PDA

View Full Version : Icao new standard px settings


pilot999
26th Sep 2008, 11:12
ref the ano 12.33.04 9in flight national, i think it really strange that the pressure for flight levels will change in 2012 to 1015mb to take into account of global warming. this is the world gone wrong:{

fireflybob
26th Sep 2008, 11:48
You cannot be serious!!!

Wiley
26th Sep 2008, 15:17
If this isn't a joke, won't it be fun operating in RVSM airspace on the night this change is implemented? I suspect that on that night, there'll be a few more converts to offset tracking!!

Halfbaked_Boy
26th Sep 2008, 15:29
Wiley, I can't imagine it making THAT much difference... 2 mb is what, about 60 feet worth? And taking into consideration that it's generally acceptable to waver +- 300 ft from your assigned altitude. Somebody refresh me, why is that again? Something to do with allowing for 'inaccurate' autopilots, and aircraft not equipped with two autopilots or similar?

Cheers, Jack

Lurking123
26th Sep 2008, 15:36
It would be a little more than 60ft in RVSM airspace. That said, still no issue.

leftseatview
26th Sep 2008, 15:45
dont fix it,if it ain't broken

Airbubba
26th Sep 2008, 15:54
But don't worry, the dangerously low UK transition altitude will never change.:)

The last thing we need to be doing on a complex departure is twiddling the altimeter knobs just as we are making the second hairpin turn with an altitude capture.

I believe the new politically correct term for 'global warming' is now 'climate change' because some areas are cooling off indifferently to the politicians' predictions.

frostbite
26th Sep 2008, 18:12
Sounds like another example of someone attempting to justify their continued employment by introducing unnecessary change, like the recently introduced sixth digit on frequency instructions.

Lurking123
26th Sep 2008, 19:42
Don't you think flying would be much safer without any regulation?

fireflybob
26th Sep 2008, 21:00
So does that mean "Hectopascals" will become obsolete too.....? I should be almost retired by then...how much more bureaucratic nonsense to come, I wonder?

Evening Star
26th Sep 2008, 21:14
I believe the new politically correct term for 'global warming' is now 'climate change' because some areas are cooling off indifferently to the politicians' predictions.

And any scientist worth their salt has been calling it climate change for at least a decade ... politicians are only just catching up because it really is too difficult for them to understand.:ugh:

welliewanger
26th Sep 2008, 22:19
Global warming or climate change. Whatever you want to call it, the repurcussion is that the ice caps will melt and sea level will rise. Increasing the standard pressure to 1015mb will effectively make our imaginary sea level lower. Surely they should make it 1010mb. Or am I just being pedantic?

G-CPTN
26th Sep 2008, 22:37
I don't think it is the sea that aircraft are in danger of hitting . . .

Wod
27th Sep 2008, 08:43
Let's update ISA while we're at it.

Having said which, many of our "standards" are about 60 years old. There is merit in revisiting stuff periodically, as was done with GPS once we better understood the way the world wobbles.

BenThere
27th Sep 2008, 12:27
Increasing the standard pressure to 1015mb will effectively make our imaginary sea level lower

Exactly, welliewanger, which exposes this as a windup, I think.

Unless climate change is so diabolical that the current cooling is actually sucking water out of the oceans and back into the icecaps. This would have enormous consequences for all the harbors, navigable rivers, indeed all economic activity built around surface water. We need to all be driving V-8 American SUVs now! Where can I buy a carbon credit that will induce someone to build a bonfire on my behalf?

Capot
27th Sep 2008, 18:42
Don't you think flying would be much safer without any regulation?I once worked out that if the purpose of every on-route Air Traffic Controller in Europe were to cause collisions rather than prevent them, they would achieve 2 per year at the traffic levels at that time.

The basis of the calculation that with the known inaccuracy of vertical and horizontal positioning at that time (1980's) each aircraft could be anywhere in quite a large block of airspace. To cause a collision, the controllor could do no more than make the two blocks of airspace collide. The probability of the two aircraft, each randomly somewhere in its airspace block, actually colliding was very small indeed.

This study sat longside the disturbing thought that all that traditional on-route ATC methods achieve is a concentration of aircraft in the airspace above a small number of points on the ground.

Area nav would be better, wouldn't it?