GPS Altitude with WAAS

"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

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.

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
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. There used to be a DH penalty for an inop middle marker
(either at the transmitter or receiver end) but this penalty no longer
applies. All this ignores the possibility that the pilost has a RADAR
altimeter available.

In the US, it is up to the pilot to decide whether in his particular
situation, given the available equipment and his skills, he should
adjust the minima as appropriate based on the expected temperature
error.

Michael

I've never seen, nor heard of a temperatures of -68F (at low airport-type
altitudes) that was not associated with an inversion. I suppose that it
might happen in Anarctica in the winter but there aren't any airports there.
In Alaska, when its -40F on the surface it is usually at least 0F at 1000'
AGL.

Mike
MU-2

I'm sure that in this case you are referring to the ICAO Cold
Temperature Error Table, which is part of the AIM. Check it out
online:
http://www1.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0702.html#7-2-3

I don't know about you, but I have yet to meet a US flight instructor
who does not require his students to have a copy of the AIM and be
conversant with it.

Uh. That table only showed up a couple of years ago. I bet most flight
instructors have no idea its even there. Other than "hot to cold look
out below" there ain't much on temperature errors in the FAA private
pilot knowledge requirements. The reason that table finally showed up
is because pilots familiar with Canadian and USAF procedures have been
pushing the FAA to improve this area of pilot knowledge.

We are not REQUIRED to do anything about those tables.

If you're flying over mountains in Alaska on a cold night with an
alitimeter setting from sea level? You can tell that to the granite.

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

"John Bell" writes:

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

Thanks -- those are good articles. The Nav Canada paper on non-WAAS
GPS VNAV (the Graham paper) is especially interesting.


All the best,


David

I would say that we are exceedingly fortunate in having Nav Canada as an
information source to supplement (complement?) the FAA.

Bob Gardner

"David Megginson" wrote in message
...
"John Bell" writes:

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

Thanks -- those are good articles. The Nav Canada paper on non-WAAS
GPS VNAV (the Graham paper) is especially interesting.


All the best,


David

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.)