I had been wondering when someone would remember the old fashioned mark one eyeball. I think modern instruments mean too much time with your eyes in the cockpit. Perhaps a the annual check flight should be done the old fashioned way with the instruments covered up. Cheers, Ron Baker. ----- Original Message ----- From: skf1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:35 AM Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] Elevation data for Australian Turn points
> AIP - Gen 2.2-1 > > Definitions > > Aerodrome Reference Point (ARP) > The designated geographical location of an aerodrome. > > ==================================================================== > > That seems simple enough. > > The ones I have checked have a brass survey marker at the location. > Do they all - ??????????? > > What sparked this tread? > When was the last time you knew the exact elevation of the out landing > Paddock? How accurate is your altimeter? Area QNH if you have it is > accurate +/- 150 ft. > > Too many variables - look out the window and enjoy your flight, you will > know when the ground is too close :) > > SDF > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John > Giddy > Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2004 9:55 AM > To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. > Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Elevation data for Australian Turnpoints > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kittel, Stephen W (ETSA)" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in > Australia.'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:06 AM > Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] Elevation data for Australian > Turnpoints > > > | Thanks for that SDF. > | > | I had a quick look at the DAPs when I was trying to work > out what the > | reference point actually was. Not being an IFR pilot I > didn't look too hard. > | > | With your clue re runway thresholds and looking harder at, > say, Parafield, > | we can be pretty sure the airfield elevation is NOT > related to the reference > | pt. > | AND not only that, while the reference pt would appear to > be the > | geographical location (cos the lat longs are marked around > the perimeter of > | the DAP), they are not exactly at the tenth of minute > (assuming the DAP is a > | reasonable scale representation of the airfield). IE the > measurements are > | rounded to the nearest tenth, not decided to be xx.y > exactly and the > | reference based on that number, which leads me to think > there is some > | physical thing at the reference point (maybe a survey > marker?). > | > | SO what is a "reference point" really? > > I would suspect that the Reference Point was the surveyor's > reference when laying out the aerodrome. > Such reference points would have been located many years ago > in some cases, and, even if they tried to set the Reference > Point exactly on a whole tenth of a minute, changes in the > overall world references, such as the change to WGS84 will > make such exact choice meaningless. > Cheers, John G. > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring > > __________ NOD32 1.597 (20040112) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System. > http://www.nod32.com > > _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
