Crumpp....how many more times are you going to quote yourself?

Enroute and arrival???

No way. You can get a very rough approximate by setting arrival field elevation before you depart and reading the setting off the altimeter. The closer the destination, the more stable the air, the better approximation in most cases.

You can call flight watch enroute but not if you don't have a radio. There is no way to get accurate enroute settings just looking at a chart and using field elevation without physically being on the ground at that airfield.

YES and they change.......

You did not know that as a "professional"? :grin:

Here is Jepperson's plates for Biggen Hill. They went invalid in 2004.

Field elevation is listed as 598 ft.

http://www.cirrus147.com/files/Plates/EGKB/EGKB.pdf

Here is the latest ICAO chart....field elevation is 599ft

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2012-05-31.pdf

:rolleyes:

So basically you confirmed that since 2004 the elevation was fixed at 598 feet and was changed this year to 599 (after a geographic survey), pretty much what I confirmed several posts back by even linking to exactly the same soursce I did.

So Crumpp, let's see your license, it's easier for you FAA guys, it's just a credit card sized thing, I have to take the pages out of my book and scan separately.

Here's a quck scan of the CAA published official VFR chart for Southern UK in 1:50000, this one is for the Olympics and shows the Temp airspace, this chart is not valid until the 14th of July, please note the airfield elevation at Biggin hill is shown as 599 feet, if the elevation changes daily then why is it published in the charts which are produced annualy? this chart is a companion to the regular VFR chart which also shows biggin at 599 feet and will continue to do so for the whole 'year' of it's validity, and next years edition will in all probability say the same.

Boy. I thought I'd seen some moronic arguments in my time, but this really takes the cake.

I have to disagree Doggles...wildly O/T but a very interesting argument. A lot to be learned from these arguments IMO. And it is not about whether Biggin Hill is at +/- 1ft.

Interesting in that you can see the practical problems associated with having different aircraft flying around relying on pressure sensors (aneroid barometers) that are measuring pressure but displaying altitude or height values.

If everyone sets their altimeters for QNH (current SL pressure), the departure altitude displayed will be close to the surveyed airfield chart height but QNH will need to be continuously updated via radio with the passage of time and distance. Airfields and terrain will be collided with at their correct height, and aircraft in the same airspace will display similar altimeter values, but only if all aircraft are being continuously updated with appropriate QNH via radio.

If everyone sets their altimeters for QFE, height data is only appropriate for the departure airfield for a short period of time.

If everyone sets for QNE (standard pressure), all aircraft altimeters are reading the same flight level (within instrument error), a plus for managing traffic interactions. No updating is needed. However terrain and airfields may appear at different altitudes than physically surveyed data.

Crumpp, it sure seemed, even re-reading, that you were stating that physical airfield elevation was changing in some manner according to pressure and temperature (either physically or to some procedural convention). If you didn't mean that, what did you mean exactly?

Sorry camber, I don't think you can convince me that a bunch of guys waving their e peens around and demanding people post their pilot licences is constructive or meritous.

Terrain doesn't move, barring geological activity. The runway at whatever airport doesn't physically move any significant amount.

Barometer readings do change, and change frequently with meteorological conditions.

A child can understand this.

I agree, though I feel the word is "meritorious".

Relative to sea level, yes and no. There are tides, and they probably move the land as well as the sea.

Beside which the Earth is in orbit around the sun, and moves at many miles per second in that respect.

Yes.

All of it? I'm not sure anyone fully understands the tides yet.