Sandercock
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Tim Shirley
Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2011 5:23 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] GPS vs Pressure Altitude
I'm
Hi Tim,
That's the first trick. The second is being able
to fly to a pressure at least 3% lower than the
current record. This is what appears anomalous
considering other the requirements of other airsports.
Geoff V
At 10:23 AM 14/09/2011, you wrote:
I'm not sure that a mistake and
Many thanks !!
Best Regards,
Mike Durrant
VH-FQF
On 13/09/2011, at 11:39 AM, Mike Borgelt mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com
wrote:
In the interests of mis - information being quashed:
I was right about GPS vs Pressure altitude(PA). Tim advised me he had GPS and
Pressure Altitude
I'm not sure that a mistake and misinformation are quite the same.
However I am happy to acknowledge that I am human, and to support in
full the rest of Mike's comments.
The trick to getting an altitude record at present is to fly to a place
where the pressure is less than the last
At 10:23 AM 14/09/2011, you wrote:
I'm not sure that a mistake and misinformation are quite the same.
Essentially they are. The mis-information is the result of the
mistake. If the mistake was deliberate it would be dis-information.
There is a push at IGC level to use GPS altitude for
In the interests of mis - information being quashed:
I was right about GPS vs Pressure altitude(PA). Tim advised me he had
GPS and Pressure Altitude transposed in his spreadsheet. So his
analysis of flight records now agrees with the theoretical analysis
in my article and my manual analysis
Thanks Mike for the article on your website.
Here is another article on barometric vs gps altitude.
http://bhgc.wikidot.com/tutorials:differences-between-pressure-and-gps-altitude
The hang gliding community has been writing extensively about this
subject and ended up with using barometric
Mart,
For airspace infringement purposes pressure altitude should be used
as that is how the airspace levels are defined. That seems to be the
thrust of the linked article.
If you are really good and lucky it will be within about +/-100 feet.
Up to +/-200 feet is possible when all error
Thanks John Orton, Derek Ruddock, Owen Jones and Matthew Scutter for the files.
I think I've got enough there now to show that the basic physics in
my article on our website www.borgeltinstruments.com is correct.
For those who asked what I was trying to do - it was to verify the
predictions
Could someone send me a 3 or 4 igc flight files done during the
summer in Australia to good heights (say above 7000 feet) with each
of the following Flight Recorders please?
CAI302A(not the early model Cambridge loggers), Colibri(late models),
Volkslogger,(late models say since 2006),
OK I've got 4 flights done in WA in summer thanks to John Orton all
with colibris.
Any Volkslogger or Cambridge 302A files? Or Flarms?
So far good agreement with my article on the later FRs. Early ones
had terrible GPS receivers and/or lots of flitering on the GPS altitude.
Mike
Could
After last week's thread on GPS vs Pressure Altitude I've written a
short article on the difference and why it is so.
Look under Articles on our home page at www.borgeltinstruments.com
You might like to read about the B700 and B800 while you are
there. We've actually got complete, working,
12 matches
Mail list logo
