future methods of determining height?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 41
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
future methods of determining height?
Is using pressure related instruments still the most accurate and best way of reading your altitude/height in aircraft?
Is GPS not accurate enough now to replace it or if not will it ever be?
It seems it would avoid some of the problems related to pressure related instruments..
Interested in your views and opinions.
Liam
Is GPS not accurate enough now to replace it or if not will it ever be?
It seems it would avoid some of the problems related to pressure related instruments..
Interested in your views and opinions.
Liam
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam,
Barometric altimeters work just fine. They're also fairly inexpensive.
As aircraft complexity increases, barometric altimetry is supplemented by the input from air data computers; this is standard for aircraft operating in reduced vertical separation airspace (RVSM). At low altitudes, radar or radio altimetry is also utilized.
For a light airplane doing every day run-of-the-mill kind of flying, a simple barometric altimeter works just fine.
Barometric altimeters work just fine. They're also fairly inexpensive.
As aircraft complexity increases, barometric altimetry is supplemented by the input from air data computers; this is standard for aircraft operating in reduced vertical separation airspace (RVSM). At low altitudes, radar or radio altimetry is also utilized.
For a light airplane doing every day run-of-the-mill kind of flying, a simple barometric altimeter works just fine.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS is much more accurate but for historic reasons we use barometric altimetry, which works fine for relative traffic separation.
Nothing is likely to change in the foreseeable future.
Nothing is likely to change in the foreseeable future.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is using pressure related instruments still the most accurate and best way of reading your altitude/height in aircraft?
Is GPS not accurate enough now to replace it or if not will it ever be?
It seems it would avoid some of the problems related to pressure related instruments..
Interested in your views and opinions.
Liam
Is GPS not accurate enough now to replace it or if not will it ever be?
It seems it would avoid some of the problems related to pressure related instruments..
Interested in your views and opinions.
Liam
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: long left base EGCC
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps we can dump that 400 year old anachronism of gravity
So is this a possible explanation for the "ascension", then ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 41
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems that aviation lags behind the rest of the world. From engine designs / safety features to use of analogue AM radio and HF radio whereas the rest of the world is in the digital age.
But then again in other areas I suppose aviation is way ahead..
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
A traditional barometric altimeter is:
From experience in aviation some of the guiding principles are: if it ain't broke don't fix it, keep it simple and avoid change for the sake of change.
In my personal experience GPS altitude is often not particularly accurate and is sometimes not available at all.
Now given what I've written, perhaps you could offer some good reasons why the industry should choose to use GPS altimeters instead of barometric altimeters. Go on... give me ten good reaons.
(I can think of a few, but a baralt still does exactly what it says on the tin and I think is overall the best option.)
- Relatively cheap.
- Virtually indestructible.
- Needs no power source. Draws no load from the aircraft electrical system, battery or engines.
- Will work after a complete electrical failue.
- Sufficiently accurate to provide safe separation.
- Easily adjustable between required datums: QFE, QNH, SPS etc.
- Pressure altitude not true altitude is directly relevant to many aircraft performance calculations.
- Many users of the atmosphere do so without any electrical systems (eg some vintage aircraft, microlights, balloons, airships, parachutists, skydivers, mountaineers! etc etc.
- Transponder altitude reporting is based on pressure altitude on the 1013 datum not true altitude.
- Robust. GPS signals can be easily jammed or spoofed.
From experience in aviation some of the guiding principles are: if it ain't broke don't fix it, keep it simple and avoid change for the sake of change.
In my personal experience GPS altitude is often not particularly accurate and is sometimes not available at all.
Now given what I've written, perhaps you could offer some good reasons why the industry should choose to use GPS altimeters instead of barometric altimeters. Go on... give me ten good reaons.
(I can think of a few, but a baralt still does exactly what it says on the tin and I think is overall the best option.)
Last edited by Fg Off Max Stout; 21st Nov 2008 at 00:09. Reason: Thought of a couple more reasons.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone also pointed out (but you may have missed it) is that above a certain altitude, the only thing that's important is relative altitude. Which means: not the altitude above terrain, but the altitude that's between me and that other airplane (or other user of the air).
Pressure drops as altitude goes up. I don't think anybody disputes that. So the best way to ensure separation from other aircraft is to assign each aircraft a different air pressure level on which to operate.
Now for convenience we add a few gears and things, and represent that pressure level as an altitude but that's just to prevent us from having two separate dials in the cockpit.
Unless you found another simple, reliable and foolproof method of ensuring separation between two aircraft, barometric altimetry is here to stay.
If height above terrain is a critically important factor, eg. on a ILS Cat-III autoland approach, you'll find that the barometric altimeter is NOT accurate enough and has already been replaced with, for instance, a radar altimeter.
Pressure drops as altitude goes up. I don't think anybody disputes that. So the best way to ensure separation from other aircraft is to assign each aircraft a different air pressure level on which to operate.
Now for convenience we add a few gears and things, and represent that pressure level as an altitude but that's just to prevent us from having two separate dials in the cockpit.
Unless you found another simple, reliable and foolproof method of ensuring separation between two aircraft, barometric altimetry is here to stay.
Is using pressure related instruments still the most accurate and best way of reading your altitude/height in aircraft?
future methods of determining height?
Radar altimeter or GPS with super accurate terrain database is what you need.
Not many (if any) of the former fitted to GA aircraft, some modern a/c fitted with TAWS though
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: one dot low as usual
Age: 66
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly all over the world with the altimeter set on 1013.25 most of the time. The altitude source is from a static source fed via an air data computer (the standby altimeter is a traditional device and shows errors of around 400-500 feet at FL300+). With MNPS over large areas of the world, we cross opposite direction traffic at a closing speed of 1,000kts and as we pass, the TCAS display shows them exactly 1000' above or below. Occasionally the radio altimeter blips as they go under and that shows a separation of 1,000' so the method of using a static source with 1013.25 set via an air data computer is pretty consistent with airlines all over the world. It works very well so why change?
Oh Shazbat!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Leeds, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard that the lead-line in not making a comeback...
I agree with FOMS - it seems hard to reconcile taking a simple and well proven solution & then replacing it with something significantly more complicated and thus more at risk from failing parts.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with the lead line when used from an aircraft is the temperature differential, it was found that trying to account for the 2C change per 1000 feet made the lead expand and thus the readings difficult...
I can imagine that being useful today. Throw the lead weight out and smell, taste, feel when it is brought back in. Wet - you must be over water. Covered in glass shards - you must be above an area with lots of greenhouses. Smelling of weed - you must have been above Amsterdam. Cleaner than when you threw it down - you must be over Switzerland. And so forth.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BackPacker
I can imagine that being useful today. Throw the lead weight out and smell, taste, feel when it is brought back in. Wet - you must be over water. Covered in glass shards - you must be above an area with lots of greenhouses. Smelling of weed - you must have been above Amsterdam. Cleaner than when you threw it down - you must be over Switzerland. And so forth.
