On Jul 15, 8:37*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 7/15/2011 1:16 PM, T8 wrote:

Is there even *one* good argument for setting the altimeter to zero on
the runway?

You live anywhere in Florida?


I used to. Silly me. When my flight school was in Miami at a small
grass airport, I had my airplane and glider students set the altimeter
to field elevation.
9 feet. Just a hair above zero. It was an attempt to help them
understand why MSL setting will be important in their future flying.
Now operating at Marfa, Texas (elevation 4849' MSL), I teach MSL
because a glider pilot will need 8,400' MSL to clear nearby Mount
Livermore and if they fly their Gold badge XC north in the direction
of Hobbs or Midland / Odessa they will see plus 3,000' MSL on their
altimeter, not minus 2,000' when they land.

What's the FAA "opinion"? Besides the FAR 91.121 (which contains the
vague term "cruising"), the flawed but "official" FAA Glider Flying
Handbook teaches to set an altimeter to MSL. See section 4-5,
"Setting the Altimeter." If that's the way the latest FAA
publication is teaching altimeter setting . . . that is something that
a legal mind might refer to in court after the accident.

Points to Ponder:
All airports are charted in MSL.
All obstacles are charted in MSL.
All terrain is charted in MSL.
Airplane pilots aloft in your airspace are setting their altimeters to
MSL.
Communications with ATC are in MSL.
Class A airspace starts at 18,000' MSL.
Restricted Airspace . . .

Why are we still debating this? Is the math that difficult? (Round
up, if it is easier.)

Burt
Marfa Gliders Soaring Center, west Texas (4,849' MSL)
USA