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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
But think for a second - why do you suppose MEA's and OROCA's provide 1000 ft of obstacle clearace normally, but 2000 in designated mountainlous areas? If you're IFR, you're not going to be clearing that peak by less than 2000 ft, and that is going to keep you out of the rocks in even the worst case scenario. If you're VFR, then you can see the peak and don't really need the altimeter anyway. I don't buy it. On a good weather day in California it is not uncommon for the alimeter setting itself to account for 500 ft altimeter errors in the mountains. If you add up non-standard lapse rate, cold air and old and distant altimeter settings you can eat into the 2000 feet rather quickly. Then deal with turbulent air and downdrafts in the mountains on top of this. I don't like it one bit. Go land on a 2000 foot runway and tell me that's plenty of room between a little airplane with poor climb performance and a big mountain that you can't see. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"John Bell" writes:
Let me add two links to the discussion: This is on problems with cold weather altimetry: http://www.aircraftbuyer.com/learn/train06.htm This is about the accuracy of unaided GPS altitude in the context of vertical guidance, but it bears some relavence to the discussion of the accuracy of GPS altitude: http://www.bluecoat.org/reports/Graham_2001_RawGPS.pdf Thanks -- those are good articles. The Nav Canada paper on non-WAAS GPS VNAV (the Graham paper) is especially interesting. All the best, David |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I would say that we are exceedingly fortunate in having Nav Canada as an
information source to supplement (complement?) the FAA. Bob Gardner "David Megginson" wrote in message ... "John Bell" writes: Let me add two links to the discussion: This is on problems with cold weather altimetry: http://www.aircraftbuyer.com/learn/train06.htm This is about the accuracy of unaided GPS altitude in the context of vertical guidance, but it bears some relavence to the discussion of the accuracy of GPS altitude: http://www.bluecoat.org/reports/Graham_2001_RawGPS.pdf Thanks -- those are good articles. The Nav Canada paper on non-WAAS GPS VNAV (the Graham paper) is especially interesting. All the best, David |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
John Bell wrote:
Let me add two links to the discussion: This is on problems with cold weather altimetry: http://www.aircraftbuyer.com/learn/train06.htm This is about the accuracy of unaided GPS altitude in the context of vertical guidance, but it bears some relavence to the discussion of the accuracy of GPS altitude: http://www.bluecoat.org/reports/Graham_2001_RawGPS.pdf John Bell www.cockpitgps.com This one's for the Canadians on this thread. A notice on the new Oakland, California (KOAK) "RNAV (GPS) RWY 29" approach (http://www.myairplane.com/databases/.../OAK_agr29.pdf): "BARO-VNAV NA below -15 deg C (5 deg F)" And this is for a decision altitude of only 294 ft AGL. Seems like the FAA is moving towards taking into account temperature errors in barometric alitmetry. And, by implication, this supports the premise that WAAS altitude figures are more accurate than the trusty old "sensitive altimeter." (In the legend they specifically state that WAAS-based VNAV can be used when BARO-VNAV is not approved due to temperature.) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Fred E. Pate" writes:
And this is for a decision altitude of only 294 ft AGL. Seems like the FAA is moving towards taking into account temperature errors in barometric alitmetry. Thanks -- that's an interesting note. And, by implication, this supports the premise that WAAS altitude figures are more accurate than the trusty old "sensitive altimeter." (In the legend they specifically state that WAAS-based VNAV can be used when BARO-VNAV is not approved due to temperature.) The altimeter becomes increasingly accurate near the ground (assuming you have the correct altimeter setting) and increasingly inaccurate away from the ground; WAAS, I'll guess, has about the same accuracy all the way down (or up). I don't know at what point they typically cross over, but it would vary depending on the temperature gradiant. All the best, David |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I've never lived in Oakland, but I thought it was exceedingly rare for =
the temperature there to dip below -15C. ---JRC--- "Fred E. Pate" wrote in message = ... =20 This one's for the Canadians on this thread. A notice on the new=20 Oakland, California (KOAK) "RNAV (GPS) RWY 29" approach=20 = (http://www.myairplane.com/databases/.../OAK_agr29.pdf): =20 "BARO-VNAV NA below -15 deg C (5 deg F)" =20 And this is for a decision altitude of only 294 ft AGL. Seems like = the=20 FAA is moving towards taking into account temperature errors in=20 barometric alitmetry. And, by implication, this supports the premise=20 that WAAS altitude figures are more accurate than the trusty old=20 "sensitive altimeter." (In the legend they specifically state that=20 WAAS-based VNAV can be used when BARO-VNAV is not approved due to=20 temperature.) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 00:16:00 -0700, "Fred E. Pate"
wrote: John Bell wrote: Let me add two links to the discussion: This is on problems with cold weather altimetry: http://www.aircraftbuyer.com/learn/train06.htm This is about the accuracy of unaided GPS altitude in the context of vertical guidance, but it bears some relavence to the discussion of the accuracy of GPS altitude: http://www.bluecoat.org/reports/Graham_2001_RawGPS.pdf John Bell www.cockpitgps.com This one's for the Canadians on this thread. A notice on the new Oakland, California (KOAK) "RNAV (GPS) RWY 29" approach (http://www.myairplane.com/databases/.../OAK_agr29.pdf): "BARO-VNAV NA below -15 deg C (5 deg F)" And this is for a decision altitude of only 294 ft AGL. Seems like the FAA is moving towards taking into account temperature errors in barometric alitmetry. And, by implication, this supports the premise that WAAS altitude figures are more accurate than the trusty old "sensitive altimeter." (In the legend they specifically state that WAAS-based VNAV can be used when BARO-VNAV is not approved due to temperature.) It seems a bit strange... .. DH on the ILS at MBS is only 200 feet AGL and that is with no temperature correction. In the winter we regularly see below zero F and it's not rare to see it at minus 20 at night OTOH with those temperatures we either have severe clear, or blowing snow. It's rather uncommon to see clouds near the ground when it's that cold here in the flat lands. That and you can be "on top" of a raging blizzard at 4,000. Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member) www.rogerhalstead.com N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Halstead writes:
OTOH with those temperatures we either have severe clear, or blowing snow. It's rather uncommon to see clouds near the ground when it's that cold here in the flat lands. Maybe it's just not cold enough. Once you get past -30 degC or so, you can get a dense freezing mist (like smoke) rising off any open water, like a lake or wide river -- the parts that are frozen over start to make a creepy, moaning sound. I agree that truly cold temperatures ( -20 degC) tend to mean VMC, at least where I live -- it's one of the fantastic things about winter flying (clear skies, excellent visibility, good climb performance, minimal turbulence, high ground visibility at night, and early sunsets that make it easy to stay night-current). The downsides are having to plug in the engine heater overnight and dealing with the @#$%#@ wing covers. All the best, David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Terminology of New WAAS, VNAV, LPV approach types | Tarver Engineering | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | August 5th 03 03:50 AM |
Big News -- WAAS GPS is Operational for IFR | Lockheed employee | Instrument Flight Rules | 87 | July 30th 03 02:08 AM |
Garmin Behind the Curve on WAAS GPS VNAV Approaches | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | July 18th 03 01:43 PM |
High Altitude operations (Turbo charge???) | Andre | Home Built | 68 | July 11th 03 11:59 PM |