GPS altitude again is close to actual

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
Jules wrote:



Ron Lee wrote:
GPS provides a far better
navigation, positioning and timing service globally, free than
anything he or his country has done.


He's American.

Are you talking about GLONASS being better?

I thought he was European.

Ron Lee

No he is just an American that lives in France on $637/Mo.

Don't forget that he knows everything about everything but has never backed
up any of his claims.

Nomen Nescio writes:

One thing you keep missing as a "pretend" pilot is that an error of
+/- 100 ft is insignificant in the real world.

GPS errors can easily exceed 100 feet. And 100 feet sounds pretty
significant for RVSM. With errors that large, some aircraft may be
vertically separated by only slight more than the spans of their
wings.

But as I've said, as PIC, you do what you want.

If a 100 ft error on the GPS is the difference between life and death,
a real pilot will climb.

Unless death awaits above.

It matters very little that you show that you are 5500 ft msl when you are actually
5400 ft. you ain't gonna crash and you're no more likely to have a mid-air
than flying at 5500.

How wasteful of manufacturers to produce altimeters that provide
accuracy better than the nearest 100 feet.

This is the difference between the REAL world that we live in, and the
FANTASY world that you live in. We live it and KNOW. You read it and
pretend to be an expert.

You make mistakes and die. I make mistakes and learn. Simulation
affords the opportunity to make mistakes safely and teaches humility.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Nomen Nescio writes:

I'm just amazed we've all been able to survive this long, considering
that we seem to be so damned ignorant in regards to the many
aviation topics in which you posess superior knowledge.

The death rate among GA pilots is 100 times higher than it is among
automobile drivers. That's pretty strong evidence of ignorance (but
also impulsiveness, a disdain for rules and regulations, and a thirst
for risk-taking behavior).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Ron Lee writes:

Exactly, it is an augmentation system developed for and funded by the
FAA. The notion that WAAS is part of GPS is like saying that NDGPS
or CORS or any other separate systems that use or work with GPS are
GPS systems.

None of the augmentation systems are part of GPS.

And, as usual, your learn-resistance has forced you to post yet another
useless and off-topic repsonse.

It worries me that I see a lot of ignorance of GPS in the aviation
community.

You are mistaking the responses as ignorance because you are refusing to
understand that in aviation, only the application matters to the pilot. We
are trained to use and understand the issues involved in every piece of
equipment in the airplane. That means that we understand the limitations
of non-WAAS-enabled GPS, for example, and why we can't use them for IFR
approach; it is *exactly* because WAAS provides accurate alititude
information. If you disagree, take it up with the FAA, where you will be
told exactly the same things that many of us have told you. Furthermore,
we understand such not-so-subtle differences as whether something is
_measuring_ angles or the timing of signals, and won't fall victim to such
misconceptions. The only reason that you won't fall victim to your lack of
knowledge is that you aren't doing anything real.

Neil

Recently, Ron Lee posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote:


WAAS isn't part of GPS.

That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology
is discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an
aviation newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the
application, and in that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in
other words, in aviation there is no application for WAAS
independent GPS AFAIK. So, your above claim is extremely off-topic,
at best.


Actually he is correct. WAAS is not part of GPS. You don't need
WAAS to use GPS for aviation.

No one said that one needs WAAS to use GPS for aviation. Obviously,
there are non-WAAS-enabled GPS receivers. However, do you know of
some use of WAAS in aviation that _doesn't_ involve GPS? I don't. If
there isn't one, then any discussion of WAAS in aviation necessarily
includes GPS, and any attempt to exclude it as "not part of GPS" is
nonsense.

Neil

No, it would be incorrect.

Such a distinction can be made in some context other than aviation, as
I've already written. However, you have yet to name one application --
read "device" -- in use in aviation where WAAS is independent of GPS.
Therefore, the meaning of "a part of" as you are using it is clearly wrong
in this context, and can only mislead. Is that your intention?

Neil

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

That comment may be helpful in a GPS newsgroup where the technology
is discussed in the absence of any application, however, in an
aviation newsgroup, discussions of GPS are primarily about the
application, and in that context WAAS is inseparable from GPS; in
other words, in aviation there is no application for WAAS
independent GPS AFAIK.

There are no GPS aviation receivers that are not equipped with WAAS?

In aircraft, there are no WAAS devices that I know of that do not include
a GPS. If you understood what you responded to, above, you would see that
distinction; I did NOT write "there is no application for GPS that is
independent of WAAS", which is the misleading question you have
introduced. Why do you do such things???

Neil

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

No one said that one needs WAAS to use GPS for aviation.

Perhaps, but some seem to assume that all aviation GPS uses WAAS,
which is not true. And some seem confused concerning the accuracy of
GPS, with or without augmentation by WAAS.

Obviously, there
are non-WAAS-enabled GPS receivers. However, do you know of some use
of WAAS in aviation that _doesn't_ involve GPS? I don't.

All en-route navigation can be (and often is) conducted without WAAS.
There are many GPS receivers (in aviation and in other applications)
that do not use WAAS.

Once again, you introduced an incorrect interpretation of my question, and
merely re-stated what was I wrote in the previous paragraph. Do you really
not get this, or are you trying to deliberately mislead people in this
newsgroup?

Neil

Neil, your last four posts have been dedicated to criticizing people
with whom you disagree. When you're ready to again concentrate on the
topic, and not on the people discussing it, let me know. I'm not
interested in personal attacks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

There was a story a while back (don't know if it's true or not, but sounded
legit) that some guy was demonstrating his latest, greatest GPS by using it
to taxi into his hangar. It wasn't quite that accurate and the repair bill
wasn't cheap.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

It worries me that I see a lot of ignorance of GPS in the aviation
community. It is not surprising given the newness of the technology,
but it is worrisome because people often rush to embrace a new
technology because of the gee-whiz factor, long before they understand
the technology and its limitations. It's like people who drive off a
pier into a river because they don't realize that GPS can be
dramatically incorrect in urban environments.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Nomen Nescio writes:

One thing you keep missing as a "pretend" pilot is that an error of
+/- 100 ft is insignificant in the real world.

GPS errors can easily exceed 100 feet. And 100 feet sounds pretty
significant for RVSM. With errors that large, some aircraft may be
vertically separated by only slight more than the spans of their
wings.

The equipment requirements for RVSM are certainly far more stringent
than what a VFR pilot needs and who might have to use GPS altitude as
a data source under some hypothetical situation.

Ron Lee