AviationBanter - View Single Post

**Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]** · April 17th 08, 06:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student

WingFlaps wrote in news:4a79e95a-8313-4834-a217-
:

On Apr 18, 5:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote in news:fdf0b97d-aac6-4ac1-
a936-
:

On Apr 18, 3:58*am, Stefan wrote:
WingFlaps schrieb:

That's a good question as Eurocontrol recognises QNH as the
correct
local barometric setting (they also state that it means Query:
Newlyn
harbour). I thought the ICAO agreed with Eurocontrol on these
things?

Actually, it's the other way round: Eurocontrol adheres to the
ICAO
phraseology.

*From The ICAO Manual of Radiotelephony (ICAO Document 9432)

Glossary:
QNH: Altimeter sub-scale setting to obtain elevation when on the
ground

Example:
Fastair 345, descend to 4000 feet, QNH 1005, transition level 50,
expect
ILS approach runway 24

WTF are the Americans doing not using ICAO standards or is it just
Gig601 being wrong?

Mostly just that it evolved into what it is and there would be a lot
of
resistance to change. For one thing it would mean changine every
altimiter in the US for ones who's Kollsman windows were in mb ( or
Hpa
if you prefer) It would also mean a complete revamp of airspace,
though
there has been some moves towards international harmonisation there
in
the last 15 years or so. Likewise with ATC, there has been some
movement
towards harmonisation. I think it's a case of softly softly catchy
monkey in regards the FAA's approach. Introducing too much "furrin"
stuff all at once would raise an outcry and probably dash any chance
of
harmonisation completely. Imagine, if you will, Jay hineck whining
about
lefties form Europe making him change his altimeter on his
"Pathfinder"
Whatever the **** that is, and you will see what I mean.

In the spirit of reciprocation, I can tell you that Pathfinders
dropped flares on targets for bombers during WW2.

I doubt they were fleets of Cherokees guided by playstations, somehow.

Bertie