Altimeter Question

WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Apr 18, 11:04*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Stefan wrote in
news:c9458$4807bcae$54487328$455
1
@news.hispeed.ch:

WingFlaps schrieb:

Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to
an airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in
this case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?

Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation.

Only at the airport ref point, so, no, it doesn't.

He'll get it in the end... high to low look out below! I'll guess he's
not flown Xcountry to non ATIS fields?


I doubt he flies at all.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip schrieb:

Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation.

Only at the airport ref point, so, no, it doesn't.

Fascinating: You, who *never* ever have trimmed a post before you
answered, are doing this for the first time! A miracle? A convert?
No, a closer look reveals your reason: The untrimmed text was

Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives
you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface.

Which is exactly what you wrote in your answer. So without trimming, you
couldn't have written "no". You're such an asshole.

Stefan wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip schrieb:

Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation.

Only at the airport ref point, so, no, it doesn't.

Fascinating: You, who *never* ever have trimmed a post before you
answered, are doing this for the first time! A miracle? A convert?
No, a closer look reveals your reason: The untrimmed text was

Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives
you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface.

Which is exactly what you wrote in your answer. So without trimming, you
couldn't have written "no". You're such an asshole.


snicker

Stefan wrote in news:ac07e$4808485c$54487328
:

Bertie the Bunyip schrieb:

Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation.

Only at the airport ref point, so, no, it doesn't.

Fascinating: You, who *never* ever have trimmed a post before you
answered, are doing this for the first time! A miracle? A convert?
No, a closer look reveals your reason: The untrimmed text was

Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR
gives
you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the
surface.

Which is exactly what you wrote in your answer. So without trimming,
you
couldn't have written "no". You're such an asshole.



nice try.

You wuz wrong, cheese nazi.

Bertie

On Apr 18, 9:10*am, Stefan wrote:
WingFlaps schrieb:

Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to an
airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in this
case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?

Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives
you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface.

BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give
field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-)

Cheers

WingFlaps schrieb:

BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give
field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-)

Which has been pretty obvious, hasn't it? But I forgot that this is Usenet.

On Apr 18, 6:56*pm, Stefan wrote:
WingFlaps schrieb:

BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give
field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-)

Which has been pretty obvious, hasn't it? But I forgot that this is Usenet..

Nope it's not Usenet, it comes back to correcting the erroneous idea
that setting QNH on an altimeter makes it faithfully report altitude.

Cheers

Stefan wrote in
:

WingFlaps schrieb:

BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give
field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-)

Which has been pretty obvious, hasn't it? But I forgot that this is
Usenet.



Oowww!


Backpedaling and obfuscating!




How predictable.


Bertie