You could surmise with the same degree of authority that the radalt will only show what you are currently passing above,
Isn't that just the information you need?
and not the sheer cliff face or group of buildings 50 feet in front of you.
... which would be the same cliff or building if your reference was the bar alt.
Flying on QNH from my experience has created a better overall judgement of height above ground if for no other reason that you are always aware that your baralt is referenced to sea level.
Interesting, which is all well and good if you immediately know the elevation of the local terrain below you to the nearest 100ft or so.
The rad alt has to be more useful as it doesn't give you a 'better judgement' of your height above the ground, it tells you.
And for night ops my steerable searchlight/landing light would either be extended, or if retracted I would know the exact number of seconds to run it out to the optimum position. Just one of those idiosyncrasies that I built up over the years.
How many seconds is that John?
I know for the 135 it is 'my 5 seconds' from stowed to the set forward position and then maybe a couple more to move it from the straight ahead position to somewhere more handy. (no control when it is in transition)
Ooops, no steerable LL on doub eng fail
Now for the discussion on whether you should flare at the bottom of an IMC or night auto, or pull pitch and run on.
Join in -
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/336...-training.html