Altimeter Calibration Height

That's not logical.

AFAIC, logic itself describes the process of reasoning and deducing, not the
axioms under which it operates. To take the falling-object-example: In a
universe where gravitational force and inertia are both equally
proportional to the object's mass, it follows that ceteris paribus,
increased mass will not increase the object's acceleration. In a universe
where inertia increases faster with mass than gravitational force, a
heavier object will ceteris paribus have a lower acceleration. Both
sentences are entirely logical, that is, the final statement is inferred
from the axioms in a manner conforming to the rules of logic. Whether it
is applicable to the world we live in depends on whether the axioms apply
to the real world.

To get back to the discussion at hand, it thus makes no sense to say
that "heavy objects fall faster is logical" or "heavy objects fall faster
is not logical". The process of arriving at that statement is what logic is
all about, a single statement thus cannot be either logical or not. You
always need the axioims that you start out with, and the statement one that
you get when combining the axioms. Only then can you judge whether the
statement logically follows from the axioms.

The statement "heavy objects fall faster" may seem more or less in line with
a person's intuition, but it is in and of itself neither logical nor
unlogical.