Altimeter Question

[terry]

I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least I
am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both a
and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.

Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
subscale
( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US folks)
Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and day
2 it could be said that

a. The QNH is higher on day 2
b. The QNH is lower on day 2
c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
d. The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.

Terry
PPL Downunder

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

terry wrote:
> I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least I
> am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both a
> and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.
>
> Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
> subscale
> ( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US folks)
> Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
> Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and day
> 2 it could be said that
>
> a. The QNH is higher on day 2
> b. The QNH is lower on day 2
> c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
> d. The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.


Their answer confuses me too. It seems that if the altimeter setting wasn't
changed from day 1 to day 2, yet it reads a lower altitude, the barometric
pressure must have risen. The altimeter will translate lower pressure to higher
altitude and higher pressure to lower altitude. So I think the answer should be
"a". And if I accept "a", I have to accept "c" as well, as you did.

I'm probably going to regret posting this because I'm going off the top of my
head but it wouldn't be the first time a test guide had the wrong answer posted.

Alright guys.... pile on!




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Barry]

> I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least I
> am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both a
> and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.
>
> Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
> subscale
> ( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US folks)
> Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
> Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and day
> 2 it could be said that
>
> a. The QNH is higher on day 2
> b. The QNH is lower on day 2
> c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
> d. The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.

I agree with you - answers a and c are both correct. Day 2 QNH is about 1026.

[terry]

On Apr 17, 9:29*pm, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com>
wrote:
> terry wrote:
> > I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least I
> > am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both a
> > and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.
>
> > Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
> > subscale
> > * * * * ( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US folks)
> > Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
> > Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and day
> > 2 it could be said that
>
> > a. The QNH is higher on day 2
> > b. The QNH is lower on day 2
> > c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
> > d. *The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.
>
> Their answer confuses me too. *It seems that if the altimeter setting wasn't
> changed from day 1 to day 2, yet it reads a lower altitude, the barometric
> pressure must have risen. *The altimeter will translate lower pressure to higher
> altitude and higher pressure to lower altitude. *So I think the answer should be
> "a". *And if I accept "a", I have to accept "c" as well, as you did.
>
> I'm probably going to regret posting this because I'm going off the top of my
> head but it wouldn't be the first time a test guide had the wrong answer posted.
>
> Alright guys.... pile on!

No, its not the first time I have come across wrong answers either,
but it is the first time I have come across a wrong answer, pointed it
out to the author and was still told I was wrong. ( I dont want to
name the said author because I think he otherwise has published some
very good material and I am sure he will soon realise his mistake.. I
just wanted to be absolutely sure I was right before I responded to
his response!)
Thanks Mort

[terry]

On Apr 17, 9:30*pm, "Barry" > wrote:
> > I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least I
> > am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both a
> > and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.
>
> > Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
> > subscale
> > * * * * ( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US folks)
> > Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
> > Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and day
> > 2 it could be said that
>
> > a. The QNH is higher on day 2
> > b. The QNH is lower on day 2
> > c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
> > d. *The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.
>
> I agree with you - answers a and c are both correct. *Day 2 QNH is about 1026.

Yep, thats what I get
Thanks

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:20:46 -0700 (PDT), terry
> wrote in
>:

>I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least I
>am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both a
>and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.
>
>Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
>subscale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbar
Atmospheric air pressure is often given in millibars where
"standard" sea level pressure is defined as 1013.25 mbar (hPa),
equal to 1.01325 bar. Despite millibars not being an SI unit, they
are still used locally in meteorology in some countries to
describe atmospheric pressure. The SI unit is the pascal (Pa),
with 1 mbar = 100 Pa = 1 hPa = 0.1 kPa. Meteorologists worldwide
have long measured air pressure in millibars. After the
introduction of SI units, others use hectopascals (which are
equivalent to millibars) so they could stick to the same numeric
scale. Similar pressures are given in kilopascals in practically
all other fields, where the hecto prefix is hardly ever used. In
particular, Canadian weather reports use kilopascals (which could
also be called centibars).


> ( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US folks)
>Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
>Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and day
>2 it could be said that
>
>a. The QNH is higher on day 2
>b. The QNH is lower on day 2
>c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
>d. The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.
>
>Terry
>PPL Downunder
>


http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec={8F1A7DDE-89E8-11D4-8351-00C04FC2C2BF}
What does QNH stand for?
Atmospheric Pressure (Q) at Nautical Height (aviation)

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera schrieb:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbar

Mbar would be a tad much. You certainly meant mbar.

> What does QNH stand for?
> Atmospheric Pressure (Q) at Nautical Height (aviation)

Bull****. QNH is *not* an acronym. It's one of over hundred Q-Codes
which were defined in the stone age of radio telephony. The letters were
randomly chosen, think of it as a numeration. Most of those Q-Codes are
forgotten today, but a few still live. In aviation, I mean in aviation
in all coutries except the USA, QNH, QFE and QNH are used to define
different altitude settings (roughly spoken).

QNH stands for the pressure you must tune in the kollmans window to have
the altimeter display the airport elevation when the airplane sits on
the ground. (As opposed to QFE, which ist the pressure to set for the
alitmeter to display zero on the ground and QNE, which is the altitude
which the alitmeter shows on the ground when it is set to standard
atmosphere.)

For those who believe in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-code

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:30:56 -0400, "Barry" > wrote:

>> I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least I
>> am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both a
>> and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.
>>
>> Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
>> subscale
>> ( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US folks)
>> Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
>> Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and day
>> 2 it could be said that
>>
>> a. The QNH is higher on day 2
>> b. The QNH is lower on day 2
>> c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
>> d. The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.
>
>I agree with you - answers a and c are both correct. Day 2 QNH is about 1026.
>

playing with an altimeter here in my lap.
simulating 1390 by setting 390. the qnh reads as 1032.

moving the needle lower sees the qnh values going lower.

so to correct for the reduced reading I would need to move the qnh the
other way.(increase it)
I agree a is correct from playing with an actual altimeter.
c is correct just from reading the data in the question.

fwiw
Stealth pilot

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 1:29*am, Stefan > wrote:
> Larry Dighera schrieb:
>
> *>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbar
>
> Mbar would be a tad much. You certainly meant mbar.
>
> *> What does QNH stand for?
> *> Atmospheric Pressure (Q) at Nautical Height (aviation)
>
> Bull****. QNH is *not* an acronym. It's one of over hundred Q-Codes
> which were defined in the stone age of radio telephony. The letters were
> randomly chosen, think of it as a numeration. Most of those Q-Codes are
> forgotten today, but a few still live. In aviation, I mean in aviation
> in all coutries except the USA, QNH, QFE and QNH are used to define
> different altitude settings (roughly spoken).
>
> QNH stands for the pressure you must tune in the kollmans window to have
> the altimeter display the airport elevation when the airplane sits on
> the ground. (As opposed to QFE, which ist the pressure to set for the
> alitmeter to display zero on the ground and QNE, which is the altitude
> which the alitmeter shows on the ground when it is set to standard
> atmosphere.)
>
> For those who believe in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-code

QNH means query Newquay Harbour which was the British reference for
sea level.
It should give the atmospheric pressure at that dtaum -but I doubt
that the met offices bother to check what the actual height of that
datum is...

Cheers

[terry]

On Apr 17, 11:38*pm, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:30:56 -0400, "Barry" > wrote:
> >> I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least I
> >> am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both a
> >> and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.
>
> >> Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
> >> subscale
> >> * * * * ( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US folks)
> >> Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
> >> Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and day
> >> 2 it could be said that
>
> >> a. The QNH is higher on day 2
> >> b. The QNH is lower on day 2
> >> c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
> >> d. *The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.
>
> >I agree with you - answers a and c are both correct. *Day 2 QNH is about 1026.
>
> playing with an altimeter here in my lap.
> simulating 1390 by setting 390. the qnh reads as 1032.
>
> moving the needle lower sees the qnh values going lower.
>
> so to correct for the reduced reading I would need to move the qnh the
> other way.(increase it)
> I agree a is correct from playing with an actual altimeter.
> c is correct just from reading the data in the question.
>
> fwiw
> Stealth pilot- Hide quoted text -
>
gday Stealth,
I just think of an altimeter as being a inverse pressure guage cos
pressure decreases with altitude, so for altitude reading to have gone
down , atmospheric pressure has to have gone up.
I gotta ask, why have you got an altimeter in your lap?
Terry

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

> QNH means query Newquay Harbour which was the British reference for
> sea level.
> It should give the atmospheric pressure at that dtaum -but I doubt

You certainly can cite a source for this urban legend?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

terry > wrote in news:234756e2-a583-4cbc-8f42-
:

> I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least I
> am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both a
> and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.
>
> Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
> subscale
> ( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US folks)
> Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
> Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and day
> 2 it could be said that
>
> a. The QNH is higher on day 2
> b. The QNH is lower on day 2
> c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
> d. The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.

It's A. It could also be C if the airfield has a serious subsidance
problem.


Bertie

[terry]

On Apr 18, 12:07*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> terry > wrote in news:234756e2-a583-4cbc-8f42-
> :
>
> > I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least I
> > am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both a
> > and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.
>
> > Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
> > subscale
> > * * * * *( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US folks)
> > Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
> > Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and day
> > 2 it could be said that
>
> > a. The QNH is higher on day 2
> > b. The QNH is lower on day 2
> > c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
> > d. *The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.
>
> It's A. It could also be C if the airfield has a serious subsidance
> problem.
>
you are really confusing me now Bertie, I got learned that the
pressure ht was wot your altimeter reads when you have 1013.2 in the
window ( or 29.92 for you ...or maybe not cos everyone knows bunyips
are aussies ) 1000 is lower than 1390 therefore pressure altitude is
lower on day 2.. surely!.

[terry]

On Apr 17, 11:29*pm, Stefan > wrote:
> Larry Dighera schrieb:
>
> *>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbar
>
> Mbar would be a tad much. You certainly meant mbar.
>
> *> What does QNH stand for?
> *> Atmospheric Pressure (Q) at Nautical Height (aviation)
>
> Bull****. QNH is *not* an acronym. It's one of over hundred Q-Codes
> which were defined in the stone age of radio telephony. The letters were
> randomly chosen, think of it as a numeration. Most of those Q-Codes are
> forgotten today, but a few still live. In aviation, I mean in aviation
> in all coutries except the USA, QNH, QFE and QNH are used to define
> different altitude settings (roughly spoken).
>
> QNH stands for the pressure you must tune in the kollmans window to have
> the altimeter display the airport elevation when the airplane sits on
> the ground. (As opposed to QFE, which ist the pressure to set for the
> alitmeter to display zero on the ground and QNE, which is the altitude
> which the alitmeter shows on the ground when it is set to standard
> atmosphere.)
>
> For those who believe in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-code

I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. So what do you
call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
elevation?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

terry wrote:

>
> I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. So what do you
> call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
> elevation?

altimeter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

terry > wrote in news:179c2f21-99ad-4415-a9b2-
:

> On Apr 18, 12:07*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> terry > wrote in news:234756e2-a583-4cbc-8f42-
>> :
>>
>> > I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least
I
>> > am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both
a
>> > and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.
>>
>> > Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
>> > subscale
>> > * * * * *( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US f
> olks)
>> > Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
>> > Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and
day
>> > 2 it could be said that
>>
>> > a. The QNH is higher on day 2
>> > b. The QNH is lower on day 2
>> > c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
>> > d. *The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.
>>
>> It's A. It could also be C if the airfield has a serious subsidance
>> problem.
>>
> you are really confusing me now Bertie, I got learned that the
> pressure ht was wot your altimeter reads when you have 1013.2 in the
> window ( or 29.92 for you ...or maybe not cos everyone knows bunyips
> are aussies ) 1000 is lower than 1390 therefore pressure altitude is
> lower on day 2.. surely!.
>

Yer right, of course, I just couldn't resist the joke! There's a name
for that, if I'm not mistaken, and it's QNE. But theyre going for A, I'm
pretty sure and made an error in what thye were trying to say in C. I'm
bi-barometric, BTW.

Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 1:53*am, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > QNH means query Newquay Harbour which was the British reference for
> > sea level.
> > It should give the atmospheric pressure at that dtaum -but I doubt
>
> You certainly can cite a source for this urban legend?

Urban legend? O, it was not Newquay but Newlyn (both in cornwall). The
datum is sea level as set the British Admiralty back then so the
obvious Q code would have been QNH. Look up the history of the naval
tidal observatory if you don't believe it.

Cheers

[quietguy]

On Apr 17, 9:40*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> terry wrote:
>
> > I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. *So what do you
> > call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
> > elevation?
>
> altimeter

The Department of Defense uses QNH for altimeter settings in its
forecasts; that replaced ALSTG when the old FT forecast code was
superseded by the TAF code in the late 1970's. Here's the latest TAF
for Offutt AFB:

KOFF 171410 36015G25KT 4800 -RA OVC040 QNH2996INS
TEMPO 1417 35015G35KT 3200 -TSRA OVC025CB
BECMG 1617 03015G25KT 4800 -RA BKN020 OVC040 QNH2997INS
BECMG 0203 36012G18KT 8000 -RA OVC008 QNH2985INS T10/21Z T06/14Z
1415

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

terry > wrote in news:72cae9d8-3bd3-412e-aad5-
:

> On Apr 17, 11:29*pm, Stefan > wrote:
>> Larry Dighera schrieb:
>>
>> *>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbar
>>
>> Mbar would be a tad much. You certainly meant mbar.
>>
>> *> What does QNH stand for?
>> *> Atmospheric Pressure (Q) at Nautical Height (aviation)
>>
>> Bull****. QNH is *not* an acronym. It's one of over hundred Q-Codes
>> which were defined in the stone age of radio telephony. The letters
were
>> randomly chosen, think of it as a numeration. Most of those Q-Codes
are
>> forgotten today, but a few still live. In aviation, I mean in
aviation
>> in all coutries except the USA, QNH, QFE and QNH are used to define
>> different altitude settings (roughly spoken).
>>
>> QNH stands for the pressure you must tune in the kollmans window to
have
>> the altimeter display the airport elevation when the airplane sits on
>> the ground. (As opposed to QFE, which ist the pressure to set for the
>> alitmeter to display zero on the ground and QNE, which is the
altitude
>> which the alitmeter shows on the ground when it is set to standard
>> atmosphere.)
>>
>> For those who believe in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-
code
>
> I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. So what do you
> call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
> elevation?

They don't use any of the Q codes in the US. QNH is one of the few still
in use around the rest of the world, the rest are pretty much archaich.
You stil occasionally hear QFE in the UK, but no airlines I know of are
using it anymore since modern airplanes aren't designed around their use
(QFE settings on the altimeter **** up the computers since the computer
is anticipating a QHN setting to run a bunch of other devices in the
airplane, of which pressurisation is the most relevant) Very
occasionally you hear QSY which is "see you, I'm going to talk to
someone else" and QDM almost never nowadays, but it used to be
relatively common and it's Mag direction to a station. And even less
used QDR which is the Mag radial from a station. I think the Maritime
world might use a lot more of them still, though.

Bertie


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 2:40*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> terry wrote:
>
> > I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. *So what do you
> > call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
> > elevation?
>
> altimeter

Nope. If you dial up the local barometric pressure the altimeter may
not read airfield elevation....

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 2:20*am, terry > wrote:
> On Apr 17, 11:29*pm, Stefan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Larry Dighera schrieb:
>
> > *>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbar
>
> > Mbar would be a tad much. You certainly meant mbar.
>
> > *> What does QNH stand for?
> > *> Atmospheric Pressure (Q) at Nautical Height (aviation)
>
> > Bull****. QNH is *not* an acronym. It's one of over hundred Q-Codes
> > which were defined in the stone age of radio telephony. The letters were
> > randomly chosen, think of it as a numeration. Most of those Q-Codes are
> > forgotten today, but a few still live. In aviation, I mean in aviation
> > in all coutries except the USA, QNH, QFE and QNH are used to define
> > different altitude settings (roughly spoken).
>
> > QNH stands for the pressure you must tune in the kollmans window to have
> > the altimeter display the airport elevation when the airplane sits on
> > the ground. (As opposed to QFE, which ist the pressure to set for the
> > alitmeter to display zero on the ground and QNE, which is the altitude
> > which the alitmeter shows on the ground when it is set to standard
> > atmosphere.)
>
> > For those who believe in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-code
>
> I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. *So what do you
> call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
> elevation?- Hide quoted text -
>

That's a good question as Eurocontrol recognises QNH as the correct
local barometric setting (they also state that it means Query: Newlyn
harbour). I thought the ICAO agreed with Eurocontrol on these things?

Cheers

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

> That's a good question as Eurocontrol recognises QNH as the correct
> local barometric setting (they also state that it means Query: Newlyn
> harbour). I thought the ICAO agreed with Eurocontrol on these things?

Actually, it's the other way round: Eurocontrol adheres to the ICAO
phraseology.


From The ICAO Manual of Radiotelephony (ICAO Document 9432)

Glossary:
QNH: Altimeter sub-scale setting to obtain elevation when on the ground

Example:
Fastair 345, descend to 4000 feet, QNH 1005, transition level 50, expect
ILS approach runway 24

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2:40 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> terry wrote:
>>
>>> I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. So what do you
>>> call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
>>> elevation?
>> altimeter
>
> Nope. If you dial up the local barometric pressure the altimeter may
> not read airfield elevation....
>
> Cheers

GO away no fly boy.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 4:06*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 2:40 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> terry wrote:
>
> >>> I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. *So what do you
> >>> call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
> >>> elevation?
> >> altimeter
>
> > Nope. If you dial up the local barometric pressure the altimeter may
> > not read airfield elevation....
>
> > Cheers
>
> GO away no fly boy.

I see you don't know. In fact an altimeter is calibrated to the
standard atmosphere so if the temp. is not standard it will not read
field elevation when local QNH is applied.

Pretty basic knowlege for a PPL, Oh I forgot, I'm not supposed to be a
pilot.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 3:58*am, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > That's a good question as Eurocontrol recognises QNH as the correct
> > local barometric setting (they also state that it means Query: Newlyn
> > harbour). I thought the ICAO agreed with Eurocontrol on these things?
>
> Actually, it's the other way round: Eurocontrol adheres to the ICAO
> phraseology.
>
> *From The ICAO Manual of Radiotelephony (ICAO Document 9432)
>
> Glossary:
> QNH: Altimeter sub-scale setting to obtain elevation when on the ground
>
> Example:
> Fastair 345, descend to 4000 feet, QNH 1005, transition level 50, expect
> ILS approach runway 24

WTF are the Americans doing not using ICAO standards or is it just
Gig601 being wrong?

Cheers

[Tauno Voipio]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2:20 am, terry > wrote:
>
>>On Apr 17, 11:29 pm, Stefan > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Larry Dighera schrieb:
>>
>>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbar
>>
>>>Mbar would be a tad much. You certainly meant mbar.
>>
>>> > What does QNH stand for?
>>> > Atmospheric Pressure (Q) at Nautical Height (aviation)
>>
>>>Bull****. QNH is *not* an acronym. It's one of over hundred Q-Codes
>>>which were defined in the stone age of radio telephony. The letters were
>>>randomly chosen, think of it as a numeration. Most of those Q-Codes are
>>>forgotten today, but a few still live. In aviation, I mean in aviation
>>>in all coutries except the USA, QNH, QFE and QNH are used to define
>>>different altitude settings (roughly spoken).
>>
>>>QNH stands for the pressure you must tune in the kollmans window to have
>>>the altimeter display the airport elevation when the airplane sits on
>>>the ground. (As opposed to QFE, which ist the pressure to set for the
>>>alitmeter to display zero on the ground and QNE, which is the altitude
>>>which the alitmeter shows on the ground when it is set to standard
>>>atmosphere.)
>>
>>>For those who believe in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-code
>>
>>I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. So what do you
>>call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
>>elevation?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>
> That's a good question as Eurocontrol recognises QNH as the correct
> local barometric setting (they also state that it means Query: Newlyn
> harbour). I thought the ICAO agreed with Eurocontrol on these things?
>
> Cheers


QNH is local barometric pressure reduced to mean sea level.

The local barometric pressure without altitude correction is QFE.

(At least here in the North-East corner of Eurocontrol area)

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> They don't use any of the Q codes in the US. QNH is one of the few still
> in use around the rest of the world, the rest are pretty much archaich.
> You stil occasionally hear QFE in the UK, but no airlines I know of are
> using it anymore since modern airplanes aren't designed around their use
> (QFE settings on the altimeter **** up the computers since the computer
> is anticipating a QHN setting to run a bunch of other devices in the
> airplane, of which pressurisation is the most relevant) Very
> occasionally you hear QSY which is "see you, I'm going to talk to
> someone else" and QDM almost never nowadays, but it used to be
> relatively common and it's Mag direction to a station. And even less
> used QDR which is the Mag radial from a station. I think the Maritime
> world might use a lot more of them still, though.

The UK PPL syllabus still teaches QNH, QFE (the military use it here, and
some civil airfields will give it in the initial response). QDM, QDR and QTE
(true bearing) are also taught. QDM is on the R/T 'practical' test
generally.

Andy

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 3:04*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. *So what do you
> > call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
> > elevation?
>
> They don't use any of the Q codes in the US. QNH is one of the few still
> in use around the rest of the world, the rest are pretty much archaich.

How come the US doesn't adopt ICAO? I thought it had to -isn't that
what ICAO is all about?

Cheers

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

> I see you don't know. In fact an altimeter is calibrated to the
> standard atmosphere so if the temp. is not standard it will not read
> field elevation when local QNH is applied.

Wrong.

From The ICAO Manual of Radiotelephony (ICAO Document 9432) Glossary:
QNH: Altimeter sub-scale setting to obtain elevation when on the ground

So an altimeter set to local QNH will always read field elevation *by
definition*.

> Pretty basic knowlege for a PPL

Indeed.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

terry wrote:
> I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. So what do you
> call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
> elevation?


"Altimeter" or "altimeter setting". ATC always just says "altimeter".



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> They don't use any of the Q codes in the US. QNH is one of the few
>> still in use around the rest of the world, the rest are pretty much
>> archaich. You stil occasionally hear QFE in the UK, but no airlines I
>> know of are using it anymore since modern airplanes aren't designed
>> around their use (QFE settings on the altimeter **** up the computers
>> since the computer is anticipating a QHN setting to run a bunch of
>> other devices in the airplane, of which pressurisation is the most
>> relevant) Very occasionally you hear QSY which is "see you, I'm going
>> to talk to someone else" and QDM almost never nowadays, but it used
>> to be relatively common and it's Mag direction to a station. And even
>> less used QDR which is the Mag radial from a station. I think the
>> Maritime world might use a lot more of them still, though.
>
> The UK PPL syllabus still teaches QNH, QFE (the military use it here,
> and some civil airfields will give it in the initial response). QDM,
> QDR and QTE (true bearing) are also taught. QDM is on the R/T
> 'practical' test generally.
>

But, like sticking to imperial measurements, I think you stand alone.
Britain is still clinging to a number of archaic aviation terms (you
still gotta know which direction to go whatever you choose to call it!)
One of my favorites is the "Pan" call. Nobody uses that anymore except
you guys. I had an entertaining few minutes in Germany listening to some
Nigel making one of these a few years back. It went something like this.
The Nigel Skipper is played Terry Thomas and the German controller by
Hardy Kruger in this re-creation.

Boffo Air 2234 "Rhine, Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
ATC "Station calling?"
BA 2234 "Rhine this is Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
ATC. "Boffo 2234, pass your message"
BA 2234 "Rhine, this is Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
ATC, "Boffo 2234, say again?"
BA2234 "Rhine, this is a PAN call from Boffo 2234"
(at this point you can almost hear the Boffo skiper thinking "bloody
foreigners"
ATC, "Boffo 2234, are you declaring an emergency?"
BA2234 "Negative Rhine, Boffo 2234 is making a PAN call"
ATC, -silence-
BA 2234, Rhine, we have a pasenger having a heart attack, we're mkaing a
PAN call"
ATC, "Boffo 2234, do you wish to declare an emergency?"
BA 2234 "Nega- Oh, yes, yes, we're declaring an emergency, we'd like to
divert to Frankfurt immediatly. "
ATC, roger 2234, fly heading 330 and descend now to FL 150"

No ****, this really happened. I think it actually took longer than
this. The Brit captain just wouldn't let go....

I'm not sure but I think it was Thomas Cook.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:cba00260-0bfd-4ac5-8b46-
:

> On Apr 18, 3:04*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. *So what do
you
>
>> > call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
>> > elevation?
>>
>> They don't use any of the Q codes in the US. QNH is one of the few
still
>> in use around the rest of the world, the rest are pretty much
archaich.
>
> How come the US doesn't adopt ICAO? I thought it had to -isn't that
> what ICAO is all about?
>

They have Nukes and won't be told anything. AFAIK, they're the only
place left that uses in/hg, and the weather reporting format is also
unique. ATC phrasology is also peculiar to the US.
Actually, there are a lot of anomolies around the world. Eastern Europe
and Russia doggedly cling to using windspeed in Meters/second and have
reluctantly accepted using feet for altitude, though there are still a
lot of published platform altitudes of something like "2746 feet" The
Brits still have some oddball notions and can't understand why the rest
of the world doesn't want to do it their way and the middle east is
pretty much close your eyes and ask Allah for guidance. Semicircular
rules are different alsmot everywhere. Theyr'e qudrantal in the UK, in
fact. In Sweden it's N/S instead of E/W because that's the way most of
the traffic goes. Spain is the same.
Africa doesn't have any rules at al as far as I can tell, though it's
ostensibly ICAO
Haven't been to China yet, but it's gotta be interesting too.




Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 4:43*am, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > I see you don't know. In fact an altimeter is calibrated to the
> > standard atmosphere so if the temp. is not standard it will not read
> > field elevation when local QNH is applied.
>
> Wrong.
>
> *From The ICAO Manual of Radiotelephony (ICAO Document 9432) Glossary:
> QNH: Altimeter sub-scale setting to obtain elevation when on the ground
>
> So an altimeter set to local QNH will always read field elevation *by
> definition*.
>
> *> Pretty basic knowlege for a PPL
>
> Indeed.

Yes it may say that but it's being loose because it forgt to include
the "barometric pressure reduced to MSL by application of the ISA".
Alltimeters are calibrated for the standard atmosphere. -right?
Think about it, if an ARFOR gives QNH how could it be correct for all
terrain if local temperatures differed? I covered this in my PPL tech
course -was this not covered in your manuals?
just in case you still don't see it, from Wiki:

"The altimeter is calibrated to show the pressure directly as an
altitude above mean sea level, in accordance with a mathematical model
defined by the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA)... An altimeter
cannot, however, be adjusted for variations in air temperature.
Differences in temperature from the ISA model will, therefore, cause
errors in indicated altitude."

OK?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 4:56*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Andy Hawkins > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > In article >,
> > * * * * * *Bertie the > wrote:
> >> They don't use any of the Q codes in the US. QNH is one of the few
> >> still in use around the rest of the world, the rest are pretty much
> >> archaich. You stil occasionally hear QFE in the UK, but no airlines I
> >> know of are using it anymore since modern airplanes aren't designed
> >> around their use (QFE settings on the altimeter **** up the computers
> >> since the computer is anticipating a QHN setting to run a bunch of
> >> other devices in the airplane, of which pressurisation is the most
> >> relevant) Very occasionally you hear QSY which is "see you, I'm going
> >> to talk to someone else" and *QDM almost never nowadays, but it used
> >> to be relatively common and it's Mag direction to a station. And even
> >> less used QDR which is the Mag radial from a station. I think the
> >> Maritime world might use a lot more of them still, though.
>
> > The UK PPL syllabus still teaches QNH, QFE (the military use it here,
> > and some civil airfields will give it in the initial response). QDM,
> > QDR and QTE (true bearing) are also taught. QDM is on the R/T
> > 'practical' test generally.
>
> But, like sticking to imperial measurements, I think you stand alone.
> Britain is still clinging to a number of archaic aviation terms (you
> still gotta know which direction to go whatever you choose to call it!)
> One of my favorites is the "Pan" call. Nobody uses that anymore except
> you guys. I had an entertaining few minutes in Germany listening to some
> Nigel making one of these a few years back. It went something like this.
> The Nigel Skipper is played Terry Thomas and the German controller by
> Hardy Kruger in this re-creation.
>
> Boffo Air 2234 "Rhine, Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
> ATC "Station calling?"
> BA 2234 "Rhine this is Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
> ATC. "Boffo 2234, pass your message"
> BA 2234 "Rhine, this is Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
> ATC, "Boffo 2234, say again?"
> BA2234 "Rhine, this is a PAN call from Boffo 2234"
> (at this point you can almost hear the Boffo skiper thinking "bloody
> foreigners"
> ATC, "Boffo 2234, are you declaring an emergency?"
> BA2234 "Negative Rhine, Boffo 2234 is making a PAN call"
> ATC, -silence-
> BA 2234, Rhine, we have a pasenger having a heart attack, we're mkaing a
> PAN call"
> ATC, "Boffo 2234, do you wish to declare an emergency?"
> BA 2234 "Nega- Oh, yes, yes, we're declaring an emergency, we'd like to
> divert to Frankfurt immediatly. "
> ATC, roger 2234, fly heading 330 and descend now to FL 150"
>
> No ****, this really happened. I think it actually took longer than
> this. The Brit captain just wouldn't let go....
>
> I'm not sure but I think it was Thomas Cook.
>

I was taught PAN PAN format for urgency in my R/T. AsI far as I know
it's an ICAO standard. Are you saying there are controllers out there
who don't know this?

Cheers

[Barry]

> Actually, there are a lot of anomolies around the world. Eastern Europe
> and Russia doggedly cling to using windspeed in Meters/second and have
> reluctantly accepted using feet for altitude, though there are still a
> lot of published platform altitudes of something like "2746 feet"

I learned to fly in France in the 1980s and they used a weird combination of
feet and meters. Altimeters read in feet,and minimum safe altitudes were
charted in feet. But charted obstructions and airspace restrictions were in
meters. Everyone set QFE (altimeter reads zero on the ground) for takeoff,
then reset the altimeter to QNH if leaving the traffic pattern. Flight levels
began at 3500 feet.

Can any Europeans out there tell me if it's still like that?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:fdf0b97d-aac6-4ac1-a936-
:

> On Apr 18, 3:58*am, Stefan > wrote:
>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>
>> > That's a good question as Eurocontrol recognises QNH as the correct
>> > local barometric setting (they also state that it means Query:
Newlyn
>> > harbour). I thought the ICAO agreed with Eurocontrol on these
things?
>>
>> Actually, it's the other way round: Eurocontrol adheres to the ICAO
>> phraseology.
>>
>> *From The ICAO Manual of Radiotelephony (ICAO Document 9432)
>>
>> Glossary:
>> QNH: Altimeter sub-scale setting to obtain elevation when on the
ground
>>
>> Example:
>> Fastair 345, descend to 4000 feet, QNH 1005, transition level 50,
expect
>> ILS approach runway 24
>
> WTF are the Americans doing not using ICAO standards or is it just
> Gig601 being wrong?
>

Mostly just that it evolved into what it is and there would be a lot of
resistance to change. For one thing it would mean changine every
altimiter in the US for ones who's Kollsman windows were in mb ( or Hpa
if you prefer) It would also mean a complete revamp of airspace, though
there has been some moves towards international harmonisation there in
the last 15 years or so. Likewise with ATC, there has been some movement
towards harmonisation. I think it's a case of softly softly catchy
monkey in regards the FAA's approach. Introducing too much "furrin"
stuff all at once would raise an outcry and probably dash any chance of
harmonisation completely. Imagine, if you will, Jay hineck whining about
lefties form Europe making him change his altimeter on his "Pathfinder"
Whatever the **** that is, and you will see what I mean.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:680f0$48077e23$54497f6b
:

> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
>> I see you don't know. In fact an altimeter is calibrated to the
>> standard atmosphere so if the temp. is not standard it will not read
>> field elevation when local QNH is applied.
>
> Wrong.
>
> From The ICAO Manual of Radiotelephony (ICAO Document 9432) Glossary:
> QNH: Altimeter sub-scale setting to obtain elevation when on the
ground
>
> So an altimeter set to local QNH will always read field elevation *by
> definition*.
>

No, it will read the elevation where you are. UIt will read field
elevation at the reference point.


> > Pretty basic knowlege for a PPL
>
> Indeed.
>

Indeed indeed.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Barry" > wrote in
:

>> Actually, there are a lot of anomolies around the world. Eastern
>> Europe and Russia doggedly cling to using windspeed in Meters/second
>> and have reluctantly accepted using feet for altitude, though there
>> are still a lot of published platform altitudes of something like
>> "2746 feet"
>
> I learned to fly in France in the 1980s and they used a weird
> combination of feet and meters. Altimeters read in feet,and minimum
> safe altitudes were charted in feet. But charted obstructions and
> airspace restrictions were in meters. Everyone set QFE (altimeter
> reads zero on the ground) for takeoff, then reset the altimeter to QNH
> if leaving the traffic pattern. Flight levels began at 3500 feet.
>
> Can any Europeans out there tell me if it's still like that?
>
>
>

I fly in Eurpoe a lot an dmercifully tht doesn't seem to be the case,
but having said that, I only use insturment charts in France...

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Apr 18, 4:56*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Andy Hawkins > wrote
>> innews:slrng0ev04.7lo.andy@gently.
> org.uk:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Hi,
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > * * * * * *Bertie the > wrote:
>> >> They don't use any of the Q codes in the US. QNH is one of the few
>> >> still in use around the rest of the world, the rest are pretty
>> >> much archaich. You stil occasionally hear QFE in the UK, but no
>> >> airlines I know of are using it anymore since modern airplanes
>> >> aren't designed around their use (QFE settings on the altimeter
>> >> **** up the computers since the computer is anticipating a QHN
>> >> setting to run a bunch of other devices in the airplane, of which
>> >> pressurisation is the most relevant) Very occasionally you hear
>> >> QSY which is "see you, I'm going to talk to someone else" and *QDM
>> >> almost never nowadays, but it used to be relatively common and
>> >> it's Mag direction to a station. And even less used QDR which is
>> >> the Mag radial from a station. I think the Maritime world might
>> >> use a lot more of them still, though.
>>
>> > The UK PPL syllabus still teaches QNH, QFE (the military use it
>> > here, and some civil airfields will give it in the initial
>> > response). QDM, QDR and QTE (true bearing) are also taught. QDM is
>> > on the R/T 'practical' test generally.
>>
>> But, like sticking to imperial measurements, I think you stand alone.
>> Britain is still clinging to a number of archaic aviation terms (you
>> still gotta know which direction to go whatever you choose to call
>> it!) One of my favorites is the "Pan" call. Nobody uses that anymore
>> except you guys. I had an entertaining few minutes in Germany
>> listening to some Nigel making one of these a few years back. It went
>> something like this. The Nigel Skipper is played Terry Thomas and the
>> German controller by Hardy Kruger in this re-creation.
>>
>> Boffo Air 2234 "Rhine, Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
>> ATC "Station calling?"
>> BA 2234 "Rhine this is Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
>> ATC. "Boffo 2234, pass your message"
>> BA 2234 "Rhine, this is Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
>> ATC, "Boffo 2234, say again?"
>> BA2234 "Rhine, this is a PAN call from Boffo 2234"
>> (at this point you can almost hear the Boffo skiper thinking "bloody
>> foreigners"
>> ATC, "Boffo 2234, are you declaring an emergency?"
>> BA2234 "Negative Rhine, Boffo 2234 is making a PAN call"
>> ATC, -silence-
>> BA 2234, Rhine, we have a pasenger having a heart attack, we're
>> mkaing a PAN call"
>> ATC, "Boffo 2234, do you wish to declare an emergency?"
>> BA 2234 "Nega- Oh, yes, yes, we're declaring an emergency, we'd like
>> to divert to Frankfurt immediatly. "
>> ATC, roger 2234, fly heading 330 and descend now to FL 150"
>>
>> No ****, this really happened. I think it actually took longer than
>> this. The Brit captain just wouldn't let go....
>>
>> I'm not sure but I think it was Thomas Cook.
>>
>
> I was taught PAN PAN format for urgency in my R/T. AsI far as I know
> it's an ICAO standard. Are you saying there are controllers out there
> who don't know this?
>
> Cheers
>
>
>

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying.. It's fallen from use completely.
I've never used Mayday either, though I would if I was in real trouble
to punch through the traffic. always just declared an emergency. That
incident I posted above happened just like I posted it. The idiot wasted
several minutes "trying to get Jerry to see some sense"

Bertie


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 5:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote in news:fdf0b97d-aac6-4ac1-a936-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 3:58*am, Stefan > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> >> > That's a good question as Eurocontrol recognises QNH as the correct
> >> > local barometric setting (they also state that it means Query:
> Newlyn
> >> > harbour). I thought the ICAO agreed with Eurocontrol on these
> things?
>
> >> Actually, it's the other way round: Eurocontrol adheres to the ICAO
> >> phraseology.
>
> >> *From The ICAO Manual of Radiotelephony (ICAO Document 9432)
>
> >> Glossary:
> >> QNH: Altimeter sub-scale setting to obtain elevation when on the
> ground
>
> >> Example:
> >> Fastair 345, descend to 4000 feet, QNH 1005, transition level 50,
> expect
> >> ILS approach runway 24
>
> > WTF are the Americans doing not using ICAO standards or is it just
> > Gig601 being wrong?
>
> Mostly just that it evolved into what it is and there would be a lot of
> resistance to change. For one thing it would mean changine every
> altimiter in the US for ones who's Kollsman windows were in mb ( or Hpa
> if you prefer) It would also mean a complete revamp of airspace, though
> there has been some moves towards international harmonisation there in
> the last 15 years or so. Likewise with ATC, there has been some movement
> towards harmonisation. I think it's a case of softly softly catchy
> monkey in regards the FAA's approach. Introducing too much "furrin"
> stuff all at once would raise an outcry and probably dash any chance of
> harmonisation completely. Imagine, if you will, Jay hineck whining about
> lefties form Europe making him change his altimeter on his "Pathfinder"
> Whatever the **** that is, and you will see what I mean.
>

In the spirit of reciprocation, I can tell you that Pathfinders
dropped flares on targets for bombers during WW2.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:4a79e95a-8313-4834-a217-
:

> On Apr 18, 5:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote in news:fdf0b97d-aac6-4ac1-
a936-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 3:58*am, Stefan > wrote:
>> >> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>
>> >> > That's a good question as Eurocontrol recognises QNH as the
correct
>> >> > local barometric setting (they also state that it means Query:
>> Newlyn
>> >> > harbour). I thought the ICAO agreed with Eurocontrol on these
>> things?
>>
>> >> Actually, it's the other way round: Eurocontrol adheres to the
ICAO
>> >> phraseology.
>>
>> >> *From The ICAO Manual of Radiotelephony (ICAO Document 9432)
>>
>> >> Glossary:
>> >> QNH: Altimeter sub-scale setting to obtain elevation when on the
>> ground
>>
>> >> Example:
>> >> Fastair 345, descend to 4000 feet, QNH 1005, transition level 50,
>> expect
>> >> ILS approach runway 24
>>
>> > WTF are the Americans doing not using ICAO standards or is it just
>> > Gig601 being wrong?
>>
>> Mostly just that it evolved into what it is and there would be a lot
of
>> resistance to change. For one thing it would mean changine every
>> altimiter in the US for ones who's Kollsman windows were in mb ( or
Hpa
>> if you prefer) It would also mean a complete revamp of airspace,
though
>> there has been some moves towards international harmonisation there
in
>> the last 15 years or so. Likewise with ATC, there has been some
movement
>> towards harmonisation. I think it's a case of softly softly catchy
>> monkey in regards the FAA's approach. Introducing too much "furrin"
>> stuff all at once would raise an outcry and probably dash any chance
of
>> harmonisation completely. Imagine, if you will, Jay hineck whining
about
>> lefties form Europe making him change his altimeter on his
"Pathfinder"
>> Whatever the **** that is, and you will see what I mean.
>>
>
> In the spirit of reciprocation, I can tell you that Pathfinders
> dropped flares on targets for bombers during WW2.


I doubt they were fleets of Cherokees guided by playstations, somehow.


Bertie
>
>

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 5:51*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote in news:4a79e95a-8313-4834-a217-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 5:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps > wrote in news:fdf0b97d-aac6-4ac1-
> a936-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Apr 18, 3:58*am, Stefan > wrote:
> >> >> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> >> >> > That's a good question as Eurocontrol recognises QNH as the
> correct
> >> >> > local barometric setting (they also state that it means Query:
> >> Newlyn
> >> >> > harbour). I thought the ICAO agreed with Eurocontrol on these
> >> things?
>
> >> >> Actually, it's the other way round: Eurocontrol adheres to the
> ICAO
> >> >> phraseology.
>
> >> >> *From The ICAO Manual of Radiotelephony (ICAO Document 9432)
>
> >> >> Glossary:
> >> >> QNH: Altimeter sub-scale setting to obtain elevation when on the
> >> ground
>
> >> >> Example:
> >> >> Fastair 345, descend to 4000 feet, QNH 1005, transition level 50,
> >> expect
> >> >> ILS approach runway 24
>
> >> > WTF are the Americans doing not using ICAO standards or is it just
> >> > Gig601 being wrong?
>
> >> Mostly just that it evolved into what it is and there would be a lot
> of
> >> resistance to change. For one thing it would mean changine every
> >> altimiter in the US for ones who's Kollsman windows were in mb ( or
> Hpa
> >> if you prefer) It would also mean a complete revamp of airspace,
> though
> >> there has been some moves towards international harmonisation there
> in
> >> the last 15 years or so. Likewise with ATC, there has been some
> movement
> >> towards harmonisation. I think it's a case of softly softly catchy
> >> monkey in regards the FAA's approach. Introducing too much "furrin"
> >> stuff all at once would raise an outcry and probably dash any chance
> of
> >> harmonisation completely. Imagine, if you will, Jay hineck whining
> about
> >> lefties form Europe making him change his altimeter on his
> "Pathfinder"
> >> Whatever the **** that is, and you will see what I mean.
>
> > In the spirit of reciprocation, I can tell you that Pathfinders
> > dropped flares on targets for bombers *during WW2.
>
> I doubt they were fleets of Cherokees guided by playstations, somehow.
>
>

Now that would have surpised the German's! Would they be painted
black? I'm sure not having the nav and beacon lights on at night is
just SOP.

Cheers

[Barry]

>> I learned to fly in France in the 1980s and they used a weird
>> combination of feet and meters. Altimeters read in feet,and minimum
>> safe altitudes were charted in feet. But charted obstructions and
>> airspace restrictions were in meters. Everyone set QFE (altimeter
>> reads zero on the ground) for takeoff, then reset the altimeter to QNH
>> if leaving the traffic pattern. Flight levels began at 3500 feet.
>>
>> Can any Europeans out there tell me if it's still like that?
>>
> I fly in Eurpoe a lot an dmercifully tht doesn't seem to be the case,
> but having said that, I only use insturment charts in France...

Does the ATIS give both QNH and QFE? I flew mainly from an airport with a
tower and no ATIS. If you told ground you were staying in the pattern they
gave you just the QFE, otherwise they gave both. And the VFR airport charts
gave the difference between QNH and QFE (in hPa) for each airport, along
with the field elevation in both meters and feet.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Apr 18, 3:58 am, Stefan > wrote:
>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>
>>> That's a good question as Eurocontrol recognises QNH as the correct
>>> local barometric setting (they also state that it means Query: Newlyn
>>> harbour). I thought the ICAO agreed with Eurocontrol on these things?
>> Actually, it's the other way round: Eurocontrol adheres to the ICAO
>> phraseology.
>>
>> From The ICAO Manual of Radiotelephony (ICAO Document 9432)
>>
>> Glossary:
>> QNH: Altimeter sub-scale setting to obtain elevation when on the ground
>>
>> Example:
>> Fastair 345, descend to 4000 feet, QNH 1005, transition level 50, expect
>> ILS approach runway 24
>
> WTF are the Americans doing not using ICAO standards or is it just
> Gig601 being wrong?
>
> Cheers
>
>


Call this number 870-862-3090 AWOS for KELD.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Barry" > wrote in
:

>>> I learned to fly in France in the 1980s and they used a weird
>>> combination of feet and meters. Altimeters read in feet,and minimum
>>> safe altitudes were charted in feet. But charted obstructions and
>>> airspace restrictions were in meters. Everyone set QFE (altimeter
>>> reads zero on the ground) for takeoff, then reset the altimeter to
>>> QNH if leaving the traffic pattern. Flight levels began at 3500
>>> feet.
>>>
>>> Can any Europeans out there tell me if it's still like that?
>>>
>> I fly in Eurpoe a lot an dmercifully tht doesn't seem to be the case,
>> but having said that, I only use insturment charts in France...
>
> Does the ATIS give both QNH and QFE? I flew mainly from an airport
> with a tower and no ATIS. If you told ground you were staying in the
> pattern they gave you just the QFE, otherwise they gave both. And the
> VFR airport charts gave the difference between QNH and QFE (in hPa)
> for each airport, along with the field elevation in both meters and
> feet.
>
>
>

Now you mention it, some plaes in France do also include the QFE.

Bertie

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

>> So an altimeter set to local QNH will always read field elevation *by
>> definition*.

> Yes it may say that but it's being loose because it forgt to include
> the "barometric pressure reduced to MSL by application of the ISA".
> Alltimeters are calibrated for the standard atmosphere. -right?

Right.

> Think about it, if an ARFOR gives QNH how could it be correct for all
> terrain if local temperatures differed? I covered this in my PPL tech
> course -was this not covered in your manuals?

Think about it, nobody said it would be correct for all altitudes, but
just for one altitude: the airfield elevation.

> just in case you still don't see it, from Wiki:

Wiki, the ultimate authoritative source.

Hint: Look up the difference between QNH and QFF.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 7:55*am, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> >> So an altimeter set to local QNH will always read field elevation *by
> >> definition*.
> > Yes it may say that but it's being loose because it forgt to include
> > the "barometric pressure reduced to MSL by application of the ISA".
> > Alltimeters are calibrated for the standard atmosphere. -right?
>
> Right.
>
> > Think about it, if an ARFOR gives QNH how could it be correct for all
> > terrain if local temperatures differed? *I covered this in my PPL tech
> > course -was this not covered in your manuals?
>
> Think about it, nobody said it would be correct for all altitudes, but
> just for one altitude: the airfield elevation.
>
>

Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to an
airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in this
case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?

Cheers

Cheers

Cheers

[terry]

On Apr 18, 3:33*am, "Barry" > wrote:
> > Actually, there are a lot of anomolies around the world. Eastern Europe
> > and Russia doggedly cling to using windspeed in Meters/second and have
> > reluctantly accepted using feet for altitude, though there are still a
> > lot of published platform altitudes of something like "2746 feet"
>
> I learned to fly in France in the 1980s and they used a weird combination of
> feet and meters. *Altimeters read in feet,and minimum safe altitudes were
> charted in feet. *But charted obstructions and airspace restrictions were in
> meters. *Everyone set QFE (altimeter reads zero on the ground) for takeoff,
> then reset the altimeter to QNH if leaving the traffic pattern. *Flight levels
> began at 3500 feet.
>
> Can any Europeans out there tell me if it's still like that?


Its still like that in australia, we use feet for altitude , but we
use meters for horizontal distance. OurVFR rules are to stay clear of
cloud by 1000 feet vertically and 1500 m horizontally. Hpa for
pressure except tire pressure which is psi

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

> Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to an
> airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in this
> case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?

Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives
you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface.

[Rich Anderson]

No doubt about it, a high pressure system has moved in, therefore a and c are correct.

Rich Anderson
TGH Aviation

I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least I
am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both a
and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.

Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
subscale
( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US folks)
Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and day
2 it could be said that

a. The QNH is higher on day 2
b. The QNH is lower on day 2
c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
d. The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.

Terry
PPL Downunder

[terry]

On Apr 18, 7:10*am, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to an
> > airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in this
> > case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?
>
> Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives
> you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface.


As I understand it ( In Australia) the QNH in an ARFOR must be within
5 mbar of the "real QNH" - ie what gives you field elevation for any
place within that area. otherwise the area will be broken up into sub
areas and no 2 adjacant sub areas must differ by more than 5 mbar.
That way the errors which Wing flap alludes to, and must certainly
exist in non ISA atmosphere, would result in errors of no more than
150 feet between aircraft using either the correct AFROR QNH or the
airfield set QNH

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

terry > wrote in
:

> On Apr 18, 3:33*am, "Barry" > wrote:
>> > Actually, there are a lot of anomolies around the world. Eastern
>> > Europe and Russia doggedly cling to using windspeed in
>> > Meters/second and have reluctantly accepted using feet for
>> > altitude, though there are still a lot of published platform
>> > altitudes of something like "2746 feet"
>>
>> I learned to fly in France in the 1980s and they used a weird
>> combination
> of
>> feet and meters. *Altimeters read in feet,and minimum safe altitudes
>> wer
> e
>> charted in feet. *But charted obstructions and airspace restrictions
>> wer
> e in
>> meters. *Everyone set QFE (altimeter reads zero on the ground) for
>> takeo
> ff,
>> then reset the altimeter to QNH if leaving the traffic pattern.
>> *Flight
> levels
>> began at 3500 feet.
>>
>> Can any Europeans out there tell me if it's still like that?
>
>
> Its still like that in australia, we use feet for altitude , but we
> use meters for horizontal distance. OurVFR rules are to stay clear of
> cloud by 1000 feet vertically and 1500 m horizontally. Hpa for
> pressure except tire pressure which is psi
>

Meters is the international standard for vis, except in the US!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:c9458$4807bcae$54487328$4551
@news.hispeed.ch:

> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
>> Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to an
>> airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in this
>> case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?
>
> Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation.

Only at the airport ref point, so, no, it doesn't.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

terry > wrote in news:375462b0-66e7-4ed0-b45d-
:

> On Apr 18, 7:10*am, Stefan > wrote:
>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>
>> > Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to an
>> > airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in this
>> > case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?
>>
>> Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR
gives
>> you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the
surface.
>
>
> As I understand it ( In Australia) the QNH in an ARFOR must be within
> 5 mbar of the "real QNH" - ie what gives you field elevation for any
> place within that area. otherwise the area will be broken up into sub
> areas and no 2 adjacant sub areas must differ by more than 5 mbar.
> That way the errors which Wing flap alludes to, and must certainly
> exist in non ISA atmosphere, would result in errors of no more than
> 150 feet between aircraft using either the correct AFROR QNH or the
> airfield set QNH
>
>
>

Yipes! Are you studying to be an astronaut?

Bertie

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Barry wrote:
>. Everyone set QFE (altimeter reads zero on the ground) for takeoff,
>then reset the altimeter to QNH if leaving the traffic pattern. Flight levels
>began at 3500 feet.
>

Wouldn't that be impossible to do at high altitude airports, such as in the
Alps?

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200804/1

[Barry]

> Its still like that in australia, we use feet for altitude , but we
> use meters for horizontal distance. OurVFR rules are to stay clear of
> cloud by 1000 feet vertically and 1500 m horizontally.

Are obstruction elevations (towers, mountain tops) charted in feet or meters?
In France they were in meters, which I thought was pretty stupid given that
the altimeters were in feet. VFR cloud clearance requirements, both
horizontal and vertical, were stated in meters.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
news:82d6098e5626c@uwe:

> Barry wrote:
>>. Everyone set QFE (altimeter reads zero on the ground) for takeoff,
>>then reset the altimeter to QNH if leaving the traffic pattern.
>>Flight levels began at 3500 feet.
>>
>
> Wouldn't that be impossible to do at high altitude airports, such as
> in the
> Alps?
>

What happens is that the transition level is localised. they're usually
between 3,000 and 5,000 above the local terrain, though that depends on
airspace divisions around the area and local state views and traditions.
Usually you can expect to transition around 4-5 thou above the airport
going up. In mountainous areas, minimu flight levels are dictated by the
QNH and temperature. The US is the only country I know of that has a
nationwide transition as high as 180.


Bertie

Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 9:10*am, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to an
> > airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in this
> > case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?
>
> Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives
> you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface.

BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give
field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-)

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 10:02*am, terry > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 7:10*am, Stefan > wrote:
>
> > WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > > Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to an
> > > airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in this
> > > case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?
>
> > Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives
> > you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface.
>
> As I understand it ( In Australia) the QNH in an ARFOR must be within
> 5 mbar of the "real QNH" *- ie what gives you field elevation for any
> place within that area. otherwise the area will be broken up into sub
> areas and no 2 adjacant sub areas must differ by more than 5 mbar.
> That way the errors which Wing flap alludes to, and must certainly
> exist in non ISA atmosphere, would result in errors of no more than
> 150 feet between aircraft using either the correct AFROR QNH or the
> airfield set QNH

Yep. Altough I think I've seen pretty big local QNH changes without
the ARFOR areas being broken up but I can't recall them being bigger
than 5hPa.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 11:04*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Stefan > wrote in news:c9458$4807bcae$54487328$4551
> @news.hispeed.ch:
>
> > WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> >> Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to an
> >> airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in this
> >> case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?
>
> > Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation.
>
> Only at the airport ref point, so, no, it doesn't.
>
He'll get it in the end... high to low look out below! I'll guess he's
not flown Xcountry to non ATIS fields?

Cheers

[terry]

On Apr 18, 9:05Â*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> terry > wrote in news:375462b0-66e7-4ed0-b45d-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 7:10�am, Stefan > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> >> > Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to an
> >> > airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in this
> >> > case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?
>
> >> Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR
> gives
> >> you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the
> surface.
>
> > As I understand it ( In Australia) the QNH in an ARFOR must be within
> > 5 mbar of the "real QNH" Â*- ie what gives you field elevation for any
> > place within that area. otherwise the area will be broken up into sub
> > areas and no 2 adjacant sub areas must differ by more than 5 mbar.
> > That way the errors which Wing flap alludes to, and must certainly
> > exist in non ISA atmosphere, would result in errors of no more than
> > 150 feet between aircraft using either the correct AFROR QNH or the
> > airfield set QNH
>
> Yipes! Are you studying to be an astronaut?
>
Are there any openings?

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

> BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give
> field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-)

Which has been pretty obvious, hasn't it? But I forgot that this is Usenet.

[Stefan]

Bertie the Bunyip schrieb:

>> Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation.
>
> Only at the airport ref point, so, no, it doesn't.

Fascinating: You, who *never* ever have trimmed a post before you
answered, are doing this for the first time! A miracle? A convert?
No, a closer look reveals your reason: The untrimmed text was

> Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives
> you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface.

Which is exactly what you wrote in your answer. So without trimming, you
couldn't have written "no". You're such an asshole.

[Thomas Borchert]

Terry,

> So what do you
> call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
> elevation?
>

altimeter setting. It is given in inches Hg, too, with 29.92 being
equivalent to 1013 hectoPascal. The Brits use another non-SI unit,
namely millibars, which is the same as hectoPasal.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec={8F1A7DDE-89E8-11D4-8351-00C04FC2C2BF}
> What does QNH stand for?
> Atmospheric Pressure (Q) at Nautical Height (aviation)
>

That's hilarious!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[terry]

On Apr 18, 10:08*am, "Barry" > wrote:
> > Its still like that in australia, *we use feet for altitude , but we
> > use meters for horizontal distance. OurVFR rules are to stay clear of
> > cloud by 1000 feet vertically and 1500 m horizontally.
>
> Are obstruction elevations (towers, mountain tops) charted in feet or meters?
> In France they were in meters, which I thought was pretty stupid given that
> the altimeters were in feet. *VFR cloud clearance requirements, both
> horizontal and vertical, were stated in meters.

Obstructions , towers etc are fortunately recorded in feet in
australia.

[Stefan]

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

>> http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec={8F1A7DDE-89E8-11D4-8351-00C04FC2C2BF}
>> What does QNH stand for?
>> Atmospheric Pressure (Q) at Nautical Height (aviation)

> That's hilarious!

Their second database entry is even more hilarious:
Queens Nautical Height.
:-)))

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 18, 6:56*pm, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give
> > field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-)
>
> Which has been pretty obvious, hasn't it? But I forgot that this is Usenet..

Nope it's not Usenet, it comes back to correcting the erroneous idea
that setting QNH on an altimeter makes it faithfully report altitude.

Cheers

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:
> On Apr 18, 6:56 pm, Stefan > wrote:
>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>
>>> BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give
>>> field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-)
>> Which has been pretty obvious, hasn't it? But I forgot that this is Usenet.
>
> Nope it's not Usenet, it comes back to correcting the erroneous idea
> that setting QNH on an altimeter makes it faithfully report altitude.

Which nobody claimed.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Stefan wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip schrieb:
>
>>> Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation.
>>
>> Only at the airport ref point, so, no, it doesn't.
>
> Fascinating: You, who *never* ever have trimmed a post before you
> answered, are doing this for the first time! A miracle? A convert?
> No, a closer look reveals your reason: The untrimmed text was
>
>> Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives
>> you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface.
>
> Which is exactly what you wrote in your answer. So without trimming, you
> couldn't have written "no". You're such an asshole.


<snicker>

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-17, WingFlaps > wrote:
> Urban legend? O, it was not Newquay but Newlyn (both in cornwall). The
> datum is sea level as set the British Admiralty back then so the
> obvious Q code would have been QNH. Look up the history of the naval
> tidal observatory if you don't believe it.

Source, please. The Q codes are just as Stefan said: randomly assigned.
They were chosen that way so as not to conflict with any nation's callsign
blocks (to this day, there are no callsigns assigned with Q as the first
letter). The apparent relationship between QNH and Newlyn Harbor is purely
coincidental.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-17, terry > wrote:
> I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. So what do you
> call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
> elevation?

Altimeter or altimeter setting. For example, "Fairmont altimeter two niner
niner eight".

In radio procedure, using Q codes in speech is technically improper,
although it's done all the time (at least on the ham bands). The FAA, being
sticklers for proper procedure, would naturally include this bit. There are
no Q codes in use in aviation in the US any more, TTBOMK.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:51:24 -0700 (PDT), terry
> wrote:

>On Apr 17, 11:38*pm, Stealth Pilot >
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:30:56 -0400, "Barry" > wrote:
>> >> I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least I
>> >> am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both a
>> >> and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.
>>
>> >> Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
>> >> subscale
>> >> * * * * ( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US folks)
>> >> Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
>> >> Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and day
>> >> 2 it could be said that
>>
>> >> a. The QNH is higher on day 2
>> >> b. The QNH is lower on day 2
>> >> c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
>> >> d. *The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.
>>
>> >I agree with you - answers a and c are both correct. *Day 2 QNH is about 1026.
>>
>> playing with an altimeter here in my lap.
>> simulating 1390 by setting 390. the qnh reads as 1032.
>>
>> moving the needle lower sees the qnh values going lower.
>>
>> so to correct for the reduced reading I would need to move the qnh the
>> other way.(increase it)
>> I agree a is correct from playing with an actual altimeter.
>> c is correct just from reading the data in the question.
>>
>> fwiw
>> Stealth pilot- Hide quoted text -
>>
>gday Stealth,
>I just think of an altimeter as being a inverse pressure guage cos
>pressure decreases with altitude, so for altitude reading to have gone
>down , atmospheric pressure has to have gone up.
>I gotta ask, why have you got an altimeter in your lap?
>Terry

that's like the goon show joke. turn the knob on your side.
but I dont have a knob on my side. ...there's one on the door though.

anyway it is the old altimeter out of my auster restoration. it lives
with a few other instruments in the cupboard behind me as I type.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> But, like sticking to imperial measurements, I think you stand alone.

What, like altitude in feet, altimiter settings in inches of mercury,
distance in miles, volume in gallons? :) Mr. Kettle, allow me to introduce
you to Mr. Pot :)

> Britain is still clinging to a number of archaic aviation terms (you
> still gotta know which direction to go whatever you choose to call it!)
> One of my favorites is the "Pan" call. Nobody uses that anymore except
> you guys. I had an entertaining few minutes in Germany listening to some
> Nigel making one of these a few years back. It went something like this.
> The Nigel Skipper is played Terry Thomas and the German controller by
> Hardy Kruger in this re-creation.
>
> Boffo Air 2234 "Rhine, Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
> ATC "Station calling?"
> BA 2234 "Rhine this is Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
> ATC. "Boffo 2234, pass your message"
> BA 2234 "Rhine, this is Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
> ATC, "Boffo 2234, say again?"
> BA2234 "Rhine, this is a PAN call from Boffo 2234"
> (at this point you can almost hear the Boffo skiper thinking "bloody
> foreigners"
> ATC, "Boffo 2234, are you declaring an emergency?"
> BA2234 "Negative Rhine, Boffo 2234 is making a PAN call"
> ATC, -silence-
> BA 2234, Rhine, we have a pasenger having a heart attack, we're mkaing a
> PAN call"
> ATC, "Boffo 2234, do you wish to declare an emergency?"
> BA 2234 "Nega- Oh, yes, yes, we're declaring an emergency, we'd like to
> divert to Frankfurt immediatly. "
> ATC, roger 2234, fly heading 330 and descend now to FL 150"
>
> No ****, this really happened. I think it actually took longer than
> this. The Brit captain just wouldn't let go....

The PAN actually sounds to me like a good idea, but as I always say I'm
still a lowly stude! Being able to differentiate between a Mayday (basically
aircraft in imminent danger) and PAN (something that needs priority but
nothing that will endanger the aircraft in short order) seems like a good
idea to me.

Anyway, the formt of his PAN PAN call was all wrong according to CAP 413 :D

That's my current bug-bear actually. The only exam I've got left to do
(apart from the Skills test) is the R/T practical. On this, unless you're
word perfect on the Mayday call you've failed, but what are the odds of a
controller ignoring your mayday because you forgot (for example) your pilot
qualifications in the mayday call?

Andy

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:57:57 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:20:46 -0700 (PDT), terry
> wrote in
>:
>
>>I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least I
>>am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both a
>>and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.
>>
>>Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
>>subscale
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbar
> Atmospheric air pressure is often given in millibars where
> "standard" sea level pressure is defined as 1013.25 mbar (hPa),
> equal to 1.01325 bar. Despite millibars not being an SI unit, they
> are still used locally in meteorology in some countries to
> describe atmospheric pressure. The SI unit is the pascal (Pa),
> with 1 mbar = 100 Pa = 1 hPa = 0.1 kPa. Meteorologists worldwide
> have long measured air pressure in millibars. After the
> introduction of SI units, others use hectopascals (which are
> equivalent to millibars) so they could stick to the same numeric
> scale. Similar pressures are given in kilopascals in practically
> all other fields, where the hecto prefix is hardly ever used. In
> particular, Canadian weather reports use kilopascals (which could
> also be called centibars).
>

Torricelli started it all off. if you are the first guy in the world
with a barometer what do you call the measure of the atmospheric
pressure measured on that barometer. a bar(ometer). divide the value
into a thousand to give you some nice fine numbers to measure with and
you have the millibar.

pascal is just a johhny come lately in pressure measurements.

the poms worked out that 14.8lbs per square inch = 1 bar(ometer)

Stealth ( I'm with torricelli) Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:54:53 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>terry > wrote in news:179c2f21-99ad-4415-a9b2-
:
>
>> On Apr 18, 12:07*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> terry > wrote in news:234756e2-a583-4cbc-8f42-
>>> :
>>>
>>> > I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at least
>I
>>> > am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think both
>a
>>> > and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.
>>>
>>> > Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
>>> > subscale
>>> > * * * * *( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US f
>> olks)
>>> > Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
>>> > Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and
>day
>>> > 2 it could be said that
>>>
>>> > a. The QNH is higher on day 2
>>> > b. The QNH is lower on day 2
>>> > c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
>>> > d. *The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.
>>>
>>> It's A. It could also be C if the airfield has a serious subsidance
>>> problem.
>>>
>> you are really confusing me now Bertie, I got learned that the
>> pressure ht was wot your altimeter reads when you have 1013.2 in the
>> window ( or 29.92 for you ...or maybe not cos everyone knows bunyips
>> are aussies ) 1000 is lower than 1390 therefore pressure altitude is
>> lower on day 2.. surely!.
>>
>
>Yer right, of course, I just couldn't resist the joke! There's a name
>for that, if I'm not mistaken, and it's QNE. But theyre going for A, I'm
>pretty sure and made an error in what thye were trying to say in C. I'm
>bi-barometric, BTW.
>
>Bertie

bi-barometric? is that as bad as being queer :-)

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> The PAN actually sounds to me like a good idea, but as I always say I'm
> still a lowly stude! Being able to differentiate between a Mayday (basically
> aircraft in imminent danger) and PAN (something that needs priority but
> nothing that will endanger the aircraft in short order) seems like a good
> idea to me.

Given the rarity of emergency calls, it seems like the important thing is
to make the emergency known in a simple and easy fashion first, then work
out the details later on as they're needed. The distinction is useful, but
I think that it's not worth putting extra workload on the pilot to figure
out just what degree his emergency is in his moment of crisis.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Stealth Pilot wrote:

>
> bi-barometric? is that as bad as being queer :-)

Only half the time.

[Mark Hansen]

On 04/18/08 08:38, Michael Ash wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Andy Hawkins > wrote:
>> The PAN actually sounds to me like a good idea, but as I always say I'm
>> still a lowly stude! Being able to differentiate between a Mayday (basically
>> aircraft in imminent danger) and PAN (something that needs priority but
>> nothing that will endanger the aircraft in short order) seems like a good
>> idea to me.
>
> Given the rarity of emergency calls, it seems like the important thing is
> to make the emergency known in a simple and easy fashion first, then work
> out the details later on as they're needed. The distinction is useful, but
> I think that it's not worth putting extra workload on the pilot to figure
> out just what degree his emergency is in his moment of crisis.
>

If the pilot is in a moment of crisis, then an emergency should be declared.
PAN is used when it is not at that level.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> But, like sticking to imperial measurements, I think you stand alone.
>
> What, like altitude in feet, altimiter settings in inches of mercury,
> distance in miles, volume in gallons? :) Mr. Kettle, allow me to
> introduce you to Mr. Pot :)
>

I'm more of a frying pan than a kettle.

And you'll notice i have not excluded americans in this thread.

>> Britain is still clinging to a number of archaic aviation terms (you
>> still gotta know which direction to go whatever you choose to call
>> it!) One of my favorites is the "Pan" call. Nobody uses that anymore
>> except you guys. I had an entertaining few minutes in Germany
>> listening to some Nigel making one of these a few years back. It went
>> something like this. The Nigel Skipper is played Terry Thomas and the
>> German controller by Hardy Kruger in this re-creation.
>>
>> Boffo Air 2234 "Rhine, Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
>> ATC "Station calling?"
>> BA 2234 "Rhine this is Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
>> ATC. "Boffo 2234, pass your message"
>> BA 2234 "Rhine, this is Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
>> ATC, "Boffo 2234, say again?"
>> BA2234 "Rhine, this is a PAN call from Boffo 2234"
>> (at this point you can almost hear the Boffo skiper thinking "bloody
>> foreigners"
>> ATC, "Boffo 2234, are you declaring an emergency?"
>> BA2234 "Negative Rhine, Boffo 2234 is making a PAN call"
>> ATC, -silence-
>> BA 2234, Rhine, we have a pasenger having a heart attack, we're
>> mkaing a PAN call"
>> ATC, "Boffo 2234, do you wish to declare an emergency?"
>> BA 2234 "Nega- Oh, yes, yes, we're declaring an emergency, we'd like
>> to divert to Frankfurt immediatly. "
>> ATC, roger 2234, fly heading 330 and descend now to FL 150"
>>
>> No ****, this really happened. I think it actually took longer than
>> this. The Brit captain just wouldn't let go....
>
> The PAN actually sounds to me like a good idea, but as I always say
> I'm still a lowly stude! Being able to differentiate between a Mayday
> (basically aircraft in imminent danger) and PAN (something that needs
> priority but nothing that will endanger the aircraft in short order)
> seems like a good idea to me.
>
> Anyway, the formt of his PAN PAN call was all wrong according to CAP
> 413 :D
>

I can't remember precisely what he said, but the jist of the
conversation is there and it's pretty much the way it happened. I don;'t
even know the format off th etop of my head, but he probabyl did it
right.

> That's my current bug-bear actually. The only exam I've got left to do
> (apart from the Skills test) is the R/T practical. On this, unless
> you're word perfect on the Mayday call you've failed, but what are the
> odds of a controller ignoring your mayday because you forgot (for
> example) your pilot qualifications in the mayday call?

Pretty slim. I've never even used the Mayday and I've had several
emerencies and just declared an emergency and got everything I needed. I
think I'd ony use a Mayday to cut through heavy radio traffic if it was
neccesary.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mark Hansen > wrote in
news:Nr2dnRgnVOuoTpXVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@surewest:

> On 04/18/08 08:38, Michael Ash wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.student Andy Hawkins > wrote:
>>> The PAN actually sounds to me like a good idea, but as I always say
>>> I'm still a lowly stude! Being able to differentiate between a
>>> Mayday (basically aircraft in imminent danger) and PAN (something
>>> that needs priority but nothing that will endanger the aircraft in
>>> short order) seems like a good idea to me.
>>
>> Given the rarity of emergency calls, it seems like the important
>> thing is to make the emergency known in a simple and easy fashion
>> first, then work out the details later on as they're needed. The
>> distinction is useful, but I think that it's not worth putting extra
>> workload on the pilot to figure out just what degree his emergency is
>> in his moment of crisis.
>>
>
> If the pilot is in a moment of crisis, then an emergency should be
> declared. PAN is used when it is not at that level.
>
>

That's th epoint, Pan is no longer in the common lexicon. The guy I
quoted earlier risked his passeneger's life being a pedantic ****.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:54:53 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>terry > wrote in news:179c2f21-99ad-4415-a9b2-
:
>>
>>> On Apr 18, 12:07*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> terry > wrote in news:234756e2-a583-4cbc-
8f42-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> > I am confused by this practice commercial nav question. ( at
least
>>I
>>>> > am confused by the answer in the book which was b. but I think
both
>>a
>>>> > and c are correct), but I appreciate some other opinions.
>>>>
>>>> > Day 1 Altimeter reads elevation of 1390 feet with 1013 HPa set on
>>>> > subscale
>>>> > * * * * *( thats equivalent to 29.92 inches of Hg for the US f
>>> olks)
>>>> > Day 2 Altimeter reads elevation of 1000 feet
>>>> > Assuming the altimeter subscale was not changed between day 1 and
>>day
>>>> > 2 it could be said that
>>>>
>>>> > a. The QNH is higher on day 2
>>>> > b. The QNH is lower on day 2
>>>> > c. The pressure altitude at the airport is lower on day 2
>>>> > d. *The atmospheric pressure at the aerodrome has not changed.
>>>>
>>>> It's A. It could also be C if the airfield has a serious subsidance
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>> you are really confusing me now Bertie, I got learned that the
>>> pressure ht was wot your altimeter reads when you have 1013.2 in the
>>> window ( or 29.92 for you ...or maybe not cos everyone knows bunyips
>>> are aussies ) 1000 is lower than 1390 therefore pressure altitude
is
>>> lower on day 2.. surely!.
>>>
>>
>>Yer right, of course, I just couldn't resist the joke! There's a name
>>for that, if I'm not mistaken, and it's QNE. But theyre going for A,
I'm
>>pretty sure and made an error in what thye were trying to say in C.
I'm
>>bi-barometric, BTW.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> bi-barometric? is that as bad as being queer :-)
>

Depends, I beleive a queer in your neck of the woods is someone who
prefers women to beer.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

terry > wrote in news:ea7c4c43-ffdf-4802-825b-
:

> On Apr 18, 9:05Â*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> terry > wrote in news:375462b0-66e7-4ed0-b45d-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 7:10�am, Stefan > wrote:
>> >> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>
>> >> > Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to
an
>> >> > airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in
this
>> >> > case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?
>>
>> >> Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR
>> gives
>> >> you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the
>> surface.
>>
>> > As I understand it ( In Australia) the QNH in an ARFOR must be
within
>> > 5 mbar of the "real QNH" Â*- ie what gives you field elevation for
a
> ny
>> > place within that area. otherwise the area will be broken up into
sub
>> > areas and no 2 adjacant sub areas must differ by more than 5 mbar.
>> > That way the errors which Wing flap alludes to, and must certainly
>> > exist in non ISA atmosphere, would result in errors of no more than
>> > 150 feet between aircraft using either the correct AFROR QNH or the
>> > airfield set QNH
>>
>> Yipes! Are you studying to be an astronaut?
>>
> Are there any openings?
>

Sure! Lots of applicants though.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:ac07e$4808485c$54487328
:

> Bertie the Bunyip schrieb:
>
>>> Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation.
>>
>> Only at the airport ref point, so, no, it doesn't.
>
> Fascinating: You, who *never* ever have trimmed a post before you
> answered, are doing this for the first time! A miracle? A convert?
> No, a closer look reveals your reason: The untrimmed text was
>
>> Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR
gives
>> you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the
surface.
>
> Which is exactly what you wrote in your answer. So without trimming,
you
> couldn't have written "no". You're such an asshole.
>


nice try.

You wuz wrong, cheese nazi.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Apr 18, 11:04*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Stefan > wrote in
>> news:c9458$4807bcae$54487328$455
> 1
>> @news.hispeed.ch:
>>
>> > WingFlaps schrieb:
>>
>> >> Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to
>> >> an airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in
>> >> this case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?
>>
>> > Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation.
>>
>> Only at the airport ref point, so, no, it doesn't.
>>
> He'll get it in the end... high to low look out below! I'll guess he's
> not flown Xcountry to non ATIS fields?


I doubt he flies at all.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stefan > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
>> BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give
>> field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-)
>
> Which has been pretty obvious, hasn't it? But I forgot that this is
> Usenet.
>


Oowww!


Backpedaling and obfuscating!




How predictable.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stefan > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps schrieb:
>> On Apr 18, 6:56 pm, Stefan > wrote:
>>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>>
>>>> BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give
>>>> field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-)
>>> Which has been pretty obvious, hasn't it? But I forgot that this is
>>> Usenet.
>>
>> Nope it's not Usenet, it comes back to correcting the erroneous idea
>> that setting QNH on an altimeter makes it faithfully report altitude.
>
> Which nobody claimed.
>



Yes, you did.

Shoudlnt; you be counting some gold teeth or something?

Bertie

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>What happens is that the transition level is localised. they're usually
>between 3,000 and 5,000 above the local terrain, though that depends on
>airspace divisions around the area and local state views and traditions.
>Usually you can expect to transition around 4-5 thou above the airport
>going up. In mountainous areas, minimu flight levels are dictated by the
>QNH and temperature. The US is the only country I know of that has a
>nationwide transition as high as 180.
>

Understood about the flight levels, but how does one set QFE on an
altimeter on a high altitude airport? Most altimeters I've seen don't have a
sufficient range in the Kollsman window to set anything above 3,000 ft. or so.


John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200804/1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
news:82df7b9654bd5@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>What happens is that the transition level is localised. they're
>>usually between 3,000 and 5,000 above the local terrain, though that
>>depends on airspace divisions around the area and local state views
>>and traditions. Usually you can expect to transition around 4-5 thou
>>above the airport going up. In mountainous areas, minimu flight levels
>>are dictated by the QNH and temperature. The US is the only country I
>>know of that has a nationwide transition as high as 180.
>>
>
> Understood about the flight levels, but how does one set QFE on an
> altimeter on a high altitude airport? Most altimeters I've seen don't
> have a sufficient range in the Kollsman window to set anything above
> 3,000 ft. or so.
>
>

Ah, right. I see what you mean now. I have a friend who operates for a
company that uses QFE and he says you nearly need a crank handle on it
for some high alt airfields! I don't know if he has a different sort of
altimeter in the 767 he flies, but I ran out of nubers at 1050 when I
was in helsinki a while back and it was at 1052. Maybe it's a special
order. he was talking about a plce that was about 6,000 feet up.
I used to work for a place that used QFE for approach and landing and I
found it a major PITA.
We never went anywhere over 2,000 feet, though.


Bertie

[Barry]

> If the pilot is in a moment of crisis, then an emergency should be declared.
> PAN is used when it is not at that level.

The AIM goes into this in detail. MAYDAY is for an aircraft in distress,
while PAN-PAN is for an urgency condition. Both are emergencies:

6-1-2 a. An emergency can be either a distress or urgency condition as defined
in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. Pilots do not hesitate to declare an
emergency when they are faced with distress conditions such as fire,
mechanical failure, or structural damage. However, some are reluctant to
report an urgency condition when they encounter situations which may not be
immediately perilous, but are potentially catastrophic. An aircraft is in at
least an urgency condition the moment the pilot becomes doubtful about
position, fuel endurance, weather, or any other condition that could adversely
affect flight safety. This is the time to ask for help, not after the
situation has developed into a distress condition.

6-3-1 c. The initial communication, and if considered necessary, any
subsequent transmissions by an aircraft in distress should begin with the
signal MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times. The signal PAN-PAN should be
used in the same manner for an urgency condition.

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap6/aim0601.html

[Stefan]

JGalban via AviationKB.com schrieb:

> Understood about the flight levels, but how does one set QFE on an
> altimeter on a high altitude airport? Most altimeters I've seen don't have a
> sufficient range in the Kollsman window to set anything above 3,000 ft. or so.

If you can't, then you can't, simple as that. If you run out of kollsman
range (be it QFE or QNH on some extreme weather), then ask for the QNE,
that's what it is for.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stefan > wrote in
:

> JGalban via AviationKB.com schrieb:
>
>> Understood about the flight levels, but how does one set QFE on an
>> altimeter on a high altitude airport? Most altimeters I've seen
>> don't have a sufficient range in the Kollsman window to set anything
>> above 3,000 ft. or so.
>
> If you can't, then you can't, simple as that. If you run out of
> kollsman range (be it QFE or QNH on some extreme weather), then ask
> for the QNE, that's what it is for.
>

No, it isn't


Bertie

[Stefan]

Barry schrieb:

> 6-3-1 c. The initial communication, and if considered necessary, any
> subsequent transmissions by an aircraft in distress should begin with the
> signal MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times.

And here's an example how it may sound in real life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stefan > wrote in
:

> Barry schrieb:
>
>> 6-3-1 c. The initial communication, and if considered necessary, any
>> subsequent transmissions by an aircraft in distress should begin with
>> the signal MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times.
>
> And here's an example how it may sound in real life:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE
>

That's an example of how it does sound in real life...



Bertie

[Stefan]

Stefan schrieb:
> Barry schrieb:
>
>> 6-3-1 c. The initial communication, and if considered necessary, any
>> subsequent transmissions by an aircraft in distress should begin with
>> the signal MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times.
>
> And here's an example how it may sound in real life:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE

And BTW, at 2:20 you hear the QNH thing.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mark Hansen > wrote:
> On 04/18/08 08:38, Michael Ash wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.student Andy Hawkins > wrote:
>>> The PAN actually sounds to me like a good idea, but as I always say I'm
>>> still a lowly stude! Being able to differentiate between a Mayday (basically
>>> aircraft in imminent danger) and PAN (something that needs priority but
>>> nothing that will endanger the aircraft in short order) seems like a good
>>> idea to me.
>>
>> Given the rarity of emergency calls, it seems like the important thing is
>> to make the emergency known in a simple and easy fashion first, then work
>> out the details later on as they're needed. The distinction is useful, but
>> I think that it's not worth putting extra workload on the pilot to figure
>> out just what degree his emergency is in his moment of crisis.
>
> If the pilot is in a moment of crisis, then an emergency should be declared.
> PAN is used when it is not at that level.

Is the imminent demise of one of your passengers not considered a moment
of crisis, or was this guy using the wrong signal?

I know that if one of my passengers started croaking in mid-flight, I'm
going to be getting on the ground in a rapid fashion and telling people to
clear out of my way and call emergency services, not arguing with people
over radio terminology.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Mark Hansen]

On 04/18/08 13:35, Michael Ash wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Mark Hansen > wrote:
>> On 04/18/08 08:38, Michael Ash wrote:
>>> In rec.aviation.student Andy Hawkins > wrote:
>>>> The PAN actually sounds to me like a good idea, but as I always say I'm
>>>> still a lowly stude! Being able to differentiate between a Mayday (basically
>>>> aircraft in imminent danger) and PAN (something that needs priority but
>>>> nothing that will endanger the aircraft in short order) seems like a good
>>>> idea to me.
>>>
>>> Given the rarity of emergency calls, it seems like the important thing is
>>> to make the emergency known in a simple and easy fashion first, then work
>>> out the details later on as they're needed. The distinction is useful, but
>>> I think that it's not worth putting extra workload on the pilot to figure
>>> out just what degree his emergency is in his moment of crisis.
>>
>> If the pilot is in a moment of crisis, then an emergency should be declared.
>> PAN is used when it is not at that level.
>
> Is the imminent demise of one of your passengers not considered a moment
> of crisis, or was this guy using the wrong signal?

Your concerned seemed to be that the pilot may be too overloaded to have
to think about whether he should use MAYDAY or PAN. My comment is that
if he is in such a state, he should just use MAYDAY.

>
> I know that if one of my passengers started croaking in mid-flight, I'm
> going to be getting on the ground in a rapid fashion and telling people to
> clear out of my way and call emergency services, not arguing with people
> over radio terminology.

Of course. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mark Hansen > wrote:
> On 04/18/08 13:35, Michael Ash wrote:
>> Is the imminent demise of one of your passengers not considered a moment
>> of crisis, or was this guy using the wrong signal?
>
> Your concerned seemed to be that the pilot may be too overloaded to have
> to think about whether he should use MAYDAY or PAN. My comment is that
> if he is in such a state, he should just use MAYDAY.

Well, I'm concerned that the decision adds to the load. There will always
be borderline cases. It seems to me that it would be better to have a
universal "I'm in trouble, pay attention to me now" call and leave the
distinctions for followup communications.

>> I know that if one of my passengers started croaking in mid-flight, I'm
>> going to be getting on the ground in a rapid fashion and telling people to
>> clear out of my way and call emergency services, not arguing with people
>> over radio terminology.
>
> Of course. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

Very good then!

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 19, 1:13*am, Andy Hawkins > wrote:

>
> That's my current bug-bear actually. The only exam I've got left to do
> (apart from the Skills test) is the R/T practical. On this, unless you're
> word perfect on the Mayday call you've failed, but what are the odds of a
> controller ignoring your mayday because you forgot (for example) your pilot
> qualifications in the mayday call?
>


The format is defined as it improves accurarcy and rate of info
transfer. The pilot qualification is not part of the mayday for that
reason. Strangely I was not taught the "mayday relay" format in PPL
but it is used in boating and elsewhere.

Cheers

[Mark Hansen]

On 04/18/08 14:12, Michael Ash wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Mark Hansen > wrote:
>> On 04/18/08 13:35, Michael Ash wrote:
>>> Is the imminent demise of one of your passengers not considered a moment
>>> of crisis, or was this guy using the wrong signal?
>>
>> Your concerned seemed to be that the pilot may be too overloaded to have
>> to think about whether he should use MAYDAY or PAN. My comment is that
>> if he is in such a state, he should just use MAYDAY.
>
> Well, I'm concerned that the decision adds to the load. There will always
> be borderline cases. It seems to me that it would be better to have a
> universal "I'm in trouble, pay attention to me now" call and leave the
> distinctions for followup communications.

There is. It is called MAYDAY. That was my point. If you're not sure
what to use, use MAYDAY.

However, a sick passenger that needs to get on the ground as soon as
possible is less of an emergency than an engine fire, or a loss of
control authority.

However, if you don't want to try to think about the difference, just
use MAYDAY.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Travis Marlatte]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> JGalban via AviationKB.com schrieb:
>
>> Understood about the flight levels, but how does one set QFE on an
>> altimeter on a high altitude airport? Most altimeters I've seen don't
>> have a
>> sufficient range in the Kollsman window to set anything above 3,000 ft.
>> or so.
>
> If you can't, then you can't, simple as that. If you run out of kollsman
> range (be it QFE or QNH on some extreme weather), then ask for the QNE,
> that's what it is for.

I think the question was simpler than that.

The Kollsman setting is not the local atmospheric pressure. You're running
out of Kollsman setting because your just cranking the Kollsman down while
sitting at a low altitude airport.

The Kollsman setting is the calculated value such that your altimeter reads
zero feet at mean sea level. A high altitude airport is going to have a
setting within the same range.

{Totally a United States perspective. Forgive me if you have some completely
different technique for measuring your altitude above the planet}

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[BillJ]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> WingFlaps > wrote in news:cba00260-0bfd-4ac5-8b46-
> :
>
>
>>On Apr 18, 3:04 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. So what do
>
> you
>
>>>>call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
>>>>elevation?
>>>
>>>They don't use any of the Q codes in the US. QNH is one of the few
>
> still
>
>>>in use around the rest of the world, the rest are pretty much
>
> archaich.
>
>>How come the US doesn't adopt ICAO? I thought it had to -isn't that
>>what ICAO is all about?
>>
>
>
> They have Nukes and won't be told anything. AFAIK, they're the only
> place left that uses in/hg, and the weather reporting format is also
> unique. ATC phrasology is also peculiar to the US.
> Actually, there are a lot of anomolies around the world. Eastern Europe
> and Russia doggedly cling to using windspeed in Meters/second and have
> reluctantly accepted using feet for altitude, though there are still a
> lot of published platform altitudes of something like "2746 feet" The
> Brits still have some oddball notions and can't understand why the rest
> of the world doesn't want to do it their way and the middle east is
> pretty much close your eyes and ask Allah for guidance. Semicircular
> rules are different alsmot everywhere. Theyr'e qudrantal in the UK, in
> fact. In Sweden it's N/S instead of E/W because that's the way most of
> the traffic goes. Spain is the same.
> Africa doesn't have any rules at al as far as I can tell, though it's
> ostensibly ICAO
> Haven't been to China yet, but it's gotta be interesting too.
>
>
>
>
> Bertie
Florida is north/south also

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

BillJ > wrote in news:BPkOj.317$v91.2063
@eagle.america.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> WingFlaps > wrote in news:cba00260-0bfd-4ac5-
8b46-
>> :
>>
>>
>>>On Apr 18, 3:04 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. So what do
>>
>> you
>>
>>>>>call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
>>>>>elevation?
>>>>
>>>>They don't use any of the Q codes in the US. QNH is one of the few
>>
>> still
>>
>>>>in use around the rest of the world, the rest are pretty much
>>
>> archaich.
>>
>>>How come the US doesn't adopt ICAO? I thought it had to -isn't that
>>>what ICAO is all about?
>>>
>>
>>
>> They have Nukes and won't be told anything. AFAIK, they're the only
>> place left that uses in/hg, and the weather reporting format is also
>> unique. ATC phrasology is also peculiar to the US.
>> Actually, there are a lot of anomolies around the world. Eastern
Europe
>> and Russia doggedly cling to using windspeed in Meters/second and
have
>> reluctantly accepted using feet for altitude, though there are still
a
>> lot of published platform altitudes of something like "2746 feet" The
>> Brits still have some oddball notions and can't understand why the
rest
>> of the world doesn't want to do it their way and the middle east is
>> pretty much close your eyes and ask Allah for guidance. Semicircular
>> rules are different alsmot everywhere. Theyr'e qudrantal in the UK,
in
>> fact. In Sweden it's N/S instead of E/W because that's the way most
of
>> the traffic goes. Spain is the same.
>> Africa doesn't have any rules at al as far as I can tell, though it's
>> ostensibly ICAO
>> Haven't been to China yet, but it's gotta be interesting too.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> Florida is north/south also
>

Not if you're flying to Pensacola form Jax.


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> I'm more of a frying pan than a kettle.

:)

> And you'll notice i have not excluded americans in this thread.

Glad to hear it!

> I can't remember precisely what he said, but the jist of the
> conversation is there and it's pretty much the way it happened. I don;'t
> even know the format off th etop of my head, but he probabyl did it
> right.

The format for a PAN is the same as for a Mayday. The book I have uses NAAN
IPPA as the reminder:

Name of station addresses
Aircraft callsign
Aircraft type
Nature of emergency

Intentions
Position (alitude, heading etc.)
Pilot qualifications (bit pointless if you ask me, but I guess it might be
useful to know you've got no Instrument rating)
Any other info

> Pretty slim. I've never even used the Mayday and I've had several
> emerencies and just declared an emergency and got everything I needed. I
> think I'd ony use a Mayday to cut through heavy radio traffic if it was
> neccesary.

As I understand it that's the primary reason for a standardised word, that
it enables you to cut through all the other traffic and everyone else knows
to shut up.

Andy

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> The format is defined as it improves accurarcy and rate of info
> transfer. The pilot qualification is not part of the mayday for that
> reason. Strangely I was not taught the "mayday relay" format in PPL
> but it is used in boating and elsewhere.

Haven't got the book in front of me, but I thought one of the 'P' in IPPA
was the pilot qualifications. I'll have to check, gotta do my R/T practical
soon.

A relayed Mayday is likely to be on there too, from memory the call is:

Mayday mayday mayday, G-ABCD have intercepted Mayday from G-WXYZ, I say
again, G-WXYZ.

The rest of the call is as per the standard Mayday.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> I'm more of a frying pan than a kettle.
>
>:)
>
>> And you'll notice i have not excluded americans in this thread.
>
> Glad to hear it!
>
>> I can't remember precisely what he said, but the jist of the
>> conversation is there and it's pretty much the way it happened. I
>> don;'t even know the format off th etop of my head, but he probabyl
>> did it right.
>
> The format for a PAN is the same as for a Mayday. The book I have uses
> NAAN IPPA as the reminder:
>
> Name of station addresses
> Aircraft callsign
> Aircraft type
> Nature of emergency
>
> Intentions
> Position (alitude, heading etc.)
> Pilot qualifications (bit pointless if you ask me, but I guess it
> might be useful to know you've got no Instrument rating)
> Any other info
>
>> Pretty slim. I've never even used the Mayday and I've had several
>> emerencies and just declared an emergency and got everything I
>> needed. I think I'd ony use a Mayday to cut through heavy radio
>> traffic if it was neccesary.
>
> As I understand it that's the primary reason for a standardised word,
> that it enables you to cut through all the other traffic and everyone
> else knows to shut up.
>

And a PAN just doesn't in most of the world.

Also, you're standard format is only after you have th e controller's
attention. He couldn't get that, that's the problem, and he wasted
minutes with a sick pax trying to push the correct format down this guys
throat. A Mayday or "I'm declaring an emergency" would have done that.
Most of the other sutff in that is pretty useless as its part of normal
comms anyway. What you need to do is simplay say "mayday and you're call
sign. the guy you're talking to already knows who he is and chances are
good you've forgotten anyway if you're that excited. Then you quickly
tell him what you're problem is and what you are going to do and what
you want from him and he will give it to you. There's no extra charge
for making a Mayday call as opposed to a Pan. I did a BA course years
ago and they were advocating downgrading your mayday to a Pan in the
case of, say, an engine fire. Once you have the fire out, you're not in
a Mayday situation anymore since the airplane is not in any immediate
danger. Screw that. If I've had an engine fire and I think it's out I'm
still going to want to put the airplane down ASAP and I'm not going to
be too concerned with ATC's problems. They're big boys and can apportion
attention between my airplane and the others in the area.
I wouldn't be thanked at the subsequent inquiry for not taking advantage
of everything at my disposal.


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
>> As I understand it that's the primary reason for a standardised word,
>> that it enables you to cut through all the other traffic and everyone
>> else knows to shut up.
>>
>
> And a PAN just doesn't in most of the world.

Ok. Well, that should be addressed in either removing PAN from the ICAO
specs or by ensuring that all controllers know about it.

Agree with all you say about the 'standard' format. In the case of a real
emergency I think all that'll be on my mind is a quick summary of the issue
so that someone is aware of it, and then I'll be concentrating on sorting it
(particularly if the big whirly thing in front of me isn't whirling any
more).

One of my instructors (a very experienced RAF pilot) actually advocated
making the mayday call and then switching the radio off in the case of an
engine failure, as otherwise the military unit we'd likely be talking to
would probably want all sorts of other information, and my attention could
best be spent dealing with the problem at hand.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>>> As I understand it that's the primary reason for a standardised
>>> word, that it enables you to cut through all the other traffic and
>>> everyone else knows to shut up.
>>>
>>
>> And a PAN just doesn't in most of the world.
>
> Ok. Well, that should be addressed in either removing PAN from the
> ICAO specs or by ensuring that all controllers know about it.

Well, i'm sure the German controller had been taught about it, but it's
just never used these days. That guy was the one and only PAN call I've
ever heard, and I've heard dozens of emergencies over the years. An
additional problem is accents and the confusion they can cause when a
phrase that isn't used all the time is used. I was told years ago by s
chief pilot I worked for never to use a PAN call for exactly the reason
that guy in Germany shouldn't have..
>
> Agree with all you say about the 'standard' format. In the case of a
> real emergency I think all that'll be on my mind is a quick summary of
> the issue so that someone is aware of it, and then I'll be
> concentrating on sorting it (particularly if the big whirly thing in
> front of me isn't whirling any more).

Yeah, fly the airplane first. If you have time to discuss things with
ATC, fine, if you don't, you don't! They understand that you're loaded
up when you make the emergency. Their job from that point is to reduce
your load in any way they can.


>
> One of my instructors (a very experienced RAF pilot) actually
> advocated making the mayday call and then switching the radio off in
> the case of an engine failure, as otherwise the military unit we'd
> likely be talking to would probably want all sorts of other
> information, and my attention could best be spent dealing with the
> problem at hand.
>

Well, I think I'd leave th eradio on myself! At least you can tell em
where you've gone down.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 20, 4:49*am, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> * * * * * > wrote:
>
> > The format is defined as it improves accurarcy and rate of info
> > transfer. The pilot qualification is not part of the mayday for that
> > reason. Strangely I was not taught the "mayday relay" format in PPL
> > but it is used in boating and elsewhere.
>
> Haven't got the book in front of me, but I thought one of the 'P' in IPPA
> was the pilot qualifications. I'll have to check, gotta do my R/T practical
> soon.
>
> A relayed Mayday is likely to be on there too, from memory the call is:
>
> Mayday mayday mayday, G-ABCD have intercepted Mayday from G-WXYZ, I say
> again, G-WXYZ.
>
>

Nope, your memeory is quite confused. "I say again" sounds like
Hollywood R/T.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 20, 5:34*am, Andy Hawkins > wrote:

>
> One of my instructors (a very experienced RAF pilot) actually advocated
> making the mayday call and then switching the radio off in the case of an
> engine failure, as otherwise the military unit we'd likely be talking to
> would probably want all sorts of other information, and my attention could
> best be spent dealing with the problem at hand.
>


That would be very dumb. Suppose their question was "Where are you?"
Just rememeber flying the plane always comes first.

Cheers

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
>> A relayed Mayday is likely to be on there too, from memory the call is:
>>
>> Mayday mayday mayday, G-ABCD have intercepted Mayday from G-WXYZ, I say
>> again, G-WXYZ.
>>
>>
>
> Nope, your memeory is quite confused. "I say again" sounds like
> Hollywood R/T.

I should probably have made it more clear that I'm in the UK.

Here's CAP413, the definitive guide for R/T in the UK

The relayed Mayday is on page 139.

'I say again' is used in a number of place I seem to remember. The other one
that springs to mind is when ATC instruct an aircraft to abort take off.

Andy

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 5:34*am, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
>
>>
>> One of my instructors (a very experienced RAF pilot) actually advocated
>> making the mayday call and then switching the radio off in the case of an
>> engine failure, as otherwise the military unit we'd likely be talking to
>> would probably want all sorts of other information, and my attention could
>> best be spent dealing with the problem at hand.
>>
>
>
> That would be very dumb. Suppose their question was "Where are you?"
> Just rememeber flying the plane always comes first.

Yeah, I think his comment was slightly tongue in cheek. Anywhere, they're
know where I was is I used the full Mayday call as we're supposed to.

For reference (again CAP 413 http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF)

Page 137 contains the full mayday call and some examples.

Andy

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 20, 10:23*pm, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> * * * * * > wrote:
>
> >> A relayed Mayday is likely to be on there too, from memory the call is:
>
> >> Mayday mayday mayday, G-ABCD have intercepted Mayday from G-WXYZ, I say
> >> again, G-WXYZ.
>
> > Nope, your memeory is quite confused. *"I say again" sounds like
> > Hollywood R/T.
>
> I should probably have made it more clear that I'm in the UK.
>
> Here's CAP413, the definitive guide for R/T in the UK
>
> The relayed Mayday is on page 139.
>
> 'I say again' is used in a number of place I seem to remember. The other one
> that springs to mind is when ATC instruct an aircraft to abort take off.
>

Well it's completely redundent, a waste of time and could be confused
with "say again". All you need to do is just repeat the message!
What's I find strange is that the stated format of the mayday ralay
does not follow international conventions. I wonder who wrote it?

This is how it should be:

Mayday relay, mayday relay, mayday relay, (station 3x), Received
mayday (distress station) (distress message reproduced), mayday

Cheers

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-19, WingFlaps > wrote:
> Nope, your memeory is quite confused. "I say again" sounds like
> Hollywood R/T.

Uhm, no. It's proper radio procedure in the US as well. The proper
interrogative form is "say again?".
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Kai Rode]

>In radio procedure, using Q codes in speech is technically improper,
>although it's done all the time (at least on the ham bands). The FAA, being
>sticklers for proper procedure, would naturally include this bit. There are
>no Q codes in use in aviation in the US any more, TTBOMK.

So...what would you say instead of "Request QDM" in the U.S.? "Request
magnetic bearing to your station"? Sounds clumsy.

The most important Q-codes still in use here in Germany are probably QNH,
QFE, QDM, QDR.

[Thomas Borchert]

Kai,

> So...what would you say instead of "Request QDM" in the U.S.?

You would say to yourself: "Gotta switch on that GPS". ;-)

> The most important Q-codes still in use here in Germany are probably QNH,
> QFE, QDM, QDR.

Hmm. QNH is used everyday, of course. I haven't heard QFE ever except in
the UK. QDM and QDR are used in written exams, but not really in practice,
in my experience.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:

> Well it's completely redundent, a waste of time and could be confused
> with "say again". All you need to do is just repeat the message!
> What's I find strange is that the stated format of the mayday ralay
> does not follow international conventions. I wonder who wrote it?

That document is the official CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) reference for
R/T, presumably for the UK.

The introduction says it is based on ICAO Annex 10 Volume 2 (Communications
Procedures). It also includes the following statement:

"Where the ICAO standard phraseology may be misunderstood, or has weaknesses
in the UK environment, different phraseology has been specified (and
notified to ICAO). Significant differences between the ICAO standard
phraseology and that specified for use in CAP 413 are described in Appendix
1 to this publication."

Appendix 1 doesn't mention any differences in the Mayday messages.

(Note, I'm not arguing you're wrong, I don't know enough to be able to do
that. Just repeating what the documentation I've been reading says)

Andy

[Thomas Borchert]

WingFlaps,

> Well it's completely redundent, a waste of time and could be confused
> with "say again". All you need to do is just repeat the message!

Your opinion is all fine and well. However, the gold standard on this is ICAO. As
Andy says, "I say again" is ICAO standard phraseology per Annex 10 Volume II
(http://www.caa.govt.nz/ICAO/Annex_10_Vol_2_Amdt_80_Cmp_Stmt.pdf).

For the US, check the Pilot Controller Glossary as the definitive and official
source for phraseology. Under "I", you'll find:

I SAY AGAIN- The message will be repeated.

> This is how it should be:
>
> Mayday relay, mayday relay, mayday relay, (station 3x), Received
> mayday (distress station) (distress message reproduced), mayday

And the source for that is?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 21, 10:59*pm, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> * * * * * > wrote:
>
> > Well it's completely redundent, a waste of time and could be confused
> > with "say again". All you need to do is just repeat the message!
> > What's I find strange is that the stated format of the mayday ralay
> > does not follow international conventions. I wonder who wrote it?
>
> That document is the official CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) reference for
> R/T, presumably for the UK.
>
> The introduction says it is based on ICAO Annex 10 Volume 2 (Communications
> Procedures). It also includes the following statement:
>
> "Where the ICAO standard phraseology may be misunderstood, or has weaknesses
> in the UK environment, different phraseology has been specified (and
> notified to ICAO). Significant differences between the ICAO standard
> phraseology and that specified for use in CAP 413 are described in Appendix
> 1 to this publication."
>
> Appendix 1 doesn't mention any differences in the Mayday messages.
>
> (Note, I'm not arguing you're wrong, I don't know enough to be able to do
> that. Just repeating what the documentation I've been reading says)
>

Fair enough. It's what happens when desk jockies take over running the
world. God forbid they should bother to check what is known/
established. That way they get to keep their jobs endlessly revising
poor practice.


Cheers

[Stefan]

Andy Hawkins schrieb:

>> What's I find strange is that the stated format of the mayday ralay
>> does not follow international conventions. I wonder who wrote it?

> The introduction says it is based on ICAO Annex 10 Volume 2 (Communications
> Procedures).

It is.

International Civil Aviation Organization
International Standards and Recommended Practices and Procedures for Air
Navigation Services

Annex 10
Aeronautical Telecommunications

Sixth Edition October 2001


5.2.1.5.8 The following words and phrases shall be used in
radiotelephony communications as appropriate and shall have the meaning
ascribed hereunder:

Phrase: I SAY AGAIN
Meaning: "I repeat for clarity or emphasis."

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

> Fair enough. It's what happens when desk jockies take over running the
> world. God forbid they should bother to check what is known/
> established. That way they get to keep their jobs endlessly revising
> poor practice.

The worst practice is not to adhere to the communication standards.

[Thomas Borchert]

WingFlaps,

> That way they get to keep their jobs endlessly revising
> poor practice.
>

It's worse when everybody and their brothers come up with their own
personal idea of what is good practice in radio communcations.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-21, Kai Rode > wrote:
>>In radio procedure, using Q codes in speech is technically improper,
>>although it's done all the time (at least on the ham bands). The FAA, being
>>sticklers for proper procedure, would naturally include this bit. There are
>>no Q codes in use in aviation in the US any more, TTBOMK.
> So...what would you say instead of "Request QDM" in the U.S.? "Request
> magnetic bearing to your station"? Sounds clumsy.

If you don't know, use plain English. If I were talking to a VHF/DF-equipped
flight service station, and needed a DF bearing, that's exactly what I would
ask for.

OTOH, I can't recall that I've ever made such a request. How often is QDM
actually used in Europe? How is it measured by the recipient of the request?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Kai Rode wrote:
>> In radio procedure, using Q codes in speech is technically improper,
>> although it's done all the time (at least on the ham bands). The FAA, being
>> sticklers for proper procedure, would naturally include this bit. There are
>> no Q codes in use in aviation in the US any more, TTBOMK.
>
> So...what would you say instead of "Request QDM" in the U.S.? "Request
> magnetic bearing to your station"? Sounds clumsy.
>



"Whereever radio, Request DF steer."

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Kai Rode" > wrote in message
...
> >In radio procedure, using Q codes in speech is technically improper,
>>although it's done all the time (at least on the ham bands). The FAA,
>>being
>>sticklers for proper procedure, would naturally include this bit. There
>>are
>>no Q codes in use in aviation in the US any more, TTBOMK.
>
> So...what would you say instead of "Request QDM" in the U.S.? "Request
> magnetic bearing to your station"? Sounds clumsy.
>
> The most important Q-codes still in use here in Germany are probably QNH,
> QFE, QDM, QDR.

Request vector to ???????????

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 21 Apr, 15:06, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Kai Rode" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > >In radio procedure, using Q codes in speech is technically improper,
> >>although it's done all the time (at least on the ham bands). The FAA,
> >>being
> >>sticklers for proper procedure, would naturally include this bit. There
> >>are
> >>no Q codes in use in aviation in the US any more, TTBOMK.
>
> > So...what would you say instead of "Request QDM" in the U.S.? "Request
> > magnetic bearing to your station"? Sounds clumsy.
>
> > The most important Q-codes still in use here in Germany are probably QNH,
> > QFE, QDM, QDR.
>
> Request vector to ???????????

Awww, feeling lost?

Bertie

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
>> Fair enough. It's what happens when desk jockies take over running the
>> world. God forbid they should bother to check what is known/
>> established. That way they get to keep their jobs endlessly revising
>> poor practice.
>
> The worst practice is not to adhere to the communication standards.

Seems to me the worst practice is to fail to communicate clearly when it's
possible to do so.

This can be because you're using nonstandard phrasing (done this) or
because you insist on using standard phrasing when it's not working (never
done this, I think). Ultimately the goal is to communicate, and the
standards are just a means to that end; if they're giving you trouble, say
whanever you need to say however you need to say it to get the point
across.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Stefan]

Michael Ash schrieb:

> Seems to me the worst practice is to fail to communicate clearly when it's
> possible to do so.
>
> This can be because you're using nonstandard phrasing (done this) or
> because you insist on using standard phrasing when it's not working (never

As a pilot, I would expect the pros at ATC to understand standard
phraseology. And as a non native English speaker, I would expect the
pros at ATC to speak to me in standard phraseology.

> Ultimately the goal is to communicate, and the
> standards are just a means to that end; if they're giving you trouble, say
> whanever you need to say however you need to say it to get the point

Many pilots use this argument as an excuse while they are just too lazy
to learn the proper phraseology. Never forget that those standards have
been set for a reason and many of them have been written with blood.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Stefan > wrote:
> Michael Ash schrieb:
>
>> Seems to me the worst practice is to fail to communicate clearly when it's
>> possible to do so.
>>
>> This can be because you're using nonstandard phrasing (done this) or
>> because you insist on using standard phrasing when it's not working (never
>
> As a pilot, I would expect the pros at ATC to understand standard
> phraseology. And as a non native English speaker, I would expect the
> pros at ATC to speak to me in standard phraseology.
>
>> Ultimately the goal is to communicate, and the
>> standards are just a means to that end; if they're giving you trouble, say
>> whanever you need to say however you need to say it to get the point
>
> Many pilots use this argument as an excuse while they are just too lazy
> to learn the proper phraseology. Never forget that those standards have
> been set for a reason and many of them have been written with blood.

And likewise the opposite argument is used as an excuse for failing to
adapt when standard phrasing fails. Like the "pan pan" idiot whos antics
started this thread.

Personally I never fly anywhere where radio communication is required in
the first place, and there's a ton of nonstandard phrasing floating around
by the people who are using their radios. The standards are useful but
only as far as they actually work, and when they stop working you ought to
be prepared to do what it takes to get what you need.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 21, 11:25*pm, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> WingFlaps,
>
> > Well it's completely redundent, a waste of time and could be confused
> > with "say again". All you need to do is just repeat the message!
>
> Your opinion is all fine and well. However, the gold standard on this is ICAO. As
> Andy says, "I say again" is ICAO standard phraseology per Annex 10 Volume II
> (http://www.caa.govt.nz/ICAO/Annex_10_Vol_2_Amdt_80_Cmp_Stmt.pdf).
>
> For the US, check the Pilot Controller Glossary as the definitive and official
> source for phraseology. Under "I", you'll find:
>
> I SAY AGAIN- The message will be repeated.
>
> > This is how it should be:
>
> > Mayday relay, mayday relay, mayday relay, (station 3x), Received
> > mayday (distress station) (distress message reproduced), mayday
>
> And the source for that is?
>

International maritime radio license procedures...

Cheers

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> International maritime radio license procedures...

Umm...this is rec.aviation.xxxx

Andy

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 22, 10:13*pm, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> * * * * * > wrote:
>
> > International maritime radio license procedures...
>
> Umm...this is rec.aviation.xxxx
>

Was the mayday relay message I posted more efficient and/or clearer
than the aviation version? Being licensed in both aviation and
maritime R/T, my choice would be the maritime format of distress
messages.

Cheers

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> Was the mayday relay message I posted more efficient and/or clearer
> than the aviation version? Being licensed in both aviation and
> maritime R/T, my choice would be the maritime format of distress
> messages.

It might be more efficient and clearer, but isn't necessarily something a
listening pilot would be expecting to hear, which is the point of
standardised phraseology.

Andy

[Dave Doe]

In article <2b88b90d-4c8f-4ec7-a888-059da6b31b64
@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Apr 22, 10:13*pm, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In article >,
> > * * * * * > wrote:
> >
> > > International maritime radio license procedures...
> >
> > Umm...this is rec.aviation.xxxx
> >
>
> Was the mayday relay message I posted more efficient and/or clearer
> than the aviation version? Being licensed in both aviation and
> maritime R/T, my choice would be the maritime format of distress
> messages.

As am I - but I would disagree with you. The maritime phraseology -
IMO, is slower and less intuitive (maday relay is a good example).

Over.

--
Duncan

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 23, 9:04*pm, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article <2b88b90d-4c8f-4ec7-a888-059da6b31b64
> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> > On Apr 22, 10:13*pm, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> > > Hi,
>
> > > In article >,
> > > * * * * * > wrote:
>
> > > > International maritime radio license procedures...
>
> > > Umm...this is rec.aviation.xxxx
>
> > Was the mayday relay message I posted more efficient and/or clearer
> > than the aviation version? Being licensed in both aviation and
> > maritime R/T, my choice would be the maritime format of distress
> > messages.
>
> As am I - but I would disagree with you. *The maritime phraseology -
> IMO, is slower and less intuitive (maday relay is a good example). *
>
> Over.
>

Yawn

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 23, 8:33*am, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> * * * * * > wrote:
>
> > Was the mayday relay message I posted more efficient and/or clearer
> > than the aviation version? Being licensed in both aviation and
> > maritime R/T, my choice would be the maritime format of distress
> > messages.
>
> It might be more efficient and clearer, but isn't necessarily something a
> listening pilot would be expecting to hear, which is the point of
> standardised phraseology.
>


I accept that point, so why not stadardise across maritaime, ham and
air?

Cheers

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

> I accept that point, so why not stadardise across maritaime, ham and
> air?

Feel free to send your suggestions to ICAO. In the meantime, stick to
the standard.

[Tauno Voipio]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> WingFlaps,
>
>
>>Well it's completely redundent, a waste of time and could be confused
>>with "say again". All you need to do is just repeat the message!
>
>
> Your opinion is all fine and well. However, the gold standard on this is ICAO. As
> Andy says, "I say again" is ICAO standard phraseology per Annex 10 Volume II
> (http://www.caa.govt.nz/ICAO/Annex_10_Vol_2_Amdt_80_Cmp_Stmt.pdf).
>
> For the US, check the Pilot Controller Glossary as the definitive and official
> source for phraseology. Under "I", you'll find:
>
> I SAY AGAIN- The message will be repeated.
>
>
>>This is how it should be:
>>
>>Mayday relay, mayday relay, mayday relay, (station 3x), Received
>>mayday (distress station) (distress message reproduced), mayday
>
>
> And the source for that is?
>


ICAO Annex 10, Volume 2, part 5.2, Distress Communications.
The rules come from ITU Radio Regulations.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

[Thomas Borchert]

Tauno,

> >>Mayday relay, mayday relay, mayday relay, (station 3x), Received
> >>mayday (distress station) (distress message reproduced), mayday
> >
> >
> > And the source for that is?
> >
>
>
> ICAO Annex 10, Volume 2, part 5.2, Distress Communications.
> The rules come from ITU Radio Regulations.
>

Actually, distress communications seems to be part 5.3. I could not
find any wording to the effect quoted above. Could you point me to it?


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Euan Kilgour]

On Apr 18, 4:56 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Andy Hawkins > wrote :
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > In article >,
> > Bertie the > wrote:
> >> They don't use any of the Q codes in the US. QNH is one of the few
> >> still in use around the rest of the world, the rest are pretty much
> >> archaich. You stil occasionally hear QFE in the UK, but no airlines I
> >> know of are using it anymore since modern airplanes aren't designed
> >> around their use (QFE settings on the altimeter **** up the computers
> >> since the computer is anticipating a QHN setting to run a bunch of
> >> other devices in the airplane, of which pressurisation is the most
> >> relevant) Very occasionally you hear QSY which is "see you, I'm going
> >> to talk to someone else" and QDM almost never nowadays, but it used
> >> to be relatively common and it's Mag direction to a station. And even
> >> less used QDR which is the Mag radial from a station. I think the
> >> Maritime world might use a lot more of them still, though.
>
> > The UK PPL syllabus still teaches QNH, QFE (the military use it here,
> > and some civil airfields will give it in the initial response). QDM,
> > QDR and QTE (true bearing) are also taught. QDM is on the R/T
> > 'practical' test generally.
>
> But, like sticking to imperial measurements, I think you stand alone.
> Britain is still clinging to a number of archaic aviation terms (you
> still gotta know which direction to go whatever you choose to call it!)
> One of my favorites is the "Pan" call. Nobody uses that anymore except
> you guys. I had an entertaining few minutes in Germany listening to some
> Nigel making one of these a few years back. It went something like this.
> The Nigel Skipper is played Terry Thomas and the German controller by
> Hardy Kruger in this re-creation.
>
> Boffo Air 2234 "Rhine, Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
> ATC "Station calling?"
> BA 2234 "Rhine this is Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
> ATC. "Boffo 2234, pass your message"
> BA 2234 "Rhine, this is Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
> ATC, "Boffo 2234, say again?"
> BA2234 "Rhine, this is a PAN call from Boffo 2234"
> (at this point you can almost hear the Boffo skiper thinking "bloody
> foreigners"
> ATC, "Boffo 2234, are you declaring an emergency?"
> BA2234 "Negative Rhine, Boffo 2234 is making a PAN call"
> ATC, -silence-
> BA 2234, Rhine, we have a pasenger having a heart attack, we're mkaing a
> PAN call"
> ATC, "Boffo 2234, do you wish to declare an emergency?"
> BA 2234 "Nega- Oh, yes, yes, we're declaring an emergency, we'd like to
> divert to Frankfurt immediatly. "
> ATC, roger 2234, fly heading 330 and descend now to FL 150"
>
> No ****, this really happened. I think it actually took longer than
> this. The Brit captain just wouldn't let go....
>
> I'm not sure but I think it was Thomas Cook.
>
> Bertie

Nice. It reminds me of this funny commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOTpIVxji8

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Euan Kilgour > wrote in
:

> On Apr 18, 4:56 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Andy Hawkins > wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > Hi,
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Bertie the > wrote:
>> >> They don't use any of the Q codes in the US. QNH is one of the few
>> >> still in use around the rest of the world, the rest are pretty
>> >> much archaich. You stil occasionally hear QFE in the UK, but no
>> >> airlines I know of are using it anymore since modern airplanes
>> >> aren't designed around their use (QFE settings on the altimeter
>> >> **** up the computers since the computer is anticipating a QHN
>> >> setting to run a bunch of other devices in the airplane, of which
>> >> pressurisation is the most relevant) Very occasionally you hear
>> >> QSY which is "see you, I'm going to talk to someone else" and QDM
>> >> almost never nowadays, but it used to be relatively common and
>> >> it's Mag direction to a station. And even less used QDR which is
>> >> the Mag radial from a station. I think the Maritime world might
>> >> use a lot more of them still, though.
>>
>> > The UK PPL syllabus still teaches QNH, QFE (the military use it
>> > here, and some civil airfields will give it in the initial
>> > response). QDM, QDR and QTE (true bearing) are also taught. QDM is
>> > on the R/T 'practical' test generally.
>>
>> But, like sticking to imperial measurements, I think you stand alone.
>> Britain is still clinging to a number of archaic aviation terms (you
>> still gotta know which direction to go whatever you choose to call
>> it!) One of my favorites is the "Pan" call. Nobody uses that anymore
>> except you guys. I had an entertaining few minutes in Germany
>> listening to some Nigel making one of these a few years back. It went
>> something like this. The Nigel Skipper is played Terry Thomas and the
>> German controller by Hardy Kruger in this re-creation.
>>
>> Boffo Air 2234 "Rhine, Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
>> ATC "Station calling?"
>> BA 2234 "Rhine this is Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
>> ATC. "Boffo 2234, pass your message"
>> BA 2234 "Rhine, this is Boffo 2234, PAN PAN PAN"
>> ATC, "Boffo 2234, say again?"
>> BA2234 "Rhine, this is a PAN call from Boffo 2234"
>> (at this point you can almost hear the Boffo skiper thinking "bloody
>> foreigners"
>> ATC, "Boffo 2234, are you declaring an emergency?"
>> BA2234 "Negative Rhine, Boffo 2234 is making a PAN call"
>> ATC, -silence-
>> BA 2234, Rhine, we have a pasenger having a heart attack, we're
>> mkaing a PAN call"
>> ATC, "Boffo 2234, do you wish to declare an emergency?"
>> BA 2234 "Nega- Oh, yes, yes, we're declaring an emergency, we'd like
>> to divert to Frankfurt immediatly. "
>> ATC, roger 2234, fly heading 330 and descend now to FL 150"
>>
>> No ****, this really happened. I think it actually took longer than
>> this. The Brit captain just wouldn't let go....
>>
>> I'm not sure but I think it was Thomas Cook.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Nice. It reminds me of this funny commercial:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOTpIVxji8
>

Co-incidentaqlly, they showed that very commercial at my CRM refresher
last week!

Bertie

[Stefan]

Tauno Voipio schrieb:

> ICAO Annex 10, Volume 2, part 5.2, Distress Communications.
> The rules come from ITU Radio Regulations.

It's part 5.3. And the phrase "mayday relay" is *not* defined there.
It's always dangerous to cite a source without having actually read it.

There are several differences between maritime and aviation radio
procedures. One is that the expression "mayday ralay" is not used in
aviation. Another example is that in aviation you say "stop
transmitting" rather than the maritime "silence". Let alone the maritime
procedure to get a clearance for climbing to FL200...