![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Papa3 wrote:
Marc or others, As I've dug deeper into this subject, the issue of geometric altitude appears to be one of the true obstacles to the adoption of COTS units. Is there a public record anywhere of specifically what objections the "members of the IGC, or even GFAC" have raised? In doing just some basic research (along with the help of a major instrument manufacturer) it became pretty obvious that geometric altitude is the way to go at this stage. Regards, Erik Mann "Marc Ramsey" wrote in message . com... My is opinion is (and has been for years) that the IGC should switch over to using geometric altitude, which would allow use of GPS-derived altitude with appropriate error bars. But, my opinion is not that of the majority of members of the IGC, or even GFAC, at this point. Marc Suppose that one switches to "geometric altitude". What about people who used to document their flights with barogaphs? Here all clubs have barographs and lend them to the pilots when necessary. Hence the cost is nil, which is certainly cheaper than the cheapest GPS. -- Michel TALON |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 04:24 AM |