|
guille
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 149,
Visits: 2.4K
|
+xHi TimThat's the requirement, but not quite the objective. Airspace isn't an issue as that's always based upon the local QNH therefore the altimeter is fine. The real objectives could be many, including:- In mountain flying, ensuring that you have adequate ground clearance for the forecasted winds to avoid the repercussions of downdrafts (the plog change will be useful for this as we can now check the height of unpublished crossing points)- A guide to remain legal when flying low- A guide to remain legal when instructors are choosing go-around heights for PFLs- A second check for safe altitudes when in marginal VFR or IFR off-airways I think that Gax explains really well the requirement. I fully agree.
|
|
|
|
|
Gax
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 41,
Visits: 0
|
Hi Tim
That's the requirement, but not quite the objective. Airspace isn't an issue as that's always based upon the local QNH therefore the altimeter is fine. The real objectives could be many, including:
- In mountain flying, ensuring that you have adequate ground clearance for the forecasted winds to avoid the repercussions of downdrafts (the plog change will be useful for this as we can now check the height of unpublished crossing points)
- A guide to remain legal when flying low
- A guide to remain legal when instructors are choosing go-around heights for PFLs
- A second check for safe altitudes when in marginal VFR or IFR off-airways
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Dawson
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 9.5K
|
I can confirm that we've enhanced the PLOG to include elevation, SR and SS times even when the takeoff/landing point is not an aerodrome. It therefore works for user waypoints and in fact any waypoint. Hopefully that will help our helicopter pilots.
I'm not ready to commit to the proposed ELEV mode on the altitude readout though. Would I be right in summarising the main part of the requirement to tell the exact terrain elevation at your current position as being that the GPS altitude reading itself isn't reliable, so there's a desire for elevation so a calculation can be used with your altitude as derived from the pressure altimeter? The objective being to use this primarily to avoid airspace whose vertical limits are defined AGL.
|
|
|
|
|
ckurz7000
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 538,
Visits: 2.2K
|
Well, I am a gyro oilot, too. And I don't need this functionality.
-- Chris.
|
|
|
|
|
guille
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 149,
Visits: 2.4K
|
+xYou will probably find that helicopter pilots will find this more useful than fixed wing pilots, due to the fact that helicopters tend to fly lower, slower, and land off-airfield where elevation isnt so readily available compared to airfields where elevation is published in the AIP / Pooleys etc. Helicopter Performance Class 1 calculation is one area to benefit from this. Situational awareness while flying can be improved too. As a pilot, I'd like to have the information to hand, and make my own decisions how I'm going to use it. If it's not there, that just reduces my decision making ability. As we all know there are less helicopter vs fixed wing pilots so our voice tends to get drowned out by the majority fixed wingers, both in software and in regulation.As a developer myself, I understand the balance between bloated software and simple UI. This addition leans more toward simple than bloated. You can add gyro pilots ...
|
|
|
|
|
plume_tray
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 116,
Visits: 434
|
You will probably find that helicopter pilots will find this more useful than fixed wing pilots, due to the fact that helicopters tend to fly lower, slower, and land off-airfield where elevation isnt so readily available compared to airfields where elevation is published in the AIP / Pooleys etc.
Helicopter Performance Class 1 calculation is one area to benefit from this. Situational awareness while flying can be improved too. As a pilot, I'd like to have the information to hand, and make my own decisions how I'm going to use it. If it's not there, that just reduces my decision making ability.
As we all know there are less helicopter vs fixed wing pilots so our voice tends to get drowned out by the majority fixed wingers, both in software and in regulation.
As a developer myself, I understand the balance between bloated software and simple UI. This addition leans more toward simple than bloated.
|
|
|
|
|
ckurz7000
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 538,
Visits: 2.2K
|
+xClearly those who like the idea will find it very useful. As a helicopter pilot, I will find a use for it. What I don't understand is why there are people arguing against it, when it will likely not impact them. Are we still talking about a ALT / HGT / ELE toggle? If you don't care for it, no one is gonna force you to use it.It's like GAFOR, very useful for some, but I dont use it in my location, so does not currently benefit me. However due to the design, it doesn't bother me having the feature still. When you maintain a piece of software you have to be careful what features to include and which ones to forego. Of course, you can make every feature optional, user selectable, individually configurable, etc. But in the end you wind up with a piece of code that is (a) difficult to maintain, (b) difficult to set up and (c) confusing to operate. Tim does a great job at walking this tight line, and he seems to have a good grasp of GUI basics and intuitive interaction. Greetings, -- Chris.
|
|
|
|
|
plume_tray
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 116,
Visits: 434
|
Clearly those who like the idea will find it very useful. As a helicopter pilot, I will find a use for it.
What I don't understand is why there are people arguing against it, when it will likely not impact them. Are we still talking about a ALT / HGT / ELE toggle? If you don't care for it, no one is gonna force you to use it.
It's like GAFOR, very useful for some, but I dont use it in my location, so does not currently benefit me. However due to the design, it doesn't bother me having the feature still.
|
|
|
|
|
Gax
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 41,
Visits: 0
|
1) Feel free to show me a 400' obstacle thats but notamed next time you see one.
2) We agree on the altitude point, except that only tells you AMSL. Without elevation you have nothing to reference it to in order to establish AGL.
3) I disagree that every pilot is as adept at identifying heights. You cannot speak for everybody in this regard.
4) "Flying IMC without a flightplan and SD as your gude for terrain clearance is a sure setup for desaster." Clearly you didn't read the part where I said "unforeseen weather". i.e. Making a safety call to climb into IFR enroute rather than landcon a golf course or scud-run it at 300'. SD is a guide to situational awareness, and highlights problems that you may have missed or need reassurance on. You don't use it as primary nav, and you check your MSA, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with glancing up to SD to double-check that you are indeed at sufficient height when flying under the LTMA (which you aren't allowed into) and that you haven't missed something or screwed up the math.
|
|
|
|
|
guille
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 149,
Visits: 2.4K
|
+x+x[quote]1) any obstacle high enough to be a conflict at 500' will be in SD. I forget the specific max height for marking an obstacle on a chart, but it's well below 500'. Even so, a 'more vigilant look' doesn't men you can't still glance at instruments. 2 and 4) These two points contradict themselves - You say SD already provides height, but then say GPS altitude is inaccurate. I agree with 4 but disagree that knowing elevation is not useful as you can then crosscheck against the theoretically more accurate pressure altimeter. 3) Excursions aren't always noticeable if they're gradual, and not everybody is as good at visually picking out heights. Also, the 500' height isn't the only usecase - Another is flying IMC due to unforeseen weather and trying to maintain an MSA of 1000' under low class A airspace (e.g. the Sevenoaks area), in which case you won't be able to see such excursions. 1) Not all the obstacles are on the chart (they get erected between issue dates and sometimes not even reported). And most people don't read the corresponding NOTAM and mark them on their charts. 2) Yes, SD does provide height and therefore gives me what I need when I want to check my AGL. And yes, it is inaccurate and fraught with GPS and elevation model errors. I care MUCH more about altitude AGL than the actual elevation of a specific point. The only time I do care about elevation is during flight planning, though. 3) Flying at 500' AGL you will definitely notice an excursion by 20% in altitude just by "the size of the houses". 4) Flying IMC without a flightplan and SD as your gude for terrain clearance is a sure setup for desaster. Greetings, -- Chris. --------------------------- It is not only a problem of obstacles, flying VFR and without obstacles, it would be good to have height errors of less than 100 ft to avoid military corridors safely (when you see a Rafale it can be too late, it is not the same as a windmill) and that is the reason why I think having elevation in the button of altitude/height can be a good thing. Obstacles I can always see. But I don't believe we will change our opinions, so I will stop writing about this issue.
|
|
|
|