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 » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old January 25th 18, 09:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 668
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

On Thursday, 25 January 2018 23:11:13 UTC+2, Steve Koerner wrote:
John: I agree that it would be possible to set a numeric criteria and use your flight recorder like we do for other SUA numbers. I do need to state the issue in different terms...

The class A SUA is effectively set in terms of pressure measurement at nominal 17,500. It doesn't matter that one's flight recorder is reading wrong by +/- 500ft. For SUA, we simply all agree and understand that we are going by a known faulty pressure measurement. In fact, the expectation that it will read wrong by 500 ft at some probability is the reason that it's not an 18,000 ft contest criteria. When we are at the start cylinder, our altimeters have been recently referenced to field elevation; so in that case the measurement is fairly accurate. Not so out on course, 100 miles away late in the day. There will not be a suitable relationship between what is measured and where the ground actually is.

You would have to incorporate an expectable measuring uncertainty into your hard deck. The hard deck would have to be set to avoid the obvious problem that would be created by a false confidence scenario wherein the rules indicate that I'm not outside safety limits so I must be safe enough to keep circling.

You will end up with a hard deck number not very acceptable to very many people. Pilots will prefer to eyeball what is a safe circling height rather than have a faulty measurement dictate when it is not safe according to the rules. To state the problem differently: being scored as landing out due to an unreasonably high "hard deck" when you in fact, make it around without compromising your safety, will seem objectionable to most. I know it would be objectionable to me.

What's more, pilots will ultimately change their circling behavior only minisculely due to a hard deck land out rule -- they still need to get back to the airfield for plenty of good reasons.


Hard deck is not "lowest safe altitude". It is altitude where scoring stops..
 




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
de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter pics 1 [03/11] - DeHavilland-Canada-DHC-6-100-Twin-Otter-Chile-Air-Force-Fuerza-Aerea-De-Chile-Twin-Engine-Airplane-Aircraft-940.jpg (1/1) Miloch Aviation Photos 0 September 30th 17 03:10 PM
Any news from Chile Bob Gibbons[_2_] Soaring 3 March 2nd 10 04:08 PM
Soaring in Chile [email protected] Soaring 3 February 21st 09 11:43 PM
The GP in Chile cernauta Soaring 0 January 7th 09 12:51 AM
Reich Weapons in Australia robert arndt Military Aviation 0 January 3rd 04 04:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.