GPS altitude again is close to actual

"mike regish" wrote in message
. ..
Compared to which standard?

mike

The same standard he has used to back-up most of his claims. The make
believe simulated standard.


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

The death rate among GA pilots is 100 times higher than it is among
automobile drivers.

Mxsmanic wrote:
I don't have to be smart: I look things up.

Roger on the first part; as to the second, Google your life away.
Or fly real airplanes.

F--

Dave Stadt writes:

Your simulator affords you the opportunity to play a game........nothing
more, nothing less.

If that were true, it wouldn't be called a simulator.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Nomen Nescio writes:

Everything is an estimate.

Some estimates are more accurate than others.

If you are standing on a hill you know to be 1000 feet high, and you
estimate that the elevation of a hill 500 feet away is 1000 feet also,
you're much more likely to be correct than if you estimate the same
height for a hill 100 miles away. That's just a function of natural
probability.

Likewise, if you measure GPS error at 29 points, and then estimate the
error for all other points, the estimates will be most accurate for
the points nearest the ones you actually measured. There's no getting
around this when one is dealing with natural topographic features. If
the Earth were a perfect sphere, or any shape that can be simply
described and that includes no random anomalies, one or a handful of
measurements would suffice to describe all points with 100% accuracy.
But that is not actually the case in real life, so estimates are off
to a degree that roughly correlates with their distance from
explicitly measured reference points.

The important question is "is it close
enough to work with?" +/- 100 ft, for aviation purposes, is close enough.

Laterally, perhaps. Not vertically. And unfortunately GPS is far
less accurate vertically than laterally.

Hell, I've navigated some long trips by boat using a sextant and a
watch. I doubt I've ever found my true position within a mile. But I
always made it to the correct harbor. Close enough.

That's by boat. Harbors are larger than runways. Oceans are flat and
very large indeed.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:
Dave Stadt writes:

Your simulator affords you the opportunity to play a game........nothing
more, nothing less.

If that were true, it wouldn't be called a simulator.


What Microsoft chooses to name it for marketing purposes is irrelevant.

Ron Lee wrote:
"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.

Following that logic my water softener is not part of my water system.
Without it, the water system still operates as intended; with it, I
receive a better end result.

WAAS/GPS Terms and Definitions

Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The WAAS is made up of an
integrity reference monitoring network, processing facilities,
geostationary satellites, and control facilities. Wide area reference
stations and integrity monitors are widely dispersed data collection
sites that contain GPS/WAAS ranging receivers that monitor all signals
from the GPS, as well as the WAAS geostationary satellites.

The reference stations collect measurements from the GPS and WAAS
satellites so that differential corrections, ionospheric delay
information, GPS/WAAS accuracy, WAAS network time, GPS time, and UTC
can be determined.

The wide area reference station and integrity monitor data are
forwarded to the central data processing sites. These sites process
the data in order to determine differential corrections, ionospheric
delay information, and GPS/WAAS accuracy, as well as verify residual
error bounds for each monitored satellite. The central data processing
sites also generate navigation messages for the geostationary
satellites and WAAS messages.

This information is modulated on the GPS-like signal and broadcast to
the users from geostationary satellites.
http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/Terms.html
-----

- gpsman

Spam Magnet writes:

What Microsoft chooses to name it for marketing purposes is irrelevant.

That's what people choose to call it, not simply what Microsoft names
it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

gpsman writes:

Following that logic my water softener is not part of my water system.

That's how your water utility looks at it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

gpsman writes:

Following that logic my water softener is not part of my water
system.

That's how your water utility looks at it.

And, there you have the crux of this matter. As pilots, we are identical
to the end user of the water system, not the utility company. If you want
to discuss WAAS independent of GPS, go to some GPS or WAAS group and
discuss your concepts to your heart's content.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote:

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

gpsman writes:

Following that logic my water softener is not part of my water
system.

That's how your water utility looks at it.

And, there you have the crux of this matter. As pilots, we are identical
to the end user of the water system, not the utility company. If you want
to discuss WAAS independent of GPS, go to some GPS or WAAS group and
discuss your concepts to your heart's content.

Neil

The crux of the matter is that WAAS is not part of GPS. How many
pilots use WAAS in an IFR or even VFR manner? Not many I suspect.

Using your logic and a Garmin 496 you would say that XM weather and
radio is part of GPS because they are integrated into a GPS receiver.

Ron Lee