A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Products
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aviation Consumer and Collision Avoidance



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #34  
Old April 23rd 04, 05:35 AM
BHelman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"physically impossible." How so? What technology has ever been
branded "physically impossible" which did not find a solution.

"ATC does not give me advisories to 2 decimal places either; something
new where you fly?"

They only give "less than a mile" or "2 miles" generally. If you ask
specifically, they can tell you within tenths, depending on their
technology being used.



"TaxSrv" wrote in message ...
"BHelman" wrote:
My experience with the trafficscope continues to be range within .03
NM of what ATC tells me and relative altitude being dead on.


All these "passive" devices rely upon received signal strength to
compute distance. Due to wide variability in what actually comes out
of the xponder antenna of general aviation aircraft, consistent .03 NM
accuracy, or even .3 NM, is physically impossible. ATC does not give
me advisories to 2 decimal places either; something new where you fly?
:-)

Fred F.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.