A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

GPS Altitude with WAAS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 23rd 03, 11:54 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



David Megginson wrote:

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.


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. It would be possibly unsafe for you to set your altimeter
accurately when everyone else is setting it to the broadcast local altimeter
setting.

In short, it doesn't matter. Just do it like everyone else. For noise abatement
reasons.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

  #12  
Old September 24th 03, 04:14 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #14  
Old September 24th 03, 04:53 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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



  #15  
Old September 24th 03, 10:54 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David Megginson wrote
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.


Some people fly to the legal limits of the certificates and ratings
they hold; others do not. I realize this is obvious. What should be
equally obvious (but sometimes is not) is that in order to do so with
a reasonable margin of safety, you need a much higher level of skill
and knowledge than what is required to pass the checkride.

What we're doing here is exploring one tiny corner of the knowledge
envelope in great detail. Most pilots couldn't care less. Most
pilots are also not going to fly in the mountains in anything less
than good day-VMC, so they really don't care - or need to.

The examiner is not able to check every possible knowledge area in
depth - that's not his function. He only performs a rough check to
make sure the instructor didn't leave out anything really major.
Anything else would take much too long.

So really, all you need is a few people who don't know what they don't
know and pay the ultimate penalty to observe what you've described.
I'm not sure if lack of knowledge of temperature errors has ever
caused someone to fly into an obstruction he thought he was clear of,
but I can certainly believe it has happened.

Michael
  #17  
Old September 25th 03, 04:42 AM
John Bell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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





  #18  
Old September 25th 03, 08:05 AM
Fred E. Pate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

  #19  
Old September 25th 03, 08:15 AM
Fred E. Pate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

  #20  
Old September 25th 03, 01:18 PM
David Megginson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Different WAAS altitude readings Wyatt Emmerich Instrument Flight Rules 21 June 29th 04 07:27 PM
GPS Altitude with WAAS Phil Verghese Instrument Flight Rules 42 October 5th 03 12:39 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
WAAS question -- altitude accuracy? Craig Davidson Piloting 10 September 23rd 03 09:56 PM
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Piloting 25 September 11th 03 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.