GPS Altitude with WAAS

(Michael) writes:

I'm sure that Canada is the promised land as far as aviation
education goes,

Not at all -- I've just been surprised at how many U.S. pilots don't
seem to know about altimeter temperature errors. On mailing lists,
I've actually had violent reactions from otherwise experienced and
competent pilots when I casually mentioned that pressure altimeters
are routinely off by hundreds of feet at cruise altitude.

I'm sorry if this came across as a "we're better than you" issue --
there are other areas where the U.S. aviation eductation system does
better than Canada's. For example, we do not have to demonstrate any
partial-panel work for our IFR flight test in Canada (good instructors
still teach it, of course, but it's scary that they don't have to).

Let's not forget that the worst case temperature error at 200 ft and
-50C is only 60 ft, while altimeters can be up to 75 ft off in some
cases and still be legal for IFR use.

What if the errors compounded? I agree that it's unlikely (and would
require a very cold day), but using your numbers someone with a 75 ft
altimeter error and a 60 ft temperature error could end up at only 65
ft AGL when the altimeter read 200 ft AGL.


All the best,


David

"David Megginson" wrote in message
...
(Michael) writes:

I'm sure that Canada is the promised land as far as aviation
education goes,

Not at all -- I've just been surprised at how many U.S. pilots don't
seem to know about altimeter temperature errors. On mailing lists,
I've actually had violent reactions from otherwise experienced and
competent pilots when I casually mentioned that pressure altimeters
are routinely off by hundreds of feet at cruise altitude.

I think what they teach us is density altitude differences, but that's for
performance during takeoff. I wonder if the new RVSM rules/equipment might
refocus some discussion in that direction?

Tom

David Megginson wrote:

On mailing lists,
I've actually had violent reactions from otherwise experienced and
competent pilots when I casually mentioned that pressure altimeters
are routinely off by hundreds of feet at cruise altitude.

It's pretty simple, really. It doesn't matter at all if your altimeter is off
by hundreds of feet at cruise altitude if everybody else at that altitude has
the same error. It would be possibly unsafe for you to set your altimeter
accurately when everyone else is setting it to the broadcast local altimeter
setting.

In short, it doesn't matter. Just do it like everyone else. For noise abatement
reasons.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

"G.R. Patterson III" writes:

It's pretty simple, really. It doesn't matter at all if your
altimeter is off by hundreds of feet at cruise altitude if everybody
else at that altitude has the same error.

Unless you're trying to clear mountains using an altimeter setting
from a low-elevation field.

It would be possibly unsafe for you to set your altimeter accurately
when everyone else is setting it to the broadcast local altimeter
setting.

Absolutely -- no one is suggesting changing the altimeter setting.
You just have to be aware of how inaccurate the altimeter is when
obstacle clearance might be an issue. For example, if you are
planning to clear a ridge by only 1000 ft in the winter, you might
want to think again.


All the best,


David

David Megginson wrote
Not at all -- I've just been surprised at how many U.S. pilots don't
seem to know about altimeter temperature errors. On mailing lists,
I've actually had violent reactions from otherwise experienced and
competent pilots when I casually mentioned that pressure altimeters
are routinely off by hundreds of feet at cruise altitude.

Yep. They forgot it, since it wasn't really relevant. As for the
violent reaction, it's not a pilot thing but a people thing. There
are people who are often wrong but never uncertain. It's kind of sad
when an experienced pilot gets that way, but it's really terrible when
an old experienced instructor falls into that mode, since at that
point he's largely worthless.

But think for a second - why do you suppose MEA's and OROCA's provide
1000 ft of obstacle clearace normally, but 2000 in designated
mountainlous areas? If you're IFR, you're not going to be clearing
that peak by less than 2000 ft, and that is going to keep you out of
the rocks in even the worst case scenario. If you're VFR, then you
can see the peak and don't really need the altimeter anyway.

Let's not forget that the worst case temperature error at 200 ft and
-50C is only 60 ft, while altimeters can be up to 75 ft off in some
cases and still be legal for IFR use.

What if the errors compounded? I agree that it's unlikely (and would
require a very cold day), but using your numbers someone with a 75 ft
altimeter error and a 60 ft temperature error could end up at only 65
ft AGL when the altimeter read 200 ft AGL.

Which is still not the end of the world. In a light airplane, you can
easily go missed from 65 AGL (or land, if you break out). Anything
heavy and fast enought that this isn't true is probably going to have
a RADAR altimeter and Cat II certification anyway.

Michael

(Michael) writes:

But think for a second - why do you suppose MEA's and OROCA's provide
1000 ft of obstacle clearace normally, but 2000 in designated
mountainlous areas?

That's exactly why, of course.

If you're IFR, you're not going to be clearing that peak by less
than 2000 ft, and that is going to keep you out of the rocks in even
the worst case scenario. If you're VFR, then you can see the peak
and don't really need the altimeter anyway.

That's what one would hope. Unfortunately, there are many gradations
between CAVU and IMC, and pilots do seem to have an unfortunate
tendency to fly into mountains or get stuck in canyons from time to
time while (legally) VFR.

The most interesting result of WAAS, I think, will be its educational
effect on pilots. Right now, I often see postings from people who
think they can use their altimeters to check the vertical accuracy of
their GPS's. At cruise altitude, the GPS is likely to be by far the
more accurate of the two even without WAAS (though obviously we need
to stick with the altimeter to ensure separation). Near to the
ground, as you mention, the altimeter may become the more accurate of
the two, assuming that you have the latest altimeter setting for the
field.


All the best,


David

David Megginson wrote
That's what one would hope. Unfortunately, there are many gradations
between CAVU and IMC, and pilots do seem to have an unfortunate
tendency to fly into mountains or get stuck in canyons from time to
time while (legally) VFR.

Some people fly to the legal limits of the certificates and ratings
they hold; others do not. I realize this is obvious. What should be
equally obvious (but sometimes is not) is that in order to do so with
a reasonable margin of safety, you need a much higher level of skill
and knowledge than what is required to pass the checkride.

What we're doing here is exploring one tiny corner of the knowledge
envelope in great detail. Most pilots couldn't care less. Most
pilots are also not going to fly in the mountains in anything less
than good day-VMC, so they really don't care - or need to.

The examiner is not able to check every possible knowledge area in
depth - that's not his function. He only performs a rough check to
make sure the instructor didn't leave out anything really major.
Anything else would take much too long.

So really, all you need is a few people who don't know what they don't
know and pay the ultimate penalty to observe what you've described.
I'm not sure if lack of knowledge of temperature errors has ever
caused someone to fly into an obstruction he thought he was clear of,
but I can certainly believe it has happened.

Michael

(Michael) writes:

So really, all you need is a few people who don't know what they don't
know and pay the ultimate penalty to observe what you've described.
I'm not sure if lack of knowledge of temperature errors has ever
caused someone to fly into an obstruction he thought he was clear of,
but I can certainly believe it has happened.

I wonder about that when I read an accident report where it appears
that the pilot tried to dive under MDA or DH on a cold day and ended
up hitting something.

Obviously, you don't get a lot of -50 degC days, even in Alaska or the
Canadian arctic, but still, if you combine all of the other vertical
and lateral errors (within legal tolerances) with a more realistic
cold-temperature error, it could be that a small minority of those
CFIT accidents are not hot-dog pilots ignoring minima after all.


All the best,


David

But think for a second - why do you suppose MEA's and OROCA's provide
1000 ft of obstacle clearace normally, but 2000 in designated
mountainlous areas? If you're IFR, you're not going to be clearing
that peak by less than 2000 ft, and that is going to keep you out of
the rocks in even the worst case scenario. If you're VFR, then you
can see the peak and don't really need the altimeter anyway.


I don't buy it. On a good weather day in California it is not uncommon
for the alimeter setting itself to account for 500 ft altimeter errors
in the mountains. If you add up non-standard lapse rate, cold air and
old and distant altimeter settings you can eat into the 2000 feet rather
quickly. Then deal with turbulent air and downdrafts in the mountains
on top of this. I don't like it one bit.

Go land on a 2000 foot runway and tell me that's plenty of room between
a little airplane with poor climb performance and a big mountain that
you can't see.