DOCSLIB.ORG

FSF ALAR Briefing Note 3.1: Barometric Altimeter and Radio

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FSF ALAR Briefing Note 3.1: Barometric Altimeter and Radio APPROACH-AND-LANDING ACCIDENT REDUCTION TOOL KIT fsf alar briefing Note 3.1 B arometric Altimeter and Radio Altimeter light crews on international routes encounter different units of measurement for setting barometric altimeters, When in. Hg is used for the altimeter setting, unusual baromet- • Inches of mercury (in. Hg). Fthus requiring altimeter cross-check procedures. ric pressures, such as 28.XX in. Hg (low pressure) or 30.XX in. Hg (high pressure), may go undetected when listening to the Statistical Data automatic terminal information service (ATIS) or ATC, resulting The Flight Safety Foundation Approach-and-landing Accident in a more usual 29.XX altimeter setting being set. Reduction (ALAR) Task Force found that lack of positional Figure 1 and Figure 2 show that a 1.00 in. Hg discrepancy in awareness was a causal factor1 in 51 percent of 76 approach- the altimeter setting results in a 1,000-foot error in the indicated and-landing accidents and serious incidents worldwide in altitude. 1984 through 1997.2 The task force said that these accidents In Figure 1, QNH is an unusually low 28.XX in. Hg, but the and incidents generally involved lack of vertical-position altimeter was set mistakenly to a more usual 29.XX in. Hg, re- awareness and resulted in controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). sulting in the true altitude (i.e., the aircraft’s actual height above mean sea level) being 1,000 feet lower than indicated. QNH or QFE? In Figure 2, QNH is an unusually high 30.XX in. Hg, but the altim- QNH (altimeter setting that causes the altimeter to indicate eter was set mistakenly to a more usual 29.XX in. Hg, resulting in height above mean sea level [i.e., field elevation at touchdown the true altitude being 1,000 feet higher than indicated. on the runway]) has the advantage of eliminating the need to Confusion about units of measurement (i.e., hPa vs. in. Hg) change the altimeter setting during operations below the transi- leads to similar errors. tion altitude/flight level (FL). In Figure 3, a QNH of 991 hPa was set mistakenly on the al- QNH also eliminates the need to change the altimeter set- timeter as 29.91 in. Hg (equivalent to 1012 hPa), resulting in the ting during a missed approach, whereas such a change usually true altitude being 640 feet lower than indicated. would be required when QFE (altimeter setting that causes the altimeter to indicate height above the QFE reference datum [i.e., Setting the Altimeter zero at touchdown on the runway]) is used. To help prevent errors associated with different units of mea- Some operators set the altimeter to QFE in areas where air surement or with unusual values (low or high), the following traffic control (ATC) uses QNH and the majority of operators SOPs should be used when broadcasting (ATIS or controllers) or use QNH. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) can prevent reading back (pilots) an altimeter setting: altimeter-setting errors. inches or hectopascals), should be announced. Units of Measurement • All digits, as well as the unit of measurement (e.g., The most common units of measurement for setting altimeters A transmission such as “altimeter setting six seven” can be in- are: terpreted as 28.67 in. Hg, 29.67 in. Hg, 30.67 in. Hg or 967 hPa. Stating the complete altimeter setting prevents confusion and and, allows detection and correction of a previous error. • Hectopascals (hPa) [previously referred to as millibars (mb)]; FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION ALAR TOOL KIT | ALAR BRIEFING NOTE 3-1 | 1 Effect of a One-Inch-High Altimeter Setting Actual Intended approach path height 1,000 AFL IIndicated altitude Actual altitude 4,000 feet 3,000 feet MSL Field elevation 2,000 feet Sea level QNH: 28.XX inches Hg Altimeter error 1,000 feet Altimeter setting: 29.XX inches Hg AFL = above field level; MSL = mean sea level; Hg = mercury; QNH = Altimeter setting that causes altimeter to indicate height above mean sea level (thus, field elevation at touchdown) Source: FSF ALAR Task Force Figure 1 Effect of a One-Inch-Low Altimeter Setting Intended approach path Actual height Indicated altitude 3,000 AFL 4,000 feet Actual altitude 5,000 feet MSL Field elevation Altimeter setting: 29.XX inches Hg 2,000 feet Sea level QNH: 30.XX inches Hg Altimeter error 1,000 feet AFL = above field level; MSL = mean sea level; Hg = mercury; QNH = Altimeter setting that causes altimeter to indicate height above mean sea level (thus, field elevation at touchdown) Source: FSF ALAR Task Force Figure 2 of 28.XX in. Hg and “high” should precede an altimeter setting • When using in. Hg, “low” should precede an altimeter setting • High workload; of 30.XX in. Hg. • A deviation from defined task sharing; An incorrect altimeter setting often is the result of one or more of the following factors: • An interruption/distraction; • Inadequate cross-checking by flight crewmembers; or, 2 | FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION ALAR TOOL KIT | ALAR BrIEFING NOTE 3-1 Effect of an Altimeter Mis-Set to Inches, Rather Than Hectopascals Intended approach path Actual height 1,360 AFL Indicated altitude Actual altitude 4,000 feet 3,360 feet MSL Field elevation 2,000 feet Sea level QNH: 991 hPa Altimeter error 640 feet Altimeter setting: 29.91 inches Hg (1012 hPa) AFL = above field level; MSL = mean sea level; Hg = mercury; hPa = hectopascals ; QNH = Altimeter setting that causes altimeter to indicate height above mean sea level (thus, field elevation at touchdown) Source: FSF ALAR Task Force Figure 3 Altimeter References The barometric-altimeter reference (“bug”) and the radio- • Adherence Confusion to about the defined units of task measurement. sharing (for normal conditions or abnormal conditions) and normal checklists are effective altimeter decision height (RA DH) bug must be set according to defenses to help prevent altimeter-setting errors. the aircraft manufacturer’s SOPs or the company’s SOPs. Table 1 shows some examples. For all approaches, except Category (CAT) I instrument land- Metric Altimeter ing system (ILS) approaches with RA DH, CAT II ILS approaches Metric altitudes in certain countries (e.g., Russia and China) also and CAT III ILS approaches, the standard call “minimum” will require SOPs for the use of metric altimeters (or conversion be based on the barometric-altimeter bug set at the minimum tables). descent altitude/height [MDA(H)] or decision altitude/height [DA(H)]. Crossing the Transition Altitude/Flight Level Radio-altimeter standard calls can be either: The transition altitude/flight level can be either: • Announced by the pilot not flying/pilot monitoring (PNF/PM) • Fixed for the whole country (e.g., FL 180 in the United States); or the flight engineer; or, or, Standard calls are tailored to the company SOPs and to the type • Fixed for a given airport (as indicated on the approach chart); • Generated automatically by a synthesized voice. of approach. To enhance the flight crew’s awareness of terrain, the stan- broadcast). • Variable, depending on QNH (as indicated in the ATIS dard call “radio altimeter alive” should be announced by the Depending on the airline’s/flight crew’s usual area of operation, first crewmember observing radio-altimeter activation at 2,500 changing from a fixed transition altitude/flight level to vari- able transition altitudes/flight levels may result in a premature The radio altimeter then should be included in the instrument feet above ground level (AGL). resetting or a late resetting of the altimeter. scan for the remainder of the approach. An altitude constraint (expressed in altitude or flight level) The radio altimeter indicates the aircraft’s height above also may delay or advance the setting of the standard altim- the ground, not the aircraft’s height above airport elevation. eter setting (1013.2 hPa or 29.92 in. Hg), possibly resulting The radar altimeter does not indicate height above trees or in crew confusion. towers. FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION ALAR TOOL KIT | ALAR BRIEFING NOTE 3-1 | 3 altimeter indicates. Thus, the familiar axiom: “high to low, hot to Barometric-Altimeter and cold — look out below.” Radio-Altimeter Reference Settings The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) publish- Approach Barometric Altimeter Radio Altimeter es altitude corrections (based on the airport surface tempera- Visual MDA(H)/DA(H) of 200 feet* ture and the height above the elevation of the altimeter-setting instrument approach or source) to be made to the published minimum safe altitudes.3 200 feet above For example, Figure 4 shows that when conducting an ILS ap- airport elevation proach with a published minimum glideslope intercept altitude Nonprecision MDA/(H) 200 feet* of 2,000 feet and an OAT of –40 degrees Celsius (–40 degrees ILS CAT I with no RA DA(H) 200 feet* Fahrenheit), the minimum glideslope intercept altitude should ILS CAT I with RA DA(H) RA DH be increased by 440 feet. ILS CAT II DA(H) RA DH The pilot is responsible for making this correction, except ILS CAT III with DH DA(H) RA DH when under radar control in a radar-vectoring area (because ILS CAT III with no DH TDZE Alert height the controller is responsible normally for terrain clearance, including accounting for the cold temperature correction). MDA(H) = minimum descent altitude/height; DA(H) = decision altitude/ height; ILS = instrument landing system; CAT = category; Nevertheless, the pilot should confirm this responsibility with RA DH = radio altimeter decision height; TDZE = touchdown zone elevation the air traffic services of the country of operation. * The RA DH should be set (e.g., at 200 feet) for terrain-awareness purposes. The Flight crews must apply the ICAO corrections for low tem- use of the radio altimeter should be discussed during the approach briefing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Robust Integrated Ins/Radar Altimeter Accounting Faults at the Measurement Channels
    ICAS 2002 CONGRESS ROBUST INTEGRATED INS/RADAR ALTIMETER ACCOUNTING FAULTS AT THE MEASUREMENT CHANNELS Ch. Hajiyev, R.Saltoglu (Istanbul Technical University) Keywords: Integrated Navigation, INS/Radar Altimeter, Robust Kalman Fillter, Error Model, Abstract was a milestone, and we were witnesses to these improvements in the near past. A great amount of In this study, the integrated navigation system, study has already been made about this issue. consisting of radio and INS altimeters, is Many more seem to be observed in the future. As presented. INS and the radio altimeter have many of these studies were examined, and some different benefits and drawbacks. The reason for useful information was reached. integrating these two navigators is mainly to Integrated navigation systems combine the combine the best features, and eliminate the best features of both autonomous and stand-alone shortcomings, briefly described above. systems and are not only capable of good short- The integration is achieved by using an term performance in the autonomous or stand- indirect Kalman filter. Hereby, the error models alone mode of operation, but also provide of the navigators are used by the Kalman filter to exceptional performance over extended periods estimate vertical channel parameters of the of time when in the aided mode. Integration thus navigation system. In the open loop system, INS brings increased performance, improved is the main source of information, and radio reliability and system integrity, and of course altimeter provides discrete aiding data to support increased complexity and cost [1,2]. Moreover, the estimations. outputs of an integrated navigation system are At the next step of the study, in case of digital, thus they are capable of being used by abnormal measurements, the performance of the other resources of being transmitted without loss integrated system is examined.
    [Show full text]
  • Beforethe Runway
    EDITORIAL Before the runway By Professor Sidney dekker display with fl ight information. My airspeed is leaking out of Editors Note: This time, we decided to invite some the airplane as if the hull has been punctured, slowly defl at- comments on Professor Dekker’s article from subject ing like a pricked balloon. It looks bizarre and scary and the matter experts. Their responses follow the article. split second seems to last for an eternity. Yet I have taught myself to act fi rst and question later in situations like this. e are at 2,000 feet, on approach to the airport. The big So I act. After all, there is not a whole lot of air between me W jet is on autopilot, docile, and responsively follow- and the hard ground. I switch off the autothrottle and shove ing the instructions I have put into the various computer the thrust levers forward. From behind, I hear the engines systems. It follows the heading I gave it, and stays at the screech, shrill and piercing. Airspeed picks up. I switch off altitude I wanted it at. The weather is alright, but not great. the autopilot for good measure (or good riddance) and fl y Cloud base is around 1000 feet, there is mist, a cold driz- the jet down to the runway. It feels solid in my hands and zle. We should be on the ground in the next few minutes. docile again. We land. Then everything comes to a sudden I call for fl aps, and the other pilot selects them for me.
    [Show full text]
  • NORWAY LOCAL SINGLE SKY IMPLEMENTATION Level2020 1 - Implementation Overview
    LSSIP 2020 - NORWAY LOCAL SINGLE SKY IMPLEMENTATION Level2020 1 - Implementation Overview Document Title LSSIP Year 2020 for Norway Info Centre Reference 20/12/22/79 Date of Edition 07/04/2021 LSSIP Focal Point Peder BJORNESET - [email protected] Luftfartstilsynet (CAA-Norway) LSSIP Contact Person Luca DELL’ORTO – [email protected] EUROCONTROL/NMD/INF/PAS LSSIP Support Team [email protected] Status Released Intended for EUROCONTROL Stakeholders Available in https://www.eurocontrol.int/service/local-single-sky-implementation- monitoring Reference Documents LSSIP Documents https://www.eurocontrol.int/service/local-single-sky-implementation- monitoring Master Plan Level 3 – Plan https://www.eurocontrol.int/publication/european-atm-master-plan- Edition 2020 implementation-plan-level-3 Master Plan Level 3 – Report https://www.eurocontrol.int/publication/european-atm-master-plan- Year 2020 implementation-report-level-3 European ATM Portal https://www.atmmasterplan.eu/ STATFOR Forecasts https://www.eurocontrol.int/statfor National AIP https://avinor.no/en/ais/aipnorway/ FAB Performance Plan https://www.nefab.eu/docs# LSSIP Year 2020 Norway Released Issue APPROVAL SHEET The following authorities have approved all parts of the LSSIP Year 2020 document and the signatures confirm the correctness of the reported information and reflect the commitment to implement the actions laid down in the European ATM Master Plan Level 3 (Implementation View) – Edition 2020. Stakeholder / Name Position Signature and date Organisation
    [Show full text]
  • TCAS II) by Personnel Involved in the Implementation and Operation of TCAS II
    Preface This booklet provides the background for a better understanding of the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS II) by personnel involved in the implementation and operation of TCAS II. This booklet is an update of the TCAS II Version 7.0 manual published in 2000 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It describes changes to the CAS logic introduced by Version 7.1 and updates the information on requirements for use of TCAS II and operational experience. Version 7.1 logic changes will improve TCAS Resolution Advisory (RA) sense reversal logic in vertical chase situations. In addition all “Adjust Vertical Speed, Adjust” RAs are converted to “Level-Off, Level-Off” RAs to make it more clear that a reduction in vertical rate is required. The Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for TCAS II Version 7.1 were approved in June 2008 and Version 7.1 units are expected to be operating by 2010-2011. Version 6.04a and 7.0 units are also expected to continue operating for the foreseeable future where authorized. 2 Preface................................................................................................................................. 2 The TCAS Solution............................................................................................................. 5 Early Collision Avoidance Systems................................................................................ 5 TCAS II Development .................................................................................................... 6 Initial
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Improvement Methods for Terrain Database Integrity
    PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT METHODS FOR TERRAIN DATABASE INTEGRITY MONITORS AND TERRAIN REFERENCED NAVIGATION A thesis presented to the Faculty of the Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science Ananth Kalyan Vadlamani March 2004 This thesis entitled PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT METHODS FOR TERRAIN DATABASE INTEGRITY MONITORS AND TERRAIN REFERENCED NAVIGATION BY ANANTH KALYAN VADLAMANI has been approved for the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by Maarten Uijt de Haag Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science R. Dennis Irwin Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology VADLAMANI, ANANTH K. M.S. March 2004. Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Performance Improvement Methods for Terrain Database Integrity Monitors and Terrain Referenced Navigation (115pp.) Director of Thesis: Maarten Uijt de Haag Terrain database integrity monitors and terrain-referenced navigation systems are based on performing a comparison between stored terrain elevations with data from airborne sensors like radar altimeters, inertial measurement units, GPS receivers etc. This thesis introduces the concept of a spatial terrain database integrity monitor and discusses methods to improve its performance. Furthermore, this thesis discusses an improvement of the terrain-referenced aircraft position estimation for aircraft navigation using only the information from downward-looking sensors and terrain databases, and not the information from the inertial measurement unit. Vertical and horizontal failures of the terrain database are characterized. Time and frequency domain techniques such as the Kalman filter, the autocorrelation function and spectral estimation are designed to evaluate the performance of the proposed integrity monitor and position estimator performance using flight test data from Eagle/Vail, CO, Juneau, AK, Asheville, NC and Albany, OH.
    [Show full text]
  • Helicopter Solutions the Proof Is in the Performance Content
    HELICOPTER SOLUTIONS THE PROOF IS IN THE PERFORMANCE CONTENT G500H TXi Flight Display 06 HSVT™ Synthetic Vision Technology 07 GTN™ Xi Series Navigators 08 Terrain Awareness and Warning System 10 GFC™ 600H Flight Control System 11 GNC® 255/GTR 225 Nav/Comm Radios 12 GMA™ Series Digital Audio Control 12 Flight Stream 110/210 Wireless Gateways 13 SiriusXM® Satellite Weather 14 GSR 56H Global Weather/Voice/Text 14 GTS™ Series Active Traffic 14 ADS-B Solutions 15 GTX™ Series All-in-one ADS-B Transponders 16 GDL® Series ADS-B Datalinks 16 GWX™ 75H Digital Weather Radar 17 GRA™ 55 Radar Altimeter 18 FltPlan.com Services 19 Product Specifications 20 PUT BETTER DECISION-MAKING TOOLS AT YOUR FINGERTIPS WITH GARMIN HELICOPTER AVIONICS The versatility that helicopters bring to the world of aviation is reflected in the wide range of missions they fly: emergency medical services, law enforcement, offshore logistics, search and rescue, aerial touring, heavy-lift, executive transport, pilot training and many more. Each has its own operational challenges. And for some, these challenges have grown — as busier airspace and ever-more- demanding flight environments have increased the focus on safety, industry wide. An FAA task force identified three primary areas where operational risks for helicopters need special attention: 1) inadvertent flight into instrument meteorological (IMC) conditions, 2) night operations, and 3) controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). Many ongoing studies have reinforced these findings. And in response, many operators are now asking for technologies that can proactively (and affordably) help address these safety issues. To that end, Garmin is focusing our decades of experience in aviation safety technology on the specialized needs of today’s helicopter community.
    [Show full text]
  • FSF ALAR Briefing Note 3.2 -- Altitude Deviations
    Flight Safety Foundation Approach-and-landing Accident Reduction Tool Kit FSF ALAR Briefing Note 3.2 — Altitude Deviations Altitude deviations may result in substantial loss of aircraft • The pilot-system interface: vertical separation or horizontal separation, which could cause – Altimeter setting, use of autopilot, monitoring of a midair collision. instruments and displays; or, Maneuvers to avoid other aircraft often result in injuries to • The pilot-controller interface: passengers, flight crewmembers and, particularly, to cabin crewmembers. – Communication loop (i.e., the confirmation/ correction process). Statistical Data Altitude deviations occur usually as the result of one or more of the following conditions: An analysis by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and by USAir (now US Airways) of altitude-deviation events1 • The controller assigns an incorrect altitude or reassigns showed that: a flight level after the pilot was cleared to an altitude; • Approximately 70 percent of altitude deviations were the • Pilot-controller communication breakdown — mainly result of a breakdown in pilot-controller communication; readback/hearback errors such as the following: and, – Controller transmits an incorrect altitude, the pilot • Nearly 40 percent of altitude deviations resulted when does not read back the altitude and the controller does air traffic control (ATC) assigned 10,000 feet and the not challenge the absence of a readback; flight crew set 11,000 feet in the selected-altitude – Pilot reads back an incorrect altitude, but the window, or when ATC assigned 11,000 feet and the flight controller does not hear the erroneous readback and crew set 10,000 feet in the selected-altitude window. does not correct the pilot’s readback; or, Defining Altitude Deviations – Pilot accepts an altitude clearance intended for another aircraft (confusion of call signs); An altitude deviation is a deviation from the assigned altitude • Pilot receives, understands and reads back the correct (or flight level) equal to or greater than 300 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Radar Altimeter True Altitude
    RADAR ALTIMETER TRUE ALTITUDE. TRUE SAFETY. ROBUST AND RELIABLE IN RADARDEMANDING ENVIRONMENTS. Building on systems engineering and integration know-how, FreeFlight Systems effectively implements comprehensive, high-integrity avionics solutions. We are focused on the practical application of NextGen technology to real-world operational needs — OEM, retrofit, platform or infrastructure. FreeFlight Systems is a community of respected innovators in technologies of positioning, state-sensing, air traffic management datalinks — including rule-compliant ADS-B systems, data and flight management. An international brand, FreeFlight Systems is a trusted partner as well as a direct-source provider through an established network of relationships. 3 GENERATIONS OF EXPERIENCE BEHIND NEXTGEN AVIONICS NEXTGEN LEADER. INDUSTRY EXPERT. TRUSTED PARTNER. SHAPE THE SKIES. RADAR ALTIMETERS FreeFlight Systems’ certified radar altimeters work consistently in the harshest environments including rotorcraft low altitude hover and terrain transitions. RADAROur radar altimeter systems integrate with popular compatible glass displays. AL RA-4000/4500 & FreeFlight Systems modern radar altimeters are backed by more than 50 years of experience, and FRA-5500 RADAR ALTIMETERS have a proven track record as a reliable solution in Model RA-4000 RA-4500 FRA-5500 the most challenging and critical segments of flight. The TSO and ETSO-approved systems are extensively TSO-C87 l l l deployed worldwide in helicopter fleets, including ETSO-2C87 l l l some of the largest HEMS operations worldwide. DO-160E l l l DO-178 Level B l Designed for helicopter and seaplane operations, our DO-178B Level C l l radar altimeters provide precise AGL information from 2,500 feet to ground level.
    [Show full text]
  • Airbus Erroneous Radio Altitudes Date Model Phase of Altitude Display / Messages/ Warning Flight 1
    Airbus Erroneous Radio Altitudes Date Model Phase of Altitude Display / Messages/ Warning Flight 1. 18.8.2010 A320-232 During 3000 ft low read out & approach Too Low Gear Alert 2. 22.8.2010 A320-232 During 2500 ft Both RAs RA’s fluctuating down to approach 1500 ft + TAWS alerts 3. 23.8.2010 A320-232 RWY 30 200 ft "Retard” + Nav RA degraded 4. 059.2010 . A320-232 RWY 30 200 ft "Retard” + Nav RA degraded 5. 069.2010 . A320-232 After landing Nav RA degraded 6. 13.92010 . A320-232 After landing Nav RA degraded 7. 7.10.2010 A320-232 During Final 170 ft “Retard” RWY 30 8. 24.10.2010 A320-232 During 2500 ft “NAV RA2 fault" approach Date Model Phase of Flight Altitude Display / Messages/ Warning 9. 2610.2010 . A320-232 Right of RWY 30 4000 ft terrain + Pull Up 10. 2401.2011 . A340-300 Visual RWY 30, RA2 showed 50ft, RA1 diduring base turn shdhowed 2400ft, & “LDG no t down” 11. 2601.2011 . A320-232 Right of RWY 30 5000 ft “LDG not down” 12. 13.2.2011 A320-232 After landing Nav RA degraded 13. 15.2.2011 A330-200 PURLA 1C, 800 ft “too low terrain” RWY12 14..2 22 2011 . A320-232 RWY 30 4000 ft 3000ft & low gear and pull takeoff up 15. 23.2.2011 A330-200 SID RWY 30, 500 ft “LDG not down” during climb 11 14 15 9 3, 4, 7 13 1 2,8 10 • All the fa u lty readouts w ere receiv ed from pilots of Airbu s aeroplanes equipped with Thales ERT 530/540 radar altimeter .
    [Show full text]
  • Altimetry for Mountaineers and Hikers a Brief Summary
    Altimetry for Mountaineers and Hikers A brief summary • Understanding Altimetry How changes in weather can affect your pressure altimeter. How elevation effects your pressure altimeter How air temperature effects air density and your climbing performance By: Derek Taylor . WTS Senior Instructor . BMS Assistant Instructor . Aerosciences, Lockheed Martin Astronautics . Certified Flight Instructor (MEI, CFII) Altimetry – Why is Altimetry Important? You need to understand how to use an altimeter, but also what factors can effect its accuracy. Good mountaineering /hiking practice usually requires the use of an altimeter. Topography and Contour maps are very limited without knowing what your “correct” elevation is. A map & compass provides you with information about where you are horizontally. If you know exactly where you are on a map then you can determine your elevation. But an altimeter can “directly” provide you with elevation. Since we move about in a 3-dimenisonal world, then knowing how to use an altimeter, and what its limitations are, is just as important as knowing how to use a compass. – With an Altimeter you can Perform Bearing-Elevation Intersects: The point at which a compass bearing intersects an elevation contour line. Use your compass and altimeter collectively to locate your position. Perform Feature-Elevation Intersects: The point at which a known feature, such as a creek, road, or ridge intersects your known elevation. Use your altimeter/barometer to predict weather changes. High pressure systems are generally associated with stable, dry weather. Low pressure systems are the predictors of possible rain, snow, thunder activity, and cooler temperatures. Use your altimeter to estimate elevation gain per hour, and adjust your pace accordingly.
    [Show full text]
  • ASA Private Pilot Syllabus
    The Complete Pilot Series The Complete Private Pilot Syllabus Pilot Private Complete The The Complete Private Pilot Syllabus Fourth Edition The Complete Private Pilot Syllabus Fourth Edition Flight and Ground Training Private Pilot Certification Course: Airplane Meets 14 CFR Part 141 and Part 61 Requirements Includes Sport Pilot Certification Course: Airplane Aviation Supplies and Academics, Inc. 7005 132nd Place SE Newcastle, WA 98059-3153 The Complete Private Pilot Syllabus Fourth Edition © 1994–2011 Aviation Supplies & Academics, Inc. All rights reserved. Published 2011 This syllabus is designed to be used with the textbook, The Complete Private Pilot, by Bob Gardner. Aviation Supplies & Academics, Inc. 7005 132nd Place SE Newcastle, Washington 98059-3153 Email: [email protected] Visit the ASA website often, as any updates due to FAA regulatory and procedural changes will be posted there: www.asa2fly.com Printed in the United States of America 2014 2013 2012 2011 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ASA-PPT-S4 ISBN 1-56027-866-8 978-1-56027-866-5 03 ii The Complete Private Pilot Syllabus Contents Page Student Information ..............................................................................................................................................v Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................vii Private Pilot Course Hours ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter: 2. En Route Operations
    Chapter 2 En Route Operations Introduction The en route phase of flight is defined as that segment of flight from the termination point of a departure procedure to the origination point of an arrival procedure. The procedures employed in the en route phase of flight are governed by a set of specific flight standards established by 14 CFR [Figure 2-1], FAA Order 8260.3, and related publications. These standards establish courses to be flown, obstacle clearance criteria, minimum altitudes, navigation performance, and communications requirements. 2-1 fly along the centerline when on a Federal airway or, on routes other than Federal airways, along the direct course between NAVAIDs or fixes defining the route. The regulation allows maneuvering to pass well clear of other air traffic or, if in visual meteorogical conditions (VMC), to clear the flightpath both before and during climb or descent. Airways Airway routing occurs along pre-defined pathways called airways. [Figure 2-2] Airways can be thought of as three- dimensional highways for aircraft. In most land areas of the world, aircraft are required to fly airways between the departure and destination airports. The rules governing airway routing, Standard Instrument Departures (SID) and Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR), are published flight procedures that cover altitude, airspeed, and requirements for entering and leaving the airway. Most airways are eight nautical miles (14 kilometers) wide, and the airway Figure 2-1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14 Aeronautics and Space. flight levels keep aircraft separated by at least 500 vertical En Route Navigation feet from aircraft on the flight level above and below when operating under VFR.
    [Show full text]