737-800 service ceiling?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discussion of Vertical GPS Accuracy
Consumer grade GPS receivers can provide very accurate horizontal positions, especially when augmented with WAAS and left to average the position over a period of time. However, the same is not true for vertical position. There are a number of causes for this, and this page attempts to explain them in simplified language.
Definitions
The ellipsoid is the simple, smooth model of the earth based by first defining the basic ellipse describing the Earth's shape to a best fit, then second, describing the volume derived when one rotates the ellipse about its semi-minor axis. If we didn't have topography, this ellipsoid (some cartographers and GIS packages call it "spheroid") would well-describe the shape of the earth. The geoid, on the other hand, is an undulating surface, roughly where the sea level would be (accounting for local gravity variations, caused by density variations in the earth's crust, but not water variations), if the land didn't get in the way, referenced to an absolute gravity model. It is an gravitic equipotential surface.
The sea level, is another undulating surface, which is different than the geoid due to temperature, current, wind and salinity differences in the water. However, the sea level doesn't work on the land!
When we formally speak of vertical, the vertical we speak of is the orthometric height. This is an algebraic result of subtracting the geoid separation (difference in geoid and ellipsoid height from the Earth's centroid of mass at a given surface point) from the ellipsoid height.
GPS Workings
GPS, because of the math, works from the smooth WGS84 ellipsoid directly. The height it offers, unless it tells you otherwise, will be an ellipsoid height (distance from the Earth's centroid of mass to the surface of the ellipsoid) as determined by the functions of trilateration and free-space ranging. However, I think that most user grade receivers have a built in geoid model and perform the adjustment. You may be able to tell by looking at the $GPGGA NMEA sentence -- see NMEA protocol information for more information. This NMEA sentence (sometimes) reports the difference between the geoid and the ellipsoid at the current location. If, on the other hand, one were to use the multi-frequency, geodetic quality GPS systems, one only uses the autonomous measurements to get into the ballpark for timing and position, then uses a network between multiple receivers located on well-surveyed sites where the cartesian coordinates are well-known (at least for the purposed of a given survey). Then, once again, one calculates the cartesian coordinates of all receivers in the survey, including the unknown point, creates a fairly rigid geometric network among the various points, and performs a least-squares adjustment to determine the parameters of x, y, and z for the point of interest. Beyond that, one generally transforms the coordinates from cartesian to one of the more conventional forms: geographic, state plane, transverse mercator, etc., for textual and graphical dissemination.
GPS determination of height using a commercial, consumer grade GPS is problematical for several reasons.
3d positions are calculated using the code-phase method, where one uses the pseudorange between satellite(s) and receiver at a given epoch to determine a position. If 4 satellites are in view, the procedure is straightforward. If more than 4 are in view, then most receivers "over-determine" the position using all combinations of 4 satellites from those in view to establish positions, and then perform yet-another-least-squares-solution to attempt to determine which satellite combination is best. This combination is tested periodically to make things better, but usually not tested each and every solution.
Using code-phase, however, allows for a larger error budget which contributes to the overall error of autonomous positioning. In general, to get good 3d positioning, one would want a satellite directly over head and 3 others below the horizon in a constellation similar to the structure of a statically-depicted carbon molecule. All 4 hydrogen bonds are at ~120 deg to each adjacent bond. Since GPS signals don't traverse dirt too well, that's impractical for surface-based receivers.
Since most satellites used in conventional consumer-grade hardware are selected for being somewhat above the horizon, accuracy of vertical determination suffers.
We've consistently seen horizontal accuracies of 6m or better ever since Selective Availability was switched off in 2000. However vertical accuracies of 10-20 meters are not uncommon because of A) the problem cited about constellation selection being inconsistent for vertical determinations... and B) the problem of using the increased error-budget laden code-phase solutions.
Using geodetic receivers, a good network for adjustment, long-period (4-8 hours) data acquisition, data decimation to remove autocorrelation effects, and careful postprocessing to achieve good solutions to submit to least squared adjustment, you can readily achieve 1cm horizontal and 3cm vertical accuracies. But you'll never do that with anything from the consumer product line, unfortunately
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of being accused of gross narcissism in quoting oneself:
Clearly I am the P!ss taking.
You see the original post described a flight from Darwin to Melbourne, yet the picture of the IFE in the original post looked as though it may have been depicting a flight from Bali.
You see on one hand I was saying "Who gives a rats @rse what your gps says. And on the other hand making a gentle jybe at LCC's / "New age carriers", and the value of "Flight Tracking" to the loathsome masses in general.
Max operating Alt on a 7378 is FL410. However, that's a pressurization limit and not a physical limit so I'd say that you were obviously flying unpressurised to get up into a good tailwind.
As for the IFE...Flight tracking is a costly optional extra so some low cost airlines just display the same info on every flight much like a tv test pattern. As most people don't pay attention they dont realise that their East coast flight is depicted as a return flight from Bali.
As for the IFE...Flight tracking is a costly optional extra so some low cost airlines just display the same info on every flight much like a tv test pattern. As most people don't pay attention they dont realise that their East coast flight is depicted as a return flight from Bali.
You see the original post described a flight from Darwin to Melbourne, yet the picture of the IFE in the original post looked as though it may have been depicting a flight from Bali.
You see on one hand I was saying "Who gives a rats @rse what your gps says. And on the other hand making a gentle jybe at LCC's / "New age carriers", and the value of "Flight Tracking" to the loathsome masses in general.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blueloo... thanks for answering my questions!
When I was on the a QF plane, a QF cabin crew told me to turn off the camera (it's a Group 1 device with no bluetooth and WPAN) before landing. I am wondering why he told me to stop using it??
When I was on the a QF plane, a QF cabin crew told me to turn off the camera (it's a Group 1 device with no bluetooth and WPAN) before landing. I am wondering why he told me to stop using it??
Here is the FAR 25 reference regarding max alt and 8000' cabin.
Most transport category jets are capable of flying higher, however the limit is the 8000' cabin requirement . A higher pressure differential to mainmtain the 8000' at a higher altitude would require a higher pressure differential which would require a stronger/heavier sructure. AT 39,000' a diff of about 8.6 PSI is required.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...4cfr25.841.pdf
Most transport category jets are capable of flying higher, however the limit is the 8000' cabin requirement . A higher pressure differential to mainmtain the 8000' at a higher altitude would require a higher pressure differential which would require a stronger/heavier sructure. AT 39,000' a diff of about 8.6 PSI is required.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...4cfr25.841.pdf
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wondering why he told me to stop using it?
There is also a remote possibility that the Cabin Crew Ops Manual is not aligned with our manual (although this is very unlikely). As far as I am aware, our manual takes precedence.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was on the a QF plane, a QF cabin crew told me to turn off the camera (it's a Group 1 device with no bluetooth and WPAN) before landing. I am wondering why he told me to stop using it??
At other times, they'll generally allow anything that doesn't transmit. My experience with the business crowd is a large percentage simply ignore the instructions anyway - lots and lots of phones on Silent on every flight.
Edit: apologies, didn't read the last couple of pages properly, just read Blueloo's post. I agree with the above - some just aren't fully aware of the details.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Paris, New York, Peckham
Age: 48
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the true altitude displayed by the GPS (give or take some smallish errors) and the pressure altitude are the same if the QNH is 1013 AND the temperature profile of the air up to FL410, in this instance, is standard. otherwise they're not the same (which only happens all the time)
someone using a GPS in an airliner wouldnt bother me unless he was strapping a parachute on at the time or popping a full clip in his uzi or something
someone using a GPS in an airliner wouldnt bother me unless he was strapping a parachute on at the time or popping a full clip in his uzi or something
