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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Setting altimeters with no radio
VFR, it doesn't really matter, does it?
-- ------------------------------- Travis Lake N3094P PWK "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Jim Logajan writes: You can find the answer in FAR 91.121(a)(iii). Found it, thanks. I'm surprised that just setting it at the airport would suffice--one could conceivably fly for hundreds of miles VFR, and the altimeter could change significantly along the way. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Setting altimeters with no radio
"Travis Marlatte" wrote in
t: Since you can't be NORDO in the IFR system, separation is the responsibility of the pilot's eyes anyway. Maybe you should say you cannot be INTENTIONALLY NORDO (squawking 7600). It would be pretty hard to maintian visual separation in the clag should the radios go belly up. Allen |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Setting altimeters with no radio
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:35:40 -0600, Jim Macklin wrote:
You rarely get AIDS from a "real person of the opposite gender" which is why GAY means "got aids yet." But do you want to stake your life on it? Because, well, that's *exactly* what you're doing... |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Setting altimeters with no radio
Gotta agree. Roy and Jim, what they heck are you doing? Don't let MX get to
you like this. Just ignore him, if he drives you that mad!! -- ------------------------------- Travis Lake N3094P PWK wrote in message ups.com... Jim Macklin wrote: You rarely get AIDS from a "real person of the opposite gender" which is why GAY means "got aids yet." This does not include the use of IV drugs, the other big vector. Good lord, how freakin off topic can this get. Politics, religion and miscellaneous hatred shouldn't be a part of aviation, can't we all just get along. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Setting altimeters with no radio
Travis Marlatte writes:
The only ATC clearances for a pressure altitude would be in the flight levels. Since the question was about setting a pressure altimeter, I would say that the flight levels are irrelevant. Below the flight levels, ATC clearances are for pressure compensated altitude above MSL, so yes it is based on pressure and not true altitude but close enough. My GPS gives me a calculated altitude above a theoretical sea level that's also close enough. "Close enough": famous last words. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Setting altimeters with no radio
peter writes:
This indicates a basic lack of understanding of GPS technology. It reveals exactly the opposite. That's how GPS determines position. The GPS receiver never deals with measurement of any angles nor with triangulation. What is measured are the precise times of arrival of the signals from the satellites. Surprising though it may be, those "precise times of arrival" are the sides of a triangle. Since the satellites encode the signals with timing information from their sychronized atomic clocks and also send detailed orbital data to define their own positions, the receiver is able to determine the relative distances to the various satellites based on the speed of light/radio and the observed relative signal delays. Using this distance information together with the known positions of the satellites then allows for a determination of the position of the receiver. Note that this never involves a measurement of any angles. Actually it does. The arrival times define spheres in 3D space around the satellites (the geoid can also be used as a reference sphere). The intersections of these spheres effectively isolate the position of the receiver. It's just a fancy version of good old triangulation, and it works very well. Unfortunately, however, it is optimized for lateral positioning, not vertical positioning. To achieve the same vertical accuracy as lateral accuracy, a much higher measurement precision is required. For this reason, vertical measurement accuracy is very poor. It is true that altitude measurements are generally somewhat less accurate than horizontal position measurements due to the basic geometry of receiving satellite signals from only the satellites that are above you. More than "somewhat" less accurate: they are usually unusable, certainly for aviation. My long-term evaluation of GPS altitude accuracy has shown that I get values within 35' of accurately surveyed altitudes at least 95% of the time ever since Selective Availability was turned off. How were you able to accurately survey your altitude in the air? So from a technical standpoint GPS altitudes these days are pretty good although some care should be taken to check the actual satellite geometry and reception at the time of any critical measurements. It's hard to do that in the air. However, there are good reasons why barometric measurements are used instead for aviation to ensure consistency and uniform procedures. The main reason is that it's more accurate. GPS altitude data is so poor and so variable that I've given up using it even on the ground. It's almost never anywhere near surveyed altitudes, and it drifts all over the place. Indeed, you can watch it change as you stand still on the ground, and that's with SA turned off. I definitely would not want to depend on that in the air. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Setting altimeters with no radio
Mxsmanic wrote:
peter writes: This indicates a basic lack of understanding of GPS technology. It reveals exactly the opposite. That's how GPS determines position. No, your statement before was that it required measurement of angles and "triangulation" whereas the actual procedure does not measure any angles at all and is closer to "trilateration" or determining the distances to the satellites at known positions The GPS receiver never deals with measurement of any angles nor with triangulation. What is measured are the precise times of arrival of the signals from the satellites. Surprising though it may be, those "precise times of arrival" are the sides of a triangle. Not sure what you mean by times being equal to sides (the units don't match for one thing), but again, no angles are measured by the GPS receiver. Since the satellites encode the signals with timing information from their sychronized atomic clocks and also send detailed orbital data to define their own positions, the receiver is able to determine the relative distances to the various satellites based on the speed of light/radio and the observed relative signal delays. Using this distance information together with the known positions of the satellites then allows for a determination of the position of the receiver. Note that this never involves a measurement of any angles. Actually it does. The arrival times define spheres in 3D space around the satellites (the geoid can also be used as a reference sphere). The geoid is not a sphere but rather a complex empirically determined surface that closely approximates MSL on the earth (i.e. it is certainly not anything like a sphere around the satellites as you state above). It is not used by the GPS in the initial position determination but may later be used in converting the calculated height above the WGS-84 ellipsoid to an equivalent height above MSL. The intersections of these spheres effectively isolate the position of the receiver. It's just a fancy version of good old triangulation, and it works very well. I agree it works well, but it doesn't involve measuring angles and is therefore not "triangulation." I suggest you read the GPS tutorial at Trimble's website. Unfortunately, however, it is optimized for lateral positioning, not vertical positioning. No, the somewhat better horizontal vs. vertical accuracy is an inherent consequence of not being able to receive signals from satellites that are below us (and therefore blocked by the earth). That's not a deliberate engineering optimization decision but just the way things are. To achieve the same vertical accuracy as lateral accuracy, a much higher measurement precision is required. No again. As the accuracy of GPS continues to improve, both the horizontal and vertical accuracy gets better, but horizontal will always be somewhat better so we won't achieve "the same vertical accuracy." However, we can continue to improve both accuracies so that they are good enough for most applications. It is true that altitude measurements are generally somewhat less accurate than horizontal position measurements due to the basic geometry of receiving satellite signals from only the satellites that are above you. More than "somewhat" less accurate: they are usually unusable, certainly for aviation. The FAA doesn't seem to think so since Garmin recently indicated that 600 GPS LPV approaches have been approved by the FAA providing for certified GPS with WAAS to be used down to 200' (same as Cat 1 ILS). See http://gps.faa.gov/programs/waasnews.htm My long-term evaluation of GPS altitude accuracy has shown that I get values within 35' of accurately surveyed altitudes at least 95% of the time ever since Selective Availability was turned off. How were you able to accurately survey your altitude in the air? I do my surveying on terra firma, but it is frequently also reasonably high "in the air" i.e. on top of mountains. (Neither a GPS nor a barometric altimeter cares if the 10000' below is occupied by a mountain or by empty air.) So from a technical standpoint GPS altitudes these days are pretty good although some care should be taken to check the actual satellite geometry and reception at the time of any critical measurements. It's hard to do that in the air. Really? I find it very easy to do since the GPS receiver itself indicates the satellite geometry and reception conditions. However, there are good reasons why barometric measurements are used instead for aviation to ensure consistency and uniform procedures. The main reason is that it's more accurate. You might want to check what instruments are used by surveyors to get accurate altitudes. E.g. the altitude of Mt. Everest was revised fairly recently based on use of GPS. A barometric altimeter would have been useless for that task. GPS altitude data is so poor and so variable that I've given up using it even on the ground. It's almost never anywhere near surveyed altitudes, and it drifts all over the place. Indeed, you can watch it change as you stand still on the ground, and that's with SA turned off. I definitely would not want to depend on that in the air. Either your receiver is broken or you are using it incorrectly. (The lack of knowledge about the fundamentals and ability to check on satellite geometry suggests the latter possibility.). Of course locations with poor GPS reception due to obstructions are far more likely to be found on the ground than in the air. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Setting altimeters with no radio
You can't begin an IFR flight as NORDO, but you certainly
can complete the flight that way. "Travis Marlatte" wrote in message t... | "Mxsmanic" wrote in message | ... | | No, it is not. It's especially dangerous for RVSM flight, but it's so | inaccurate that it should never be used for anything, except as a last | resort (if the altimeters disintegrate, or whatever). | | | It was posed as a possible means to adjust a pressure altimeter with no | radio. I'd say that it is better than nothing, in that case. Since you can't | be NORDO in the IFR system, separation is the responsibility of the pilot's | eyes anyway. | | ------------------------------- | Travis | Lake N3094P | PWK | | |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Setting altimeters with no radio
Not below 3000 AGL, it does above that.
"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message et... | VFR, it doesn't really matter, does it? | | -- | ------------------------------- | Travis | Lake N3094P | PWK | "Mxsmanic" wrote in message | ... | Jim Logajan writes: | | You can find the answer in FAR 91.121(a)(iii). | | Found it, thanks. I'm surprised that just setting it at the airport | would suffice--one could conceivably fly for hundreds of miles VFR, | and the altimeter could change significantly along the way. | | -- | Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. | | |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Setting altimeters with no radio
I have zero actual experience with AIDS, having left the
"open market" a long long time ago. "Grumman-581" wrote in message news | On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:35:40 -0600, Jim Macklin wrote: | You rarely get AIDS from a "real person of the opposite | gender" which is why GAY means "got aids yet." | | But do you want to stake your life on it? Because, well, that's *exactly* | what you're doing... | | | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? | Ric | Home Built | 2 | September 13th 05 09:39 PM |
I Hate Radios | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 9 | June 6th 05 05:39 PM |
(sorta OT) Free Ham Radio Course | RST Engineering | Piloting | 43 | January 24th 05 08:05 PM |
1944 Aerial War Comes to Life in Radio Play | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | March 25th 04 10:57 PM |
Ham Radio In The Airplane | Cy Galley | Owning | 23 | July 8th 03 03:30 AM |