![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Stefan wrote:
Graeme Cant schrieb: Lastly is a 100ft or 1000ft violation any different. it is still an incursion either way you look at it. No, it isn't. You can't ignore the accuracy of the measuring device. Yes, it is. If your devices are inaccurate, then it's your responsibility to add some extra safety margin. Simple as that. Stefan Rubbish. When it comes to altitude for ATC purposes - and that's what the 18k limit is for - the reading on your altimeter is what counts. Provided it's a legal instrument maintained properly, you fly to the indications of your altimeter. Asking whether this is "accurate" is irrelevant and meaningless. If you're told to maintain 18k in a powered aircraft, what "safety margin" should you allow? Fly at 17750? Fly at 18400? Nonsense! The OLC's problems arise because the legal device Ramy HAS to use when he might bust a rule is the altimeter, not the logger. But when he lands only the LOGGER figure is still there. Ramy was only illegal though, if he flew over 18k on his ALTIMETER. The madness of all of this is that the accuracy that Al seems to expect is not expected by any of the authorities whose rules he claims were broken. He thinks the whole thing is way more accurate than it is and way more accurate than any of the real airspace users need it to be. ATC define en route airways on a radar screen where the defining line is 400 yards wide - with fuzzy edges - and a target takes three sweeps to cross it!! Al's concept that an airspace boundary is a precision line in space accurately marked like the painted centreline on a road is laughable. So is the idea that a glider's position is measured to an inch by a $200 GPS receiver. Ramy may be 400yards outside a boundary on ATC's scope but his GPS logger may show him as inside the rhumb line between the coordinates defining the boundary. Or maybe inside the rhumb line but outside the Great Circle. Was he wrong or right? If the coordinates are 100 miles apart, the difference between rhumb line and Great Circle could be a mile or more and what ATC's scope lines show is probably neither. He's expected to measure his position by - at best - VOR radial and DME, not GPS, so there's probably an uncertainty circle about 2 miles in diameter! What Al wants to do with logger barometric readings and GPS positions is needed by no other airspace users and the system doesn't work to that level of accuracy. GC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Commercial - StrePla Update | Paul Remde | Soaring | 0 | May 19th 04 02:52 PM |