Altimeter setting

On Jan 26, 10:41*pm, Tony wrote:
So once again, why not let us in on the response you have received
from the FAA?

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...s/agc/pol_adju...


Thanks Tony. I like my drama and my federal regulations as widely
separated as possible.

-T8

On Jan 26, 8:12*pm, T8 wrote:
On Jan 26, 10:41*pm, Tony wrote:

So once again, why not let us in on the response you have received
from the FAA?

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...s/agc/pol_adju...

Thanks Tony. *I like my drama and my federal regulations as widely
separated as possible.

-T8

After more than 20 years as a forensic expert in my profession, I can
firmly state your
drama and your federal, state, county, local and any other regulations
are hardly
ever separated.

There of course, is no prohibition against having two altimeters. One set to QNH (field elevation) the other set to QFE (zero on the ground). This is how American Airlines operated for decades. QFE is also the standard in Russia and China.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:04:14 -0800, Bill Palmer wrote:

There of course, is no prohibition against having two altimeters. One
set to QNH (field elevation) the other set to QFE (zero on the ground).
This is how American Airlines operated for decades. QFE is also the
standard in Russia and China.

The Chinese must have some pretty special altimeters if this applies to
all their airfields, including those in Tibet: Bangda airport in eastern
Tibet is at 14,219 feet AMSL.

Bangda has an 18,000 ft (5500m) runway and, I gather, needs it. I've
heard that the pilots must be on oxygen for takeoff and landing.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Jan 28, 10:55*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:04:14 -0800, Bill *Palmer wrote:
There of course, is *no prohibition against having two altimeters. One
set to QNH (field elevation) the other set to QFE (zero on the ground).
This is *how American Airlines operated for decades. QFE is also the
standard in Russia and China.

The Chinese must have some pretty special altimeters if this applies to
all their airfields, including those in Tibet: Bangda airport in eastern
Tibet is at 14,219 feet AMSL.

Bangda has an 18,000 ft (5500m) runway and, I gather, needs it. I've
heard that the pilots must be on oxygen for takeoff and landing.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

There's no need for any of this in soaring. XCSoar (what I use) and
all other GPS-map gizmos do a very good job of reporting AGL height
given a good 3D gps input and will (among other things) report an
estimated arrival height over any navpoint. We beat this to death.
The "AGL" altimeter guys had not a single compelling argument. They
lost.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:12:34 -0800, T8 wrote:

On Jan 28, 10:55Â*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:04:14 -0800, Bill Â*Palmer wrote:
There of course, is Â*no prohibition against having two altimeters.
One set to QNH (field elevation) the other set to QFE (zero on the
ground).
This is Â*how American Airlines operated for decades. QFE is also the
standard in Russia and China.

The Chinese must have some pretty special altimeters if this applies to
all their airfields, including those in Tibet: Bangda airport in
eastern Tibet is at 14,219 feet AMSL.

Bangda has an 18,000 ft (5500m) runway and, I gather, needs it. I've
heard that the pilots must be on oxygen for takeoff and landing.

--
martin@ Â* | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org Â* Â* Â* |

There's no need for any of this in soaring. XCSoar (what I use) and all
other GPS-map gizmos do a very good job of reporting AGL height given a
good 3D gps input and will (among other things) report an estimated
arrival height over any navpoint. We beat this to death. The "AGL"
altimeter guys had not a single compelling argument. They lost.

I'm not supporting or dismissing the use of QFE settings (though its what
I was taught), just pointing out the impossibility of setting a standard
altimeter to QFE for every airfield in areas that the Chinese say are
part of China.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Jan 28, 11:31*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:12:34 -0800, T8 wrote:
On Jan 28, 10:55*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:04:14 -0800, Bill *Palmer wrote:
There of course, is *no prohibition against having two altimeters.
One set to QNH (field elevation) the other set to QFE (zero on the
ground).
This is *how American Airlines operated for decades. QFE is also the
standard in Russia and China.

The Chinese must have some pretty special altimeters if this applies to
all their airfields, including those in Tibet: Bangda airport in
eastern Tibet is at 14,219 feet AMSL.

Bangda has an 18,000 ft (5500m) runway and, I gather, needs it. I've
heard that the pilots must be on oxygen for takeoff and landing.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org * * * |

There's no need for any of this in soaring. *XCSoar (what I use) and all
other GPS-map gizmos do a very good job of reporting AGL height given a
good 3D gps input and will (among other things) report an estimated
arrival height over any navpoint. *We beat this to death. The "AGL"
altimeter guys had not a single compelling argument. They lost.

I'm not supporting or dismissing the use of QFE settings (though its what
I was taught), just pointing out the impossibility of setting a standard
altimeter to QFE for every airfield in areas that the Chinese say are
part of China.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

Got that. Not intending to pick on you Martin. FWIW, I was taught
QFE too. One of only two obvious defects in my otherwise excellent
primary instruction. The other was poor checklist discipline (augh,
how did that happen? that's another thread).

QFE is so wrong in so many ways... it's amazing to me that this keeps
popping up. I really don't give a fig about certain well known
friends of mine that insist on doing this despite the inevitable
communication problems "Xray Lima, say altitude" / "I'd rather not,
thanks" (:-)), but if there are still instructors teaching students
QFE, they really need to be taken to the woodshed and this needs to be
stopped.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Jan 26, 4:33*am, Tom wrote:
As a glider pilot, when are you allowed to use a zero altimeter
setting?

Back in July, I asked the FAA for a legal opinion regarding FAR
91.121. Yesterday, I finally received a response.

There is reason for a continued dialog, and I am continuing the
discussion with the FAA legal department.

This Saturday, immediately prior to the third Glider Safety Webinar,I
will provide subscribers to the webinar the exact wording of the FAA
response.

To join us in this discussion, please sign up for the third webinar on
our web site:www.eglider.org

Tom Knauff

Can't believe you wasted the FAA's time on a question like that and
you brought it up here again.

On Jan 26, 4:33*am, Tom wrote:
As a glider pilot, when are you allowed to use a zero altimeter
setting?

Back in July, I asked the FAA for a legal opinion regarding FAR
91.121. Yesterday, I finally received a response.

There is reason for a continued dialog, and I am continuing the
discussion with the FAA legal department.

This Saturday, immediately prior to the third Glider Safety Webinar,I
will provide subscribers to the webinar the exact wording of the FAA
response.

To join us in this discussion, please sign up for the third webinar on
our web site:www.eglider.org

Tom Knauff

If there is confusion it's because of an instructor not teaching
properly

This letter is in response to your July 19,2011 request for a legal
interpretation regarding
altimeter settings required in 14 CFR § 91.121. In your letter, you
state that there is
confusion among local area glider pilots as to whether altimeters must
be set to mean sea
level (MSL) when not using a cruising altitude, such as when
conducting student glider
flight training. Additionally, you indicate that glider operators are
unsure if the regulation
requires altimeters to be set to mean sea level (MSL) or above ground
level (AGL) during
student training and local flying.
The cruising altitude of an aircraft below 18,000 feet MSL shall be
maintained by
reference to an altimeter that is set to the current reported
altimeter setting of a station
located along the route of flight and within 100 nautical miles of the
aircraft. If there is no
such station, the current reported altimeter setting of an appropriate
available station shall
be used. In an aircraft having no radio, the altimeter shall be set to
the elevation of the
departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before
departure. 14 CFR §
91.121(a)(1).
The cruising altitude is the MSL altitude or flight level maintained
during en route level
flight. For aircraft such as gliders, transient periods oftime at a
particular altitude do not
relieve pilots from the requirements to operate the aircraft in
reference to an altimeter that
is set according to the requirements of § 91.121(a). Thus, local area
glider pilots must set
their altimeters to MSL, not AGL, during glider operations, including
student glider
training flights.
Further FAA guidance on altimeter settings for glider operations can
be found in the Glider
Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-13, Chapter 4 (available online at
http://www .faa. gov/library/manuals/ aircraft! glider handbook/media/
faa-h-8083-13. pdf

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:16:27 -0800, T8 wrote:

QFE is so wrong in so many ways... it's amazing to me that this keeps
popping up. I really don't give a fig about certain well known friends
of mine that insist on doing this despite the inevitable communication
problems "Xray Lima, say altitude" / "I'd rather not, thanks" (:-)),
but if there are still instructors teaching students QFE, they really
need to be taken to the woodshed and this needs to be stopped.


Understood.

FWIW I carry two altimeters, a standard mechanical one and my SDI C4 vario
which is also an altimeter. I normally set the mechanical to QFE and the
C4 to 1013mb. This works well since my local airspace designations are
split roughly 50:50 between height AGL and flight levels with a slight
excess of AGL.

We're taught to ignore the altimeter in the circuit in favour of looking
out the window because this is all that works for a field landing, just
as all UK glider landings are effectively short-field landings for the
same reason. Further, very few glider fields share with GA so what the
altimeter has to say around the airfield is unimportant: its interesting
to see how high the winch launch was and if you're well above winch
height if you want to cross the field but that's about it.



--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |