Setting altimeters with no radio

If you look at the MovieTone news reels from the 1950's, the
UN WHO was in Africa inoculating entire villages with one
needle and a gallon bottle of serum. The stopped many
deaths and diseases and also probably spread AIDS to whole
populations.

For those of us born before 1950, we remember that disease
kills.

Many diseases are spread by airplanes, traveling faster than
an incubation period to all corners of the world.


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.
|

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
WAAS is insufficient for a precision GPS approach.

Nonsense. A fully deployed WAAS can provide precision GPS appoaches with
performance comparable to ILS (Cat 1).

Yes, congratulations. I was misinformed (behind the times, actually), and
for once you actually have the right answer.

Thank you for the correction.

Jessica Taylor wrote:

WAAS is insufficient for a precision GPS approach.

Nonsense. A fully deployed WAAS can provide precision GPS appoaches with
performance comparable to ILS (Cat 1).

GPS precision approaches use "LAAS",

Not necessarily. In addition to WAAS, JPALS may be used in the future.

which is basically the same as WAAS except that the differential
station is much closer to the airport

LAAS transmits signals on the UHF band. WAAS does not. LAAS can eventually
provide more accuracy.

OK, who is this Jessica dudette? Seems to be uncannily knowledgeable.

It may depend on the meaning of "precision." If you assume any
approach with vertical guidance then WAAS does. If you mean CAT I or
better that depends on where WAAS is/gets to performance wise. It was
supposed to provide CAT I but has had problems.

I have not kept up to date on LAAS but last I heard it may or may not
be developed.

Ron Lee

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
WAAS is insufficient for a precision GPS approach.

Nonsense. A fully deployed WAAS can provide precision GPS appoaches with
performance comparable to ILS (Cat 1).

Yes, congratulations. I was misinformed (behind the times, actually), and
for once you actually have the right answer.

Thank you for the correction.

Always a pleasure to help get you up to the times, Peter.

In article ,
(Ron Lee) wrote:

It may depend on the meaning of "precision."

Historically, "precision" wrt precision approach means only that it provides
vertical guidance.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In rec.aviation.piloting karl gruber wrote:
No. It isn't!

Don't know about the 90B, but my 89B has an input from the transponder/encoder.
You can use it for advisory VNAV. Since the input is pressure altitude, you
need to keep the pressure setting current. Mode C is only accurate to 100
feet though, so you will see it jump up and down by that amount. There is
also a page that shows the GPS calculated altitude. I've never seen it closer
than a couple of hundred feet to the true altitude. (on the ground; it could
be more acurate in the air, but I'd only be comparing it to the transponder
or the regular altimeter and maybe they go crazy in the air, but they always
agree within 100 feet of each other.) Sometimes I fly 50 feet higher or lower
to make the GPS presure-supplied altitude read my assigned altitude so that
my flight-aware track (and ATC) believe that I can maintain an altitude as
well as an auto-pilot.


Karl
"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
My IFR GPS, a King KLN90B is connected to the altimeter in my
transponder. It is also adjustable to the barometric setting.


--
Don Poitras

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
It may depend on the meaning of "precision." If you assume any
approach with vertical guidance then WAAS does. If you mean CAT I or
better that depends on where WAAS is/gets to performance wise. It was
supposed to provide CAT I but has had problems.

As Bob says, the word "precision" simply implies vertical guidance.

As for whether one can actually get Cat I minima with WAAS, I'm taking the
FAA's word for it. I didn't bother to look for any GPS LPV approaches
specifically to see that they actually exist. I just know that the FAA web
site says (via press release) that as of Oct 2004, they were starting to
roll out Cat I-equivalent GPS approaches.

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
mike regish schrieb:
The point is that the pressure altimeter measures, well, a pressure, not
an altitude. It displays a value in feet, but actually, this is wrong.

Certainly true.

... the whole aviatic system (airspace boundaries, ATC clearances, traffic
separation) is based on pressure altitude

I agree with that statement too.

.. If you are given an ATC clearance for a certain pressure altitude but
fly GPS altitude instead, then you act exactly like that bozo who drives
on the wrong side of the road.

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.

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

"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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
"Jim Macklin" writes:

GPS, even a $100 hikers model will solve the problem. But I
just say, look at the ground, you can judge 1,000 feet
pretty well and you only need to apply the hemisphere rule
above 3,000 AGL.

GPS is far less accurate than an altimeter, and I don't think the
regulations say "if you have no radio, use GPS."

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

The regs don't say a lot of things. You asked the question. Besides the OT
debate, you got two basic responses 1) It doesn't matter 'cause you're VFR
anyway and 2) any old GPS could give you an altitude to use a reference in
the case where the local pressure was significantly different from the
departure.

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK