How can they complain about 100ft, when the resolution of an encoding altimeter to transponder interface is 100ft?
I don’t think that was in the forefront of their mind when a 737 with a couple of hundred people was coming the other way 1000 (or maybe 900) feet above. Particularly if it showed you still climbing.
Yes, but having one plane 200ft high and the other 200ft low, thus with 600ft between them (non RVSM case) is what ATC are paid for… that’s the system they operate and they are stuck with it.
If they are not happy, they can separate them laterally a mile or two – normally that’s trivial in a radar environment.
From what I can see in my sub-FL200 flying, ATC often implement massive separation against light GA, often sending the light GA traffic miles away to one side.
the resolution of an encoding altimeter to transponder interface is 100ft?
Yes this is correct with the old encoders with gray code interface. The new encoders have 25ft resolution.
With my ex-ATC hat on, I think it important to note that ATC start to get worried if the displayed altitude/level is greater than 200ft (displays only register every 100ft so 300ft is often the quoted value). Of course, the discrepancy can encompass pilot error, encoder error, ground system error or any combination of.
Minimum lateral separation based on radar is 5nm reduced to 3nm under certain conditions (radar update rate etc).
Peter, all I said was I have had them notice 100ft. I didn’t have a discussion around the rules or their role.
The table on the link is quite interesting.
http://wings.esisupply.com/safetycessnasingleengine.html
The 210 comes out quite well, for an aircraft used extensively for relatively serious transportation in IMC conditions. The 206 making its living in Alaska and Africa less well.
The 182 however comes through as the solid compromise design with a reasonably good record, and half the expected average of the SEL fleet if I read the table correctly.
My a priori thinking was that the more serious the IMC capability in a SEP, there would be a shift in the fatal accident rate. Might drill down the IMC related accidents for the 182/210 to gauge whether there is a spike.
In any event I would still hold that the current 182 with G1000, airbags, fuel injection, and optional BRS is pretty close to a Volvo for the mission of the original thread.
Still doing my research…. 
Can anyone tell me if a pilot who is 6’ tall (183 cm), plus a headset, will have headroom problems in a pre-GT TB-20?
Thanks, -Jason
Can anyone tell me if a pilot who is 6’ tall (183 cm), plus a headset, will have headroom problems in a pre-GT TB-20?
Depends on your seating position and the headset, I guess. I am 5 ’11’’ and ok with the headroom. Usually, one can recline the seats in TB20 to a more car like seating position. If you prefer to sit with the backrest straight up you might find the headroom tight when also wearing a headset with a larger band.
My suggestion would be to find a TB owner near you and ask him/her to be allowed to sit in the plane and maybe even go for a test flight. TB owners are a pretty helpful bunch ;-)
a pilot who is 6’ tall
I am 5 ’12’’
What’s the difference between 5’12" and 6’ ?
What’s the difference between 5’12" and 6’ ?
About a width of a hair.
Actually it was a typo, should read 5’11’’. Corrected above.
