![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 07 May 2007 20:41:13 GMT, "Jim Carter"
wrote: I think what you've cited is for bench testing during certification. Once installed in the aircraft then comparison against the pressure as recorded by the official weather observation is +/- 75'. An interesting discussion point came up recently that exposed the difference in teaching over the past 30 years. 30 years ago we were taught to set the altimeter to the known field elevation and record the difference between the official pressure and the indicated pressure, then apply that difference to every setting you received along your route of flight. Today they teach to set your altimeter to the official pressure and that's it. So my question becomes, when executing a precision approach to a minimum DH of 200' and then executing the missed procedure, the aircraft is allowed to descend slightly below the DH as things spool up. If you are already 75' lower than you think because of altimeter error, and you descend only 20' more (one gradient on the altimeter) aren't you really only 105' off the deck? I did cite the bench testing numbers, as they are the ones of which I am aware. I've heard of the 75' "allowance" for a field measurement, but I've not seen a regulatory justification for that value. As someone who flies instrument approaches to minimums, I, personally, would not be happy with a 75' error, and would have the system rechecked. So far as you being only 105' off the deck in your hypothetical instance, that is obviously the case. By the way, for Category II operations, which may have a DH as low as 100'AGL, it is a requirement to have readily available the altimeter calibration information from the last certification, (and to apply it appropriately). --ron |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Isn't a radar altimeter required equipment for CAT II and CAT III work? We
were trying to get an aircraft and aircrew certified for CAT II in Seattle many years ago and I thought that was the reason they had the RA installed. -- Jim Carter Rogers, Arkansas "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 May 2007 20:41:13 GMT, "Jim Carter" wrote: I think what you've cited is for bench testing during certification. Once installed in the aircraft then comparison against the pressure as recorded by the official weather observation is +/- 75'. An interesting discussion point came up recently that exposed the difference in teaching over the past 30 years. 30 years ago we were taught to set the altimeter to the known field elevation and record the difference between the official pressure and the indicated pressure, then apply that difference to every setting you received along your route of flight. Today they teach to set your altimeter to the official pressure and that's it. So my question becomes, when executing a precision approach to a minimum DH of 200' and then executing the missed procedure, the aircraft is allowed to descend slightly below the DH as things spool up. If you are already 75' lower than you think because of altimeter error, and you descend only 20' more (one gradient on the altimeter) aren't you really only 105' off the deck? I did cite the bench testing numbers, as they are the ones of which I am aware. I've heard of the 75' "allowance" for a field measurement, but I've not seen a regulatory justification for that value. As someone who flies instrument approaches to minimums, I, personally, would not be happy with a 75' error, and would have the system rechecked. So far as you being only 105' off the deck in your hypothetical instance, that is obviously the case. By the way, for Category II operations, which may have a DH as low as 100'AGL, it is a requirement to have readily available the altimeter calibration information from the last certification, (and to apply it appropriately). --ron |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 08 May 2007 03:38:30 GMT, "Jim Carter"
wrote: Isn't a radar altimeter required equipment for CAT II and CAT III work? We were trying to get an aircraft and aircrew certified for CAT II in Seattle many years ago and I thought that was the reason they had the RA installed. It is definitely not required for Category A aircraft flying under Part 91 for CAT II. I don't know about other categories. There was a period of time when I and my Mooney were CAT II qualified and certified. The inner marker can substitute for a radio altimeter for 100' DH. The RA is not necessary at all for the 150 DH. The altimeter and static system has to have had the IFR check within the past 12 months; and altimeter correction data must be available to the pilot, including both the scale error and, wheel height correction if the wheel to instrument height is greater than 10 feet. There are a very few CAT II approaches that require a RA for use of the 100' DH, because of absent or siting problems with the IM. I don't know of any guidance for Category A Part 91 a/c under CAT III, or if any authorizations have ever been issued for that. --ron |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... On Tue, 08 May 2007 03:38:30 GMT, "Jim Carter" wrote: Isn't a radar altimeter required equipment for CAT II and CAT III work? We were trying to get an aircraft and aircrew certified for CAT II in Seattle many years ago and I thought that was the reason they had the RA installed. It is definitely not required for Category A aircraft flying under Part 91 for CAT II. I don't know about other categories. There was a period of time when I and my Mooney were CAT II qualified and certified. The inner marker can substitute for a radio altimeter for 100' DH. The RA is not necessary at all for the 150 DH. The altimeter and static system has to have had the IFR check within the past 12 months; and altimeter correction data must be available to the pilot, including both the scale error and, wheel height correction if the wheel to instrument height is greater than 10 feet. There are a very few CAT II approaches that require a RA for use of the 100' DH, because of absent or siting problems with the IM. I don't know of any guidance for Category A Part 91 a/c under CAT III, or if any authorizations have ever been issued for that. --ron Ron is correct. We once had a 182 and pilot approved for the 150' DH for fog seeding. Al G |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 8 May 2007 09:03:07 -0700, "Al G" wrote:
We once had a 182 and pilot approved for the 150' DH for fog seeding. That wouldn't happen to have been in Medford, OR? --ron |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 May 2007 09:03:07 -0700, "Al G" wrote: We once had a 182 and pilot approved for the 150' DH for fog seeding. That wouldn't happen to have been in Medford, OR? --ron *Ding*, We have a winner! It was indeed. United Airlines hired us to "Clear it up". $15/hr for Night/Single Engine/IFR below minimums. My wife later bought me some "Small Flowers" from Wal-Mart, so I would always have "Mini-Mums". ![]() Al G |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 9 May 2007 09:45:04 -0700, "Al G" wrote:
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 8 May 2007 09:03:07 -0700, "Al G" wrote: We once had a 182 and pilot approved for the 150' DH for fog seeding. That wouldn't happen to have been in Medford, OR? --ron *Ding*, We have a winner! It was indeed. United Airlines hired us to "Clear it up". $15/hr for Night/Single Engine/IFR below minimums. My wife later bought me some "Small Flowers" from Wal-Mart, so I would always have "Mini-Mums". ![]() Al G I have waited many an early morning for the fog to clear. (Our kids used to live in Ashland). Once or twice I noted the Cessna taking off, when the commercial jets couldn't land. --ron |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Accuracy of GPS in Garmin 430/530 | Will | Instrument Flight Rules | 110 | May 29th 06 04:58 PM |
GPS accuracy | [email protected] | Soaring | 5 | January 18th 05 06:29 PM |
EGT Accuracy | O. Sami Saydjari | Owning | 6 | March 16th 04 10:53 PM |
ILS instrument accuracy? Help...... | TripFarmer | Instrument Flight Rules | 19 | September 22nd 03 08:26 PM |
gps altitude accuracy | Martin Gregorie | Soaring | 12 | July 18th 03 08:51 PM |