A320,
I notice you did not provide your reason for preferring the pressure to the radalt,
Where did I claim I prefer one over the other? It depends on what you are measuring as to which instrument to use. The Radalt isn't even required for IFR flight but a pressure altimeter is. Why does the FAA require the use of a Sensitive Pressure Altimeter over a Radalt for IFR flight? When you understand this question, you will understand the answers you have been given here from pilots.
Why do you prefer radalt over pressure altitude when the NTSB lists radalt as ":not working or unconfirmed", the radalt is traveling way outside it's tracking capability of 330 fps, and the objects it is measuring from is unknown?
Furthermore, the NTSB lists Pressure Altitude as "working and confirmed" and is operating well within it's calibration rated to M0.86.
Again, read here for a more thorough and detailed explanation.
RA - PA Correlation, proving the "Altitude Divergence" calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794074
If Legge/Stutt "Altitude Divergence" calculations were correct, Aircraft would be slamming into the ground. IAD ILS RWY 01R Approach Analysis, Instruments required for IFR Flight Based on Regulation.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490
Calculations based on Stutt Theory with respect to RA Tracking Capability, proving Stutt's theory false.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794159
Those are not attacks, they are facts.
Do you feel there is an altitude divergence due to pressure altimeter errors at ORD, LAX and the other approaches as stated by Frank Legge in his paper? Legge is wrong and the above links prove it. Do you understand that the "altitude divergence" disappears when the aircraft enters over the touchdown zone? Do you know why this is? Once you understand all of the above, you will understand the answers you have been given.