 
 requirements only after they see augmented GPS in operation.
 
 The budget story is helped by the following:
 
    a. CG is apparently being given $20M for Loran improvements; and FAA 
 $4.3M; in our FY-99 budgets.  If fact, then this could reduce the 
 remaining need from $109M to $85M.
 
    b. CG has apparently aleady put a $35M request in their FY-00 
 budget for Loran, in anticipation of having to start funding either 
 the continuation or the decommissioning of the system.  And there's 
 apparently some indication from OST that CG ought to leave their 
 request alone and not look for an FY-00 cost-share from FAA.  This 
 could reduce the remaining need from $85M to $50M, starting in FY-01.
 
    c. FAA exposure might be reduced to a 15-50% cost-share of $25M 
 in FY-01 & $25M in FY-02.
 

To the Trawler World List: I just received this information from a friend who is close to the Loran-C situation. I have very good reason to believe that the information is accurate. My interpretation is that Loran-C will remain with us for some as yet undetermined amount of time. Mel Kowal MEI LEE 1983 Grand Banks 42 Motoryacht Swantown Marina, Olympia, WA > > A decision was made by FAA, USCG & OST yesterday morning (6/29/98) to > continue the operation of Loran-C beyond its currently planned > 12/31/00 termination date. Present at the meeting for FAA were Monte > Belger, Steve Zaidman and Guy Gardner. Joe Canny (acting P-1) and > Heywood Shirer represented OST. Admiral James Loy, Coast Guard > Commandant, was connected via speakerphone. > 1. All parties (FAA/USCG/OST) recognized the unending political > pressure to continue operating Loran beyond 2000. Recent example: > Aviation Subcmte of House Cmte on Transportation & Infrastructure, as > part of FAA Reauthorization Bill: "The Secretary shall maintain and > upgrade Loran-C navigation facilities throughout the transition period > to satellite-based navigation." CG getting similar help in their FY-99 > authorization. > > 2. CG said they'd continue to cover (indefinitely) the O&M costs > (estimated $28M annually) in their budget. FAA will help cover > capital costs to keep the Loran system going. Costs need to be > apportioned between CG & FAA. OST, CG & FAA will need to work > together on "a formula". > > 3. CG & FAA have different perspectives on how long to extend > Loran. > > a. CG plan is to invest an approximate $109M capital (total) in > FY-00-02. This "recapitalization" would be sufficient to operate the > system through about 2008...which is apparently what the CG would like > to do. [Another decision would be needed about 2005; an additional $40M > capital investment would then be required in 2006-07 if the system is to > operate beyond 2008.] > > b. When GPS Selective Availability (SA) is turned off (scheduled > to happen by 2006 or sooner), maritime GPS users will for the first > time obtain the same or better "repeatable" accuracy with GPS as they > do with Loran. Operating the system an additional 2 years (i.e., to > 2008) will provide a transition period. > > c. FAA, on the other hand, wants to avoid locking itself into a > (potentially indefinite, considering the out-years) Loran funding > stream unless (and until) we determine there is an aviation > requirement. We don't want the users to misinterpret that this policy > stems from an FAA requirement. We should be guided by user demand > instead of by the lobbying efforts of Loran equipment manufacturers. > > d. Aviation users will be in a better position to assess their > requirements only after they see augmented GPS in operation. > > The budget story is helped by the following: > > a. CG is apparently being given $20M for Loran improvements; and FAA > $4.3M; in our FY-99 budgets. If fact, then this could reduce the > remaining need from $109M to $85M. > > b. CG has apparently aleady put a $35M request in their FY-00 > budget for Loran, in anticipation of having to start funding either > the continuation or the decommissioning of the system. And there's > apparently some indication from OST that CG ought to leave their > request alone and not look for an FY-00 cost-share from FAA. This > could reduce the remaining need from $85M to $50M, starting in FY-01. > > c. FAA exposure might be reduced to a 15-50% cost-share of $25M > in FY-01 & $25M in FY-02. >