![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The pigs will be flying long before there is a 5F day at OAK.
Mike MU-2 "Fred E. Pate" wrote in message ... John Bell wrote: Let me add two links to the discussion: This is on problems with cold weather altimetry: http://www.aircraftbuyer.com/learn/train06.htm This is about the accuracy of unaided GPS altitude in the context of vertical guidance, but it bears some relavence to the discussion of the accuracy of GPS altitude: http://www.bluecoat.org/reports/Graham_2001_RawGPS.pdf John Bell www.cockpitgps.com This one's for the Canadians on this thread. A notice on the new Oakland, California (KOAK) "RNAV (GPS) RWY 29" approach (http://www.myairplane.com/databases/.../OAK_agr29.pdf): "BARO-VNAV NA below -15 deg C (5 deg F)" And this is for a decision altitude of only 294 ft AGL. Seems like the FAA is moving towards taking into account temperature errors in barometric alitmetry. And, by implication, this supports the premise that WAAS altitude figures are more accurate than the trusty old "sensitive altimeter." (In the legend they specifically state that WAAS-based VNAV can be used when BARO-VNAV is not approved due to temperature.) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sure, but that's not tne point. These restrictions will be standard on all of these types of approaches nation wide. Its the first time I am aware of that the FAA has included temperature altimetry errors in instrument procedures.
Mike Rapoport wrote: The pigs will be flying long before there is a 5F day at OAK. Mike MU-2 "Fred E. Pate" wrote in message ... John Bell wrote: Let me add two links to the discussion: This is on problems with cold weather altimetry: http://www.aircraftbuyer.com/learn/train06.htm This is about the accuracy of unaided GPS altitude in the context of vertical guidance, but it bears some relavence to the discussion of the accuracy of GPS altitude: http://www.bluecoat.org/reports/Graham_2001_RawGPS.pdf John Bell www.cockpitgps.com This one's for the Canadians on this thread. A notice on the new Oakland, California (KOAK) "RNAV (GPS) RWY 29" approach (http://www.myairplane.com/databases/.../OAK_agr29.pdf): "BARO-VNAV NA below -15 deg C (5 deg F)" And this is for a decision altitude of only 294 ft AGL. Seems like the FAA is moving towards taking into account temperature errors in barometric alitmetry. And, by implication, this supports the premise that WAAS altitude figures are more accurate than the trusty old "sensitive altimeter." (In the legend they specifically state that WAAS-based VNAV can be used when BARO-VNAV is not approved due to temperature.) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I agree in principle but in actuality it never gets cold enough in the US to
make a difference. The only times that we have really low temperatures (-40 and below) there is an inversion. Mike MU-2 wrote in message ... Sure, but that's not tne point. These restrictions will be standard on all of these types of approaches nation wide. Its the first time I am aware of that the FAA has included temperature altimetry errors in instrument procedures. Mike Rapoport wrote: The pigs will be flying long before there is a 5F day at OAK. Mike MU-2 "Fred E. Pate" wrote in message ... John Bell wrote: Let me add two links to the discussion: This is on problems with cold weather altimetry: http://www.aircraftbuyer.com/learn/train06.htm This is about the accuracy of unaided GPS altitude in the context of vertical guidance, but it bears some relavence to the discussion of the accuracy of GPS altitude: http://www.bluecoat.org/reports/Graham_2001_RawGPS.pdf John Bell www.cockpitgps.com This one's for the Canadians on this thread. A notice on the new Oakland, California (KOAK) "RNAV (GPS) RWY 29" approach (http://www.myairplane.com/databases/.../OAK_agr29.pdf): "BARO-VNAV NA below -15 deg C (5 deg F)" And this is for a decision altitude of only 294 ft AGL. Seems like the FAA is moving towards taking into account temperature errors in barometric alitmetry. And, by implication, this supports the premise that WAAS altitude figures are more accurate than the trusty old "sensitive altimeter." (In the legend they specifically state that WAAS-based VNAV can be used when BARO-VNAV is not approved due to temperature.) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Okay. But if you're on a precision approach you'll be below the inversion, no? Mike Rapoport wrote: I agree in principle but in actuality it never gets cold enough in the US to make a difference. The only times that we have really low temperatures (-40 and below) there is an inversion. Mike MU-2 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Rapoport wrote:
The pigs will be flying long before there is a 5F day at OAK. Mike MU-2 Oh yeah, I forgot to add that those pigs will be using WAAS and LAAS equipment to make their approaches into Oakland when it happens ![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Different WAAS altitude readings | Wyatt Emmerich | Instrument Flight Rules | 21 | June 29th 04 07:27 PM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Instrument Flight Rules | 42 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
WAAS question -- altitude accuracy? | Craig Davidson | Piloting | 10 | September 23rd 03 09:56 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |