GPS Altitude with WAAS

writes:

In Canada, learning about temperature errors in the altimeter is a
standard part of the PPL curriculum, but I've noticed that it's not so
familiar to U.S. pilots (at least not private pilots). We have tables
in our AIP and other publications showing what errors to expect, and
when flying IFR, we are required to add those errors to all instrument
approach altitudes (MDA, DH, etc.) in very cold temperatures.

There is no such "requirement" , either in Canada nor the USA.

From the (Canadian) AIP, RAC 9.17.1:

The calculated minimum safe altitudes must be adjusted when the
ambient on the surface is much lower than that predicted by the
standard atmosphere.

Note the use of the term "must" rather than "should". Granted, the
AIP is not the CARs or the Aeronautics Act, but it is the closest we
have to a definition of what the TATC (formerly Civil Aviation
Tribunal) would use for deciding whether a pilot displayed
incompetence.


All the best,


David

Exaclty, the AIP is not the CARS (Canadian Regs)
Just as the AIM is not the FARS

Stan

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:22:02 GMT, David Megginson
wrote:

writes:

In Canada, learning about temperature errors in the altimeter is a
standard part of the PPL curriculum, but I've noticed that it's not so
familiar to U.S. pilots (at least not private pilots). We have tables
in our AIP and other publications showing what errors to expect, and
when flying IFR, we are required to add those errors to all instrument
approach altitudes (MDA, DH, etc.) in very cold temperatures.

There is no such "requirement" , either in Canada nor the USA.

From the (Canadian) AIP, RAC 9.17.1:

The calculated minimum safe altitudes must be adjusted when the
ambient on the surface is much lower than that predicted by the
standard atmosphere.

Note the use of the term "must" rather than "should". Granted, the
AIP is not the CARs or the Aeronautics Act, but it is the closest we
have to a definition of what the TATC (formerly Civil Aviation
Tribunal) would use for deciding whether a pilot displayed
incompetence.


All the best,


David

writes:

Exaclty, the AIP is not the CARS (Canadian Regs) Just as the AIM is
not the FARS

But in both cases, they are a fairly normative definition of
airmanship. If you ignore a "must" in the AIM or AIP, the FAA or
Transport Canada is probably more than happy to nab you for poor
airmanship.

It's a very imperfect analogy, but you can think of the AIM or AIP as
a sort-of collection of common law, beside the formal legislation of
the FARs or CARs.


All the best,


David