GPS altitude again is close to actual

Jose wrote:
I think WAAS combined with DGPS will soon provide digital
accuracy...

What is "digital accuracy"?

LOL! I guess you got me on that one.

I meant to imply that there is no practical limit of the accuracy of
digital gauges while analog gauges are severely limited, comparatively.
-----

- gpsman

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

WAAS isn't part of GPS.

That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology is
discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an aviation
newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the application, and in
that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in other words, in aviation
there is no application for WAAS independent GPS AFAIK. So, your above
claim is extremely off-topic, at best.

Neil

I meant to imply that there is no practical limit of the accuracy of
digital gauges while analog gauges are severely limited, comparatively.

Uh... the accuracy of a measurement is independent of the method used to
present the result. An extremely accurate result can be presented using
analog gauges, and can be presented faithfully. (just add verniers and
more hands). An extremely poor result can be presented using digital
gauges, and can be presented in such a way to appear very precise.
(altitude 3631.567298 feet, +/- 100 feet).

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mxsmanic wrote:
gpsman writes:

Altitude has always been very important to field soldiers and "ships"
whose responsibilities include flinging large projectiles long
distances.

The altitude of a ship is sea level. The altitude of an infantry unit
is marked on its maps.

The altimeter/GPS altitude accuracy debate is beyond my expertise but
my experience includes a different altimeter indication after landing
at an airport I had left earlier in the day while my handheld $150 WAAS
capable GPSr indicated its identical reading to 1/10ft.

WAAS isn't part of GPS.

Barometric altimeters are analog and the finest divisions of the scale
IME are 20', so I would not expect them to be any more accurate than +-
10'. I think WAAS combined with DGPS will soon provide digital
accuracy... far beyond any ordinary need.

There's nothing inherently accurate about digital systems. No digital
system can be more accurate than the best analog system.

"Both horizontal and vertical changes in position can be measured to an
accuracy of a few millimeters (horizontal) to several millimeters
(vertical).
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/About/What...ation/GPS.html

Not in a tenth of a second. You can average readings over long
periods and get extremely accurate measurements, but that technique is
useless to aircraft.

The GPS altitude accuracy "problem" is mostly attributable to the
limitations and generality of the WGS84 datum geoid height
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gc...gif/geoid2.gif
which could have easily been overcome by WAAS correction and simply
adding more satellites (and postioning them optimally). Economics have
precluded this rush to solution.

The problem is linked to the basic design of the system.

The bottom line is, IMO, WAAS altitude is far more accurate than
altimeter... depending on how many birds are in view.

WAAS isn't part of GPS.

Once again your most certainly wrong. WAAS is very much a part of the
GPS SYSTEM and your statements to the contrary just reinforce your
incredible ignorance of the real world as opposed to your simulated world.

Recently, Neil Gould posted:

aviation there is no application for WAAS independent GPS AFAIK.

Of course, that *should* read "...independent of GPS..."

Jules wrote:



Ron Lee wrote:
GPS provides a far better
navigation, positioning and timing service globally, free than
anything he or his country has done.


He's American.

Are you talking about GLONASS being better?

I thought he was European.

Ron Lee

"Neil Gould" wrote:

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

WAAS isn't part of GPS.

That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology is
discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an aviation
newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the application, and in
that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in other words, in aviation
there is no application for WAAS independent GPS AFAIK. So, your above
claim is extremely off-topic, at best.

Neil

Actually he is correct. WAAS is not part of GPS. You don't need WAAS
to use GPS for aviation.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
Jules wrote:



Ron Lee wrote:
GPS provides a far better
navigation, positioning and timing service globally, free than
anything he or his country has done.


He's American.

Are you talking about GLONASS being better?

I thought he was European.

Ron Lee

No he is just an American that lives in France on $637/Mo.

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"Neil Gould" wrote:

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

WAAS isn't part of GPS.

That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology is
discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an aviation
newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the application, and in
that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in other words, in aviation
there is no application for WAAS independent GPS AFAIK. So, your above
claim is extremely off-topic, at best.

Neil

Actually he is correct. WAAS is not part of GPS. You don't need WAAS
to use GPS for aviation.

Ron Lee

Do you know of an aviation use of WAAS that isn't tied to GPS? That is the
issue.

No, but you need GPS to use WAAS, which enhances GPS accuracy in most,
but not all, of the continental USA. In that sense WAAS is certainly
part, albeit a newer part, of the GPS system.



Actually he is correct. WAAS is not part of GPS. You don't need WAAS
to use GPS for aviation.

Ron Lee