Altimeter Question

On Apr 18, 2:40 am, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVE>
wrote:
> terry wrote:
>
> > I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States.  So what do you
> > call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
> > elevation?
>
> altimeter

Nope. If you dial up the local barometric pressure the altimeter may
not read airfield elevation....

Cheers

On Apr 18, 4:06 am, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVE>
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 2:40 am, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVE>
> > wrote:
> >> terry wrote:
>
> >>> I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States.  So what do you
> >>> call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
> >>> elevation?
> >> altimeter
>
> > Nope. If you dial up the local barometric pressure the altimeter may
> > not read airfield elevation....
>
> > Cheers
>
> GO away no fly boy.

I see you don't know. In fact an altimeter is calibrated to the
standard atmosphere so if the temp. is not standard it will not read
field elevation when local QNH is applied.

Pretty basic knowlege for a PPL, Oh I forgot, I'm not supposed to be a
pilot.

Cheers

On Apr 18, 3:04 am, Bertie the Bunyip <A...@AA.AA> wrote:

> > I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States.  So what do you
> > call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
> > elevation?
>
> They don't use any of the Q codes in the US. QNH is one of the few still
> in use around the rest of the world, the rest are pretty much archaich.

How come the US doesn't adopt ICAO? I thought it had to -isn't that
what ICAO is all about?

Cheers

terry wrote:
> I wasnt aware you dont use the QNH term in the States. So what do you
> call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport
> elevation?


"Altimeter" or "altimeter setting". ATC always just says "altimeter".



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.

"Barry" <a@b.c> wrote in
news:W6SdnY-2tdFGFJrVnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@:

>> Actually, there are a lot of anomolies around the world. Eastern
>> Europe and Russia doggedly cling to using windspeed in Meters/second
>> and have reluctantly accepted using feet for altitude, though there
>> are still a lot of published platform altitudes of something like
>> "2746 feet"
>
> I learned to fly in France in the 1980s and they used a weird
> combination of feet and meters. Altimeters read in feet,and minimum
> safe altitudes were charted in feet. But charted obstructions and
> airspace restrictions were in meters. Everyone set QFE (altimeter
> reads zero on the ground) for takeoff, then reset the altimeter to QNH
> if leaving the traffic pattern. Flight levels began at 3500 feet.
>
> Can any Europeans out there tell me if it's still like that?
>
>
>

I fly in Eurpoe a lot an dmercifully tht doesn't seem to be the case,
but having said that, I only use insturment charts in France...

Bertie

"Barry" <a@b.c> wrote in
news:vIudnTH5X6EUCJrVnZ2dnUVZ_r2nnZ2d@:

>>> I learned to fly in France in the 1980s and they used a weird
>>> combination of feet and meters. Altimeters read in feet,and minimum
>>> safe altitudes were charted in feet. But charted obstructions and
>>> airspace restrictions were in meters. Everyone set QFE (altimeter
>>> reads zero on the ground) for takeoff, then reset the altimeter to
>>> QNH if leaving the traffic pattern. Flight levels began at 3500
>>> feet.
>>>
>>> Can any Europeans out there tell me if it's still like that?
>>>
>> I fly in Eurpoe a lot an dmercifully tht doesn't seem to be the case,
>> but having said that, I only use insturment charts in France...
>
> Does the ATIS give both QNH and QFE? I flew mainly from an airport
> with a tower and no ATIS. If you told ground you were staying in the
> pattern they gave you just the QFE, otherwise they gave both. And the
> VFR airport charts gave the difference between QNH and QFE (in hPa)
> for each airport, along with the field elevation in both meters and
> feet.
>
>
>

Now you mention it, some plaes in France do also include the QFE.

Bertie

On Apr 18, 7:55 am, Stefan <stefan@mus._INVALID_.ch> wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> >> So an altimeter set to local QNH will always read field elevation *by
> >> definition*.
> > Yes it may say that but it's being loose because it forgt to include
> > the "barometric pressure reduced to MSL by application of the ISA".
> > Alltimeters are calibrated for the standard atmosphere. -right?
>
> Right.
>
> > Think about it, if an ARFOR gives QNH how could it be correct for all
> > terrain if local temperatures differed?  I covered this in my PPL tech
> > course -was this not covered in your manuals?
>
> Think about it, nobody said it would be correct for all altitudes, but
> just for one altitude: the airfield elevation.
>
>

Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to an
airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in this
case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?

Cheers

Cheers

Cheers

On Apr 18, 3:33 am, "Barry" <a...@b.c> wrote:
> > Actually, there are a lot of anomolies around the world. Eastern Europe
> > and Russia doggedly cling to using windspeed in Meters/second and have
> > reluctantly accepted using feet for altitude, though there are still a
> > lot of published platform altitudes of something like "2746 feet"
>
> I learned to fly in France in the 1980s and they used a weird combination of
> feet and meters.  Altimeters read in feet,and minimum safe altitudes were
> charted in feet.  But charted obstructions and airspace restrictions were in
> meters.  Everyone set QFE (altimeter reads zero on the ground) for takeoff,
> then reset the altimeter to QNH if leaving the traffic pattern.  Flight levels
> began at 3500 feet.
>
> Can any Europeans out there tell me if it's still like that?


Its still like that in australia, we use feet for altitude , but we
use meters for horizontal distance. OurVFR rules are to stay clear of
cloud by 1000 feet vertically and 1500 m horizontally. Hpa for
pressure except tire pressure which is psi

On Apr 18, 7:10 am, Stefan <stefan@mus._INVALID_.ch> wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to an
> > airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in this
> > case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day?
>
> Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives
> you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface.


As I understand it ( In Australia) the QNH in an ARFOR must be within
5 mbar of the "real QNH" - ie what gives you field elevation for any
place within that area. otherwise the area will be broken up into sub
areas and no 2 adjacant sub areas must differ by more than 5 mbar.
That way the errors which Wing flap alludes to, and must certainly
exist in non ISA atmosphere, would result in errors of no more than
150 feet between aircraft using either the correct AFROR QNH or the
airfield set QNH

terry <tfmann@iprimus.com.au> wrote in
news:4f562db1-98e3-4bbf-9673-07a4972cea04@s50g2000hsb..com:

> On Apr 18, 3:33 am, "Barry" <a...@b.c> wrote:
>> > Actually, there are a lot of anomolies around the world. Eastern
>> > Europe and Russia doggedly cling to using windspeed in
>> > Meters/second and have reluctantly accepted using feet for
>> > altitude, though there are still a lot of published platform
>> > altitudes of something like "2746 feet"
>>
>> I learned to fly in France in the 1980s and they used a weird
>> combination
> of
>> feet and meters.  Altimeters read in feet,and minimum safe altitudes
>> wer
> e
>> charted in feet.  But charted obstructions and airspace restrictions
>> wer
> e in
>> meters.  Everyone set QFE (altimeter reads zero on the ground) for
>> takeo
> ff,
>> then reset the altimeter to QNH if leaving the traffic pattern.
>>  Flight
> levels
>> began at 3500 feet.
>>
>> Can any Europeans out there tell me if it's still like that?
>
>
> Its still like that in australia, we use feet for altitude , but we
> use meters for horizontal distance. OurVFR rules are to stay clear of
> cloud by 1000 feet vertically and 1500 m horizontally. Hpa for
> pressure except tire pressure which is psi
>

Meters is the international standard for vis, except in the US!

Bertie