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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I think the whole WAAS thing is in flux. The AIM gets wordier and more
difficult to interpret with each change to its discussion of GPS. IMHO, until there are a whole lot of WAAS capable boxes flying in the system we will be flailing about in the dark. Did you see the change to the AIM with regard to a reversed W on approach plates? Doesn't create much confidence in the system. Bob Gardner "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:R0hcc.78998$K91.171081@attbi_s02... You're right. AIM 1-1-20(a)(8) tells us that we should not use GPS altitude. When WAAS is in common use this will probably change. The altitude error is part of the WGS-84 model and is not a WAAS issue any longer. The CNX-80 provides VNAV capability through the use of pressure altitude from a transponder source and the pilot's baro correction input; married to a partial TAWS data base. GPS/WAAS is not likely to become an acceptable substitute for pressure altitude. Larger airplanes use air data derived pressure altitude in conjunction with GPS for improved RNP capability. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
You're right. AIM 1-1-20(a)(8) tells us that we should not use GPS altitude.
When WAAS is in common use this will probably change. I was not using the GPS for altitude. Always use the altimeter The altimeter was showing 7000. ATC was showing 6700 Gps was 7060. However when I changed altitude the gps stayed frozen at 7060. Hank |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Hankal" wrote in message ... You're right. AIM 1-1-20(a)(8) tells us that we should not use GPS altitude. When WAAS is in common use this will probably change. I was not using the GPS for altitude. Always use the altimeter The altimeter was showing 7000. ATC was showing 6700 Gps was 7060. However when I changed altitude the gps stayed frozen at 7060. Aren't controllers supposed to tell you to turn off your altimeter and go to VFR when an error that big is detected? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"William W. Plummer" wrote in message news:ctncc.82738 I was not using the GPS for altitude. Always use the altimeter The altimeter was showing 7000. ATC was showing 6700 Gps was 7060. However when I changed altitude the gps stayed frozen at 7060. Aren't controllers supposed to tell you to turn off your altimeter and go to VFR when an error that big is detected? They can tell you to stop altitude squawk if they want. They have no business to tell you to "go VFR" |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:%Glcc.191812$_w.1879080@attbi_s53... I think the whole WAAS thing is in flux. The AIM gets wordier and more difficult to interpret with each change to its discussion of GPS. IMHO, until there are a whole lot of WAAS capable boxes flying in the system we will be flailing about in the dark. I believe that VDL will be more of a factor moving forward than WAAS will be. FAA has spent a lot of money on space based WAAS while being in posession of a lot of underused VHF bandwidth. "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:R0hcc.78998$K91.171081@attbi_s02... You're right. AIM 1-1-20(a)(8) tells us that we should not use GPS altitude. When WAAS is in common use this will probably change. The altitude error is part of the WGS-84 model and is not a WAAS issue any longer. The CNX-80 provides VNAV capability through the use of pressure altitude from a transponder source and the pilot's baro correction input; married to a partial TAWS data base. GPS/WAAS is not likely to become an acceptable substitute for pressure altitude. Larger airplanes use air data derived pressure altitude in conjunction with GPS for improved RNP capability. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I've never been told to turn off my altimeter!
Rich William W. Plummer wrote: "Hankal" wrote in message ... Aren't controllers supposed to tell you to turn off your altimeter and go to VFR when an error that big is detected? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Gardner wrote: I think the whole WAAS thing is in flux. The AIM gets wordier and more difficult to interpret with each change to its discussion of GPS. IMHO, until there are a whole lot of WAAS capable boxes flying in the system we will be flailing about in the dark. You're right on. And, in an effort to sell LPV (WAAS) minimums, the friendlies "tweaked" the VNAV missed approach criteria so that VNAV minimums will increase, all to make WAAS look better. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Natalie wrote: They can tell you to stop altitude squawk if they want. They have no business to tell you to "go VFR" When was the last time you had a controller ask you to turn off your altimeter? ;-) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Rich wrote: I've never been told to turn off my altimeter! I would if I could only find the switch. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Aren't controllers supposed to tell you to turn off your altimeter and go to
VFR when an error that big is detected? The controller requested I turn off mode C. In 25 miles he asked to turn back on. Everything went fine from there on. I could not have accepted VFR since I was in IMC condition. |
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 |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Instrument Flight Rules | 42 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |
Change in TAS with constant Power and increasing altitude. | Big John | Home Built | 6 | July 13th 03 03:29 PM |
High Altitude operations (Turbo charge???) | Andre | Home Built | 68 | July 11th 03 11:59 PM |