Meteorology question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Near EGKB
Age: 41
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meteorology question
Hi folks,
Came across this question in the Oxford CBT Meteorology mock test.
An aircraft flies aerodrome "A", where QNH is given as 1020mb, to aerodrome "B", where the QNH is given as 999mb. Aerodrome "A" is 800ft above mean sea level and aerodrome "B" is 500ft above mean sea level. If the altimeter sub scale is not changed from 1020, what is the altimeter indication on landing. (ASSUME 1mb = 30ft).
a) 1430ft.
b) 130ft.
c) 1130ft.
d) -130ft.
Now, I might just be tired and am missing something here, but surely, none of the answers are correct. By my calculation, the original QNH is 1020, and the new QNH is 999 (drastic change, but hey) meaning a 630ft change. And as it's been calibrated for 1020, i'd say on landing the altimeter should read 630ft?
The answer is c) 1130ft. But surely this would indicate a mistake in the question, and the QNH for aerodrome B is actually the QFE?
Came across this question in the Oxford CBT Meteorology mock test.
An aircraft flies aerodrome "A", where QNH is given as 1020mb, to aerodrome "B", where the QNH is given as 999mb. Aerodrome "A" is 800ft above mean sea level and aerodrome "B" is 500ft above mean sea level. If the altimeter sub scale is not changed from 1020, what is the altimeter indication on landing. (ASSUME 1mb = 30ft).
a) 1430ft.
b) 130ft.
c) 1130ft.
d) -130ft.
Now, I might just be tired and am missing something here, but surely, none of the answers are correct. By my calculation, the original QNH is 1020, and the new QNH is 999 (drastic change, but hey) meaning a 630ft change. And as it's been calibrated for 1020, i'd say on landing the altimeter should read 630ft?
The answer is c) 1130ft. But surely this would indicate a mistake in the question, and the QNH for aerodrome B is actually the QFE?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Wales
Age: 42
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Airbus 
... You did the calculation right but forgot to add the field elevation of 500ft back onto the 630ft.
I'm sure if you left it blank in an exam and came back to it at the end it would click ;-)
Good luck.
... You did the calculation right but forgot to add the field elevation of 500ft back onto the 630ft.I'm sure if you left it blank in an exam and came back to it at the end it would click ;-)
Good luck.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of those wonderful trick questions which I have never ever ever not even once ever had to work out in any real flying situation.
Why?
Because, when flying for real, one flies on some assigned QNH, or a flight level, and one sets the altimeter to the former, or to 1013.
The kind of mental aerobatics this Q requires is never done for real, and thankfully not because if obstacle clearance relied on getting it right, there would be a lot of wreckage everywhere.
Why?
Because, when flying for real, one flies on some assigned QNH, or a flight level, and one sets the altimeter to the former, or to 1013.
The kind of mental aerobatics this Q requires is never done for real, and thankfully not because if obstacle clearance relied on getting it right, there would be a lot of wreckage everywhere.
No, IO540.
It points out the hazards of failing to reset the QNH and how the altimeter will read; even though the elevation of the aerodrome of arrival is 300 ft lower than that of the departure aerodrome, the altimeter reading will over read considerably.
The distracted pilot who leaves the original QNH set and then decends to what he thinks is circuit altitude (say 1500ft) would be in for a nasty shock.
These types of questions do have relevance; easiest way to work them out is always to draw a small diagram.
Mind you, a 21 mb QNH change during the course of a typical VFR PPL spamcan flight would mean some pretty nasty weather!
It points out the hazards of failing to reset the QNH and how the altimeter will read; even though the elevation of the aerodrome of arrival is 300 ft lower than that of the departure aerodrome, the altimeter reading will over read considerably.
The distracted pilot who leaves the original QNH set and then decends to what he thinks is circuit altitude (say 1500ft) would be in for a nasty shock.
These types of questions do have relevance; easiest way to work them out is always to draw a small diagram.
Mind you, a 21 mb QNH change during the course of a typical VFR PPL spamcan flight would mean some pretty nasty weather!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think anybody who knows 30ft is roughly equal to 1mb will realise the danger of setting the wrong QNH - for both obstacle clearance and busting airspace from underneath.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think anybody who knows 30ft is roughly equal to 1mb will realise the danger of setting the wrong QNH - for both obstacle clearance and busting airspace from underneath.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The distracted pilot who leaves the original QNH set and then decends to what he thinks is circuit altitude (say 1500ft) would be in for a nasty shock.
...Seriously though who uses the altimeter when landing? I use it to get setup at circuit height but if it wasn't there I wouldn't plummet into the ground just because...I would actually like to suggest that I could safely fly across country VFR with no altimeter at all (assuming no airspace and nice weather) and still manage to take off, cruise and land with no drama...
Pompey till I die
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 51
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Altimeter on landing
who uses the altimeter when landing?
Although, when doing the night rating, the instruments were a total distraction. I flew better night circuits when the instructor killed the lighting inside then when I had all of the instruments. It's amazing, even with my lack of experience, how your ears have picked up what the engine should sound like rather than relying on instruments. Even a couple of times around the circuit the lights were put on briefly and yet everything was set up and looked where it should be, power RPM, height etc etc
So, yeah you don't need the altimeter whilst landing, but I do like to give it a quick glance at that one point.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely one just sets the altimeter to the GPS altitude?
A GPS with EGNOS reception is much more accurate than any barometric altimeter.
The above is less of a windup than many will think! And I don't need a lesson on why baro altimetry is used.
Let's say I am flying an approach in IMC. I check the altimeter (set to the issued QNH) against the Garmin 496 altitude (one of the four screen-corner parameters can be configured to be the GPS altitude) and if the two were to disagree by say 500ft then I would go somewhere with an ILS.
Never had them disagree by more than about 20ft, at low level. At higher levels, say 10,000ft, they can disagree massively (a few hundred feet) but that is because the altimeter is wrong, due to a nonstandard atmosphere.
A GPS with EGNOS reception is much more accurate than any barometric altimeter.
The above is less of a windup than many will think! And I don't need a lesson on why baro altimetry is used.
Let's say I am flying an approach in IMC. I check the altimeter (set to the issued QNH) against the Garmin 496 altitude (one of the four screen-corner parameters can be configured to be the GPS altitude) and if the two were to disagree by say 500ft then I would go somewhere with an ILS.
Never had them disagree by more than about 20ft, at low level. At higher levels, say 10,000ft, they can disagree massively (a few hundred feet) but that is because the altimeter is wrong, due to a nonstandard atmosphere.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is EGNOS?
GPS altitude is based on the gravitational equipotential of the earth (Geoid or Spheroid or something like that, I can never remember
) - essentially using a mathematical model of the gravity of the earth as the "surface". But we all know that gravity changes around the world - for example over everest it is slightly higher due to the more mass below, and I guess over the marianas trench it is sloghtly lower. So this model is an average. Hence in some places the model may be above sea level and in others below sea level. This is why GPS altitude doesn't always agree with barometric altitude.
At least something like that
GPS altitude is based on the gravitational equipotential of the earth (Geoid or Spheroid or something like that, I can never remember
) - essentially using a mathematical model of the gravity of the earth as the "surface". But we all know that gravity changes around the world - for example over everest it is slightly higher due to the more mass below, and I guess over the marianas trench it is sloghtly lower. So this model is an average. Hence in some places the model may be above sea level and in others below sea level. This is why GPS altitude doesn't always agree with barometric altitude. At least something like that
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this part of the world, the error is of the order of 50ft - much less than most will think.
EGNOS is the European version of U.S. WAAS. It corrects these and other errors.
Also any half decent GPS contains a table of the geoid variation around the world.
On the whole, GPS altitude is far more accurate than baro altitude.
But some cheap GPSs are poor; for example the SIRF 1 and 2 chips had a permanent 200ft error. I think the SIRF 3 chip fixes that. Most cheap GPSs use one or another of these chips. However, one wouldn't normally fly with these. A Garmin 296/496 does it properly, as does any IFR panel mount unit.
EGNOS is the European version of U.S. WAAS. It corrects these and other errors.
Also any half decent GPS contains a table of the geoid variation around the world.
On the whole, GPS altitude is far more accurate than baro altitude.
But some cheap GPSs are poor; for example the SIRF 1 and 2 chips had a permanent 200ft error. I think the SIRF 3 chip fixes that. Most cheap GPSs use one or another of these chips. However, one wouldn't normally fly with these. A Garmin 296/496 does it properly, as does any IFR panel mount unit.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must be getting old - no one along to tell IO540 that he shouldnt rely on GPS - has the world gone soft, or have all those old bold pilots hung up their head sets?
Where is DFC when you need him?
Where is DFC when you need him?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8,500 posts in 6 years. That's 1,400 per year (approx), 3.88 per day discounting 29th Febs which would reduce it ever so slightly. That is some posting rate to keep up for 6 years...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS Just to get vaguely back on topic, glider pilots are expected to show they can do a satisfactory circuit (or two) with the altimeter covered before going solo. Field landings are such a normal part of XC gliding (for those of us without sustainers / turbos) that it is vital to be able to do a satisfactory circuit into a small field of unknown height.
