Quote:
Originally Posted by douglcobb
Flying 2000 ft above a hill that is 500ft then your agl would be 1500ft?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 250 or point 65
INcorrect. Flying 2000 ft above a hill is 2000 Above Ground Level.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HercDriver130
bingo!!!! Shame on you tanker bob...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAHPilot5
flying 2,000 feet above a hill = 2,000 feet above a hill.
|
It seems to me the original poster got the concept correct, but the semantics incorrect. Oh how folks will rail when their grammar is corrected, but oh how difficult it can be to communicate when it's not correct.
"Flying 2000 feet ..." How do we fly at an altitude of 2,000'? Why, we set the local QNH in our Kolsman window, and we peg the needle at 2,000. Thusly, we cruise at a height of 2,000' above Mean Sea Level.
"... above a hill ..." Well, hopefully we're always flying above something. Whether it be a hill or a valley, a mountain or a canyon, a butte or a prairie, a river, pond, lake, or ocean, we always want to be above it unless we're taking off or landing. (It could be argued that even then we're above it, but we're certainly not below it.)
"... that is 500 ft ..." We typically measure elevations on the earth in terms of height above mean sea level, so there we are at 2,000' MSL above a hill that is 500' MSL.
"... then your agl would be 1500ft?" That seems like correct math to me. 2,000 - 500 = 1,500, and the difference between the two MSL altitudes is, in this case, the AGL altitude.
So, sounds to me like we get an A for the science part of the problem, and a C- for the English part.
I offer this as a correction:
Flying at an altitude of 2,000 ft MSL over a hill, the elevation of which is 500ft MSL, then your altitude AGL would be 1,500ft.
Don't read what he wrote, read what he meant.


.