Altimeter Question

On Apr 18, 9:05Â*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
terry wrote in news:375462b0-66e7-4ed0-b45d-
:







On Apr 18, 7:10�am, Stefan wrote:
WingFlaps schrieb:

Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to an
airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in this
case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?

Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR
gives
you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the
surface.

As I understand it ( In Australia) the QNH in an ARFOR must be within
5 mbar of the "real QNH" Â*- ie what gives you field elevation for any
place within that area. otherwise the area will be broken up into sub
areas and no 2 adjacant sub areas must differ by more than 5 mbar.
That way the errors which Wing flap alludes to, and must certainly
exist in non ISA atmosphere, would result in errors of no more than
150 feet between aircraft using either the correct AFROR QNH or the
airfield set QNH

Yipes! Are you studying to be an astronaut?

Are there any openings?

WingFlaps schrieb:

BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give
field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-)

Which has been pretty obvious, hasn't it? But I forgot that this is Usenet.

Bertie the Bunyip schrieb:

Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation.

Only at the airport ref point, so, no, it doesn't.

Fascinating: You, who *never* ever have trimmed a post before you
answered, are doing this for the first time! A miracle? A convert?
No, a closer look reveals your reason: The untrimmed text was

Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives
you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface.

Which is exactly what you wrote in your answer. So without trimming, you
couldn't have written "no". You're such an asshole.

Terry,

So what do you
call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
elevation?


altimeter setting. It is given in inches Hg, too, with 29.92 being
equivalent to 1013 hectoPascal. The Brits use another non-SI unit,
namely millibars, which is the same as hectoPasal.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Larry,

http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec={8F1A7DDE-89E8-11D4-8351-00C04FC2C2BF}
What does QNH stand for?
Atmospheric Pressure (Q) at Nautical Height (aviation)


That's hilarious!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Apr 18, 10:08*am, "Barry" wrote:
Its still like that in australia, *we use feet for altitude , but we
use meters for horizontal distance. OurVFR rules are to stay clear of
cloud by 1000 feet vertically and 1500 m horizontally.

Are obstruction elevations (towers, mountain tops) charted in feet or meters?
In France they were in meters, which I thought was pretty stupid given that
the altimeters were in feet. *VFR cloud clearance requirements, both
horizontal and vertical, were stated in meters.

Obstructions , towers etc are fortunately recorded in feet in
australia.

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec={8F1A7DDE-89E8-11D4-8351-00C04FC2C2BF}
What does QNH stand for?
Atmospheric Pressure (Q) at Nautical Height (aviation)

That's hilarious!

Their second database entry is even more hilarious:
Queens Nautical Height.
:-)))

On Apr 18, 6:56*pm, Stefan wrote:
WingFlaps schrieb:

BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give
field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-)

Which has been pretty obvious, hasn't it? But I forgot that this is Usenet..

Nope it's not Usenet, it comes back to correcting the erroneous idea
that setting QNH on an altimeter makes it faithfully report altitude.

Cheers

WingFlaps schrieb:
On Apr 18, 6:56 pm, Stefan wrote:
WingFlaps schrieb:

BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give
field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-)
Which has been pretty obvious, hasn't it? But I forgot that this is Usenet.

Nope it's not Usenet, it comes back to correcting the erroneous idea
that setting QNH on an altimeter makes it faithfully report altitude.

Which nobody claimed.

Stefan wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip schrieb:

Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation.

Only at the airport ref point, so, no, it doesn't.

Fascinating: You, who *never* ever have trimmed a post before you
answered, are doing this for the first time! A miracle? A convert?
No, a closer look reveals your reason: The untrimmed text was

Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives
you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface.

Which is exactly what you wrote in your answer. So without trimming, you
couldn't have written "no". You're such an asshole.


snicker