Roost Air Lounge => Aviation related topics => Topic started by: SteepTurn on June 01, 2006, 07:39:41 AM
Title: Meters or feet???
Post by: SteepTurn on June 01, 2006, 07:39:41 AM
Hello red barons!
Just a question I found nobody to answer until now...
Why the hell gliders (ok, not the gliders, but their pilots) are calculating all in meters (at least here in good old Europe) and all the rest travelling around the skys in feet?? ??? ??? ??? Or is there anybody else who use the metric system?? P.S. Gliders seems quite boring to me, no engine which can break |:)\
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Roland on June 01, 2006, 09:34:21 AM
P.S. Gliders seems quite boring to me, no engine which can break |:)\
But if the engine breaks, what have you got? A glider, no?
I don’t see what’s boring on a glider. There is much thinking involved. Again, I can’t see the boredom in here … :-\
OK,ok! Probably "boring" is not the correct word, but I allway say: things without engine are not interesting... except there are tits ;) Sorry, I had to write this now ;D ;D
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: FlyingBlind on June 01, 2006, 10:06:16 PM
I prefer the meters, feet....i think americans use them.Everythin' in europe is in meters or kilometers.In America - they use Feet and Miles...do not know why...and it is sorta disturbing :P
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: chuckar101 on June 02, 2006, 02:56:29 PM
Its cause were stubborn and want to be different. Plus we like the smaller numbers it makes it easier to do the math.
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Frank N. O. on June 02, 2006, 03:28:11 PM
Well the aviation std. is knots and feet so....
But smaller numbers? it takes 3 feet to make one meter. However I see the point in being able to say that your plane can climb to 6000 (ft) instead of saying 1830 (meters). But a top speed of 200 sounds better than 120 (I can't remember the exact convesion but I think it's around 1.840 meters per nautical mile which at least here is what knots are, per hour).
It does also help that nothing from car-driving (which is what I've only done so far) can be compared to flying so switching from kph to kts and such doesn't conflict with any skills or habits I have already and important values are written in the same unit in the checklist and such so no problem.
Frank
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Stef on June 02, 2006, 09:06:25 PM
Haha, now there's a funny topic that could get the Europeans and Americans fighting with each other! ;D Just ask the mechanics among us... There are some aircraft with an American hull but French engine etc... So you need two compete sets of tools if you work on them! (I remember my brother complaining about that).
Well, it's obvious that the metric system is logically superior, however that's not always sufficient to convince people. Some habits are hard to break with. If it were otherwise we would all be speaking Esperanto by now, wouldn't we? :D
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: fireflyr on June 03, 2006, 04:11:25 AM
I prefer the meters, feet....i think americans use them.Everythin' in europe is in meters or kilometers.In America - they use Feet and Miles...do not know why...and it is sorta disturbing :P
I prefer the feet, meters....I think europeans use them, Everything in America is in feet or miles. In Europe-they use meters and kilometers... do not know why...and it is sorta disturbing :P
You see, my little friend, the argument goes both ways!!!!!!!!!!!! 8)
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Stef on June 03, 2006, 05:01:18 PM
I prefer the meters, feet....i think americans use them.Everythin' in europe is in meters or kilometers.In America - they use Feet and Miles...do not know why...and it is sorta disturbing :P
I prefer the feet, meters....I think europeans use them, Everything in America is in feet or miles. In Europe-they use meters and kilometers... do not know why...and it is sorta disturbing :P
Europeans and (officially) every other nation on this planet (except Liberia, Myanmar and... the USA!) :P 8) ;D
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Roland on June 04, 2006, 08:45:21 PM
The British do not use, at all, any metric system. They simply refuse.
However, I do not think that there is need for a “fight”, quarrel or argument about metric or imperial. I had to use both in my career and could not tell which is better. My very first aircraft I got my hands on was a Pilatus PC 6 (Yes, I’ve been a fixed wing mate) which is made in Switzerland. The engine? P&W PT6-A27 = imperial. So I started with both toolsets right away. Later on I had to mix my tools again and again. Finally conclusion: so what?
Prefer? What and for what? If somebody wants to nail me down I would prefer the imperial system. It is far easier to handle.
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: SteepTurn on June 04, 2006, 09:40:50 PM
Hold on guys!!!!
My intention was not to start a "fight" about meters or imperial. It was only a dumb question if somebody knows why glider pilots in Europe (at least in SWI and GER) use the metric system, while I for my PPL-SEP was trained in the imperial system. I don't mind to use imperial, now I'm used to it....
good nite to all!
Read you soon!!
...taxi to parking BRAVO (bed)
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on June 05, 2006, 04:17:16 AM
I think that as long as the French are using the metric system, the US will use the imperial.
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Frank N. O. on June 05, 2006, 10:53:25 AM
My intention was not to start a "fight" about meters or imperial. It was only a dumb question if somebody knows why glider pilots in Europe (at least in SWI and GER) use the metric system, while I for my PPL-SEP was trained in the imperial system. I don't mind to use imperial, now I'm used to it....
good nite to all!
Read you soon!!
...taxi to parking BRAVO (bed)
Where do you read a fight? I see the same friendly talks and jokes as usual here.
Frank
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: SteepTurn on June 05, 2006, 11:21:00 AM
Quote
Where do you read a fight? I see the same friendly talks and jokes as usual here.
Frank
Quote
Roland wrote something about a "fight" coming up.... ;)
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: fireflyr on June 06, 2006, 12:36:10 AM
The British do not use, at all, any metric system. They simply refuse.
However, I do not think that there is need for a “fight”, quarrel or argument about metric or imperial. I had to use both in my career and could not tell which is better. My very first aircraft I got my hands on was a Pilatus PC 6 (Yes, I’ve been a fixed wing mate) which is made in Switzerland. The engine? P&W PT6-A27 = imperial. So I started with both toolsets right away. Later on I had to mix my tools again and again. Finally conclusion: so what?
Prefer? What and for what? If somebody wants to nail me down I would prefer the imperial system. It is far easier to handle.
Reminds me, I rode British motorcycles for years and still have my whitworth wrenches--------
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: spacer on June 06, 2006, 02:51:04 AM
Heh. Working on Diamond DA-20 and 40 airplanes, I realized I needed both standard and metric tools. Once I got used to it, it wasn't bad. Every nut 'n bolt had a part number, and we had to replace 'em by part number rather than size/thread count/pitch(yada yada yada). Surreal in a way, but it worked. It helps to have a well stocked parts department with parts database access (though a lot of our stuff still required flipping through parts catalogs). The difference with my homebuilt is that I can be flexible with the hardware, so long as I use the proper grade stuff, and don't go too far off the plans.
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Stef on June 22, 2006, 09:48:16 AM
Sorry for the late reply, but I wanted to add something here...
The British do not use, at all, any metric system. They simply refuse.
Well, the British law defines each Imperial unit entirely in terms of the metric equivalent. That's what I meant. Of course the imerial units are still in use, but I wouldn't be so sure that the metric system won't slowly replace the old one...
Prefer? What and for what? If somebody wants to nail me down I would prefer the imperial system. It is far easier to handle.
Okay, I admit that it might come down to a personal preference. But please explain to me what is easier about the imperial system? You might be more aquainted to it, or something, but easier? What confuses me most about it is that they not only use different units, but more than one unit for every dimension. E.g. in the metric system you have only meter to measure length. Every other unit is derived by the power of ten (kilometer, milimeter...). In the imperial system, you have inches, feet, yards, miles, not even counting the funnier things such as links, poles, chains, furlongs and leagues... Same goes for weight: gram vs. mites, grains, drachms, ounces, pounds, stones, quarters, hundretweights, tons.
Also you can easily turn kilograms to grams or metric tons by just shifting the comma. In the imerial system you need a calculator or to be an ace at mental arithmetic.
[END PROPAGANDA SPEECH FOR METRIC SYSTEM] ;D
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Mike on June 22, 2006, 04:32:42 PM
The only problem I have is that sometimes I don't know where imperial ends on an aircraft and where metric starts. On the french helicopters almost everything is metric, but then there are some Canadian or US STC's on there and here we are back in imperial again. The metric system makes more sense (although I have gotten so used to imperial that I can guess the wrench sizes better in inches than mm).
My argument is: if the 9mm wrench is to small, what's the next bigger one? if the 9/32 wrench is too big, which one is the next smaller one? and:
how many kilometers is 746352 meters? pretty easy, huh?
The only problem I have is that sometimes I don't know where imperial ends on an aircraft and where metric starts. On the french helicopters almost everything is metric, but then there are some Canadian or US STC's on there and here we are back in imperial again. The metric system makes more sense (although I have gotten so used to imperial that I can guess the wrench sizes better in inches than mm).
My argument is: if the 9mm wrench is to small, what's the next bigger one? if the 9/32 wrench is too big, which one is the next smaller one? and:
how many kilometers is 746352 meters? pretty easy, huh?
I think that as long as the French are using the metric system, the US will use the imperial.
HA HA HA!!! you go Gulf!! |:)\ |:)\ sooo true!!
Til it doesn't change kg to lbs, I will feel confortable either with one or with other. I would get mad, anyhow, seeing the scale giving a measure that's more or less the double................. :) The point about France is interesting and true....
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Frank N. O. on June 22, 2006, 08:33:57 PM
Well that the funny thing, in Denmark it takes exactly 2 pounds (pund) to make a kg, but in USA and UK it takes 2.205 lbs. An imperial mile is around 1.60934 km, or 1 km, 609 m and 34 cm, but a swedish mile is 10 km.
Happy's comments makes me, again, remember a funny joke that a comic said happend to him while flying on a small prop-plane in USA, the pilot asked how heavy each person was, we all here know why, but the lady in front of the comic said 120 (lbs) and he thought: "yeah, your butt is 120! Now I gotta say I'm like 350 over here! Lying to your date is ok but don't lie to the pilot! I was just thinking we'd be crashing and the pilot turn around and yell, who lied about the weight? Miss 120 over here." LOL I don't understand what women have problems with the weight-number since even if I was going straight for looks alone, and not the mind, then I'd look more on proportions in relation to her build and height and her physical condition (i.e. not weak and bony but not overly fat so she'd have a bad health either) than what weight-number she could say. A woman weighing 70kg can easily be a babe if she's tall and somewhat athletically trained, and a 50kg lady can easily be too overweight if she's short so that single number is a load of bull, totally oversimplified to the level it's useless and damageing.
I must say though that it'd be more cool to say you're 6ft tall than 1 meter and 83, but that's probably from the many cool american action movies and heroes like John Wayne etc. (for the record I'm just 1.75 but my leg-length is probably closer to one that's 183cm).
Is there at all any place where altitude is called out in m/km instead of ft? And any place one uses kph/mph instead of kts? And what kind of knot is aviation using? To my knowledge there are some differences there too, how many meters is a sea-mile (which is what a knot is defined by right? sea-miles per hour).
Nice topic for discussion btw, very interesting Frank
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on June 25, 2006, 04:31:52 PM
Our 1974 C-172 has mph on the aispeed indicator. Many older models use mph instead of kts.
A nautical mile is 6080 ft, or 1 degree of latitude, so knots are based on that scale. I'm not sure what the conversion between nautical miles and meters is, though. Aviation uses nm now because of the ease of calculating them into degrees (I think).
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Frank N. O. on June 25, 2006, 04:35:30 PM
That converts to exactly 1853.184 meters and that's right what I know a sea-mile as used in Denmark is so that's universal it seems :) Thanks for the information :)
Frank
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Stef on June 29, 2006, 03:18:00 PM
Happy's comments makes me, again, remember a funny joke that a comic said happend to him while flying on a small prop-plane in USA, the pilot asked how heavy each person was, we all here know why, but the lady in front of the comic said 120 (lbs) and he thought: "yeah, your butt is 120! Now I gotta say I'm like 350 over here! Lying to your date is ok but don't lie to the pilot! I was just thinking we'd be crashing and the pilot turn around and yell, who lied about the weight? Miss 120 over here."
Haha! We could turn this into a comic strip maybe! ;D That reminds me of an episode Mike once told me: He had two couples for a helicopter flight and the guys told him their weight. Their own and the ones of their wives. But because Mike explained that this was to calculate the fuel, shortly after that the wives took him aside and said: "To be honest, I am rather 150 than 135, but don't tell my husband!!" :D Hahaha...
LOL I don't understand what women have problems with the weight-number since even if I was going straight for looks alone, and not the mind, then I'd look more on proportions in relation to her build and height and her physical condition (i.e. not weak and bony but not overly fat so she'd have a bad health either) than what weight-number she could say. A woman weighing 70kg can easily be a babe if she's tall and somewhat athletically trained, and a 50kg lady can easily be too overweight if she's short so that single number is a load of bull, totally oversimplified to the level it's useless and damageing.
I am so with you there Frank!! Normal weight and slightly athletic is the best shape! For women AND men. Unfortunately there's many women who lose weight by just eating less. If you don't do sports, then you will probably lose more muscle than fat... Oh well, we drift off to a completely different topic now though...
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: happylanding on June 29, 2006, 05:10:46 PM
Haha! We could turn this into a comic strip maybe! ;D That reminds me of an episode Mike once told me: He had two couples for a helicopter flight and the guys told him their weight. Their own and the ones of their wives. But because Mike explained that this was to calculate the fuel, shortly after that the wives took him aside and said: "To be honest, I am rather 150 than 135, but don't tell my husband!!" :D Hahaha...
I am so with you there Frank!! Normal weight and slightly athletic is the best shape! For women AND men. Unfortunately there's many women who lose weight by just eating less. If you don't do sports, then you will probably lose more muscle than fat... Oh well, we drift off to a completely different topic now though...
HAHAHA that's strange, definitely :) :) :) a forum mainly run by men where you can read about planes, chicks, guns, PCgames and now....gosh....diets!! :) :) :) BTW, I agree with you boys. athletic shape is the best, even if that unfortunatelz doesn't mean that there is no need to fight with scales, from time to time... concerning my vacation (and do not get jealous!) weather was gorgeous today, sunny and I was on the beach like a lizard, going for wonderful swims from time to time, walking and listening to some music and getting some tan. but, due to the wind, the water was not too much clean and I just hit, like Titanic, the rocks just below the surface...ops, got a lot cuts on the legs! >:( IFR swimming is not the best, I will get a mask! ;D see ya my dear!
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: spacer on July 01, 2006, 06:08:15 PM
My sister is in the 'don't eat, thin is in' camp.
She'd fit right in the strip with her chicken/twig legs. Just don't tell her I said that. My wife is a cyclist (I got her hooked) and she has great legs. oh-yeahhhhh.
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: fireflyr on July 03, 2006, 08:36:38 PM
She'd fit right in the strip with her chicken/twig legs. Just don't tell her I said that. My wife is a cyclist (I got her hooked) and she has great legs. oh-yeahhhhh.
"GREAT' legs and cycling don't always go hand in hand----I cycle too but when I met Mike last year (I was wearing shorts), he asked me if "those" were my legs or was I riding a chicken? ;D ;D
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Franz on May 17, 2007, 10:02:28 PM
*dig* *revive*
I hope you do not mind that post in this topic after nearly a year. But maybe someone is still interessed in an answer to the question why glider pilots use the metric system while most other people in aviaton use imperial units.
I think the reason for that is simply that gliders are a German invention and became quite popular in Germany, also because powered flight was banned in Germany after WW I & II. Additionally, the metric system was introduced in Germany in 1870. On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, where quite some of the developments of powererd flight took place, the imperial units were used. So the, mostly German, glider pilots stayed with the metric system they were used to (although until very recently maps gave heights only in ft, so that glider pilots had to use both). And the US / British had absolutly no reason to use meteres in their powered aircraft, so things became the way they are now. But that does not necessarily mean they are using kts, the Piper SuperCub our Club owned until 2 years ago had an airspeed indicator showing mph and that wasn't the reason we replaced it with a DV 20 Katana.
I personally use both, even as a glider pilot. It is easier to measure distances in Nautical miles when working with a map, because of that mile-degree thingy. Also, I'll get wind speeds in kts, as soon as I'm in controlled airspace I'll get clearances in ft and so on. And besides it sounds much cooler (at least in Europe, except maybe UK) talking about knots, feet and miles when pedestrians are listening ;D 8) (and btw, its cheaper than huge watches)
I hope my writing is not too confused, CU and good Night Franz
P.S. If you think I should not have posted in such an old topic, please feel free to (re)move this post.
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Mic on July 02, 2007, 05:20:29 PM
Just my few cents ...
Not only European (except UK) glider pilots use the metric system ... ex CCCP's countries use it for powered and gliders...
Second point is that the imperial system is ... temporarely allowed in aviation until metric system replace it !!!
I mean in the ICAO annex 5, (units to be used in aviation), it's clearly precise that the metric system MUST be used in aviation. due to the fact a lot of aircrafts are equipped in imperial system, and most of the pilots have been trained in the imperial system (quick calculation in flight), the imperial system may be still in use, restricted to few units (feet, feet/min, Kts and Nm only !!!) until the metric system will take in force. There is also an article recising that the imperail system will no longer be in use 10 years after the date ... (they just forgot to write the date !!)
Of course, due to the huge number of aircraft/pilots/ATC in operation, it's quite impossible to stop the imperial system. But in maintenance, more and more effort are done by manufacturers : the two values (metric and imperial) are often written in the maintenance manuals.
And each time an ATC ask me with an unfair message he wants to hear me speaking in imperial, I answer I'm conform to the ICAO annex 5 (which is in force in France) and he's not. In addition it's easer for him to convert it (seated in his tower). Of course, usually, the ATC is fair and we speak in imperial as often as possible ... but with a very low precision.
Finally as a mechanic, I had a lot of trouble in the begining to find which wrench is bigger than a 9/16 !!
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: G-man on July 02, 2007, 09:45:46 PM
in the ICAO annex 5, (units to be used in aviation), it's clearly precise that the metric system MUST be used in aviation.
This document was written in an attempt to standardise aviation. It merely "suggests" a standard---individual countries are NOT bound to use the standard laid out. There is the excemption pages to ICAO, which specifies which units each country uses.
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Mic on July 04, 2007, 03:33:45 PM
Well, you're right G-man !
To be precise, ICAO produces two levels of standardization materials in the 18 annex of the Chicago Conference : Standard and Recommanded Practices (SARPS). The Standards are norms ICAO would like to see applied in each affiliated country while Recommanded Practices are only suggestions. If a country doesn't apply a Recommanded Practices, there is no problem for the ICAO but when a Standard is not applied, the country is obliged to declare it to the ICAO in order to precise it in the excemption pages.
the difference between Stds and Recommanded pratices is in the mode use for the verbs : ...... a country shall produce .... means Standards ...... a country should produce .... means Recommanded Practices.
The metric system is a standard practices
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: G-man on July 04, 2007, 04:43:37 PM
If only my wife would agree with that statement.............. ::whistle::
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on July 22, 2007, 02:05:47 PM
I mis-typed something last year, and I'm surprised nobody caught it. 1 nm is 1 minute of latitude.
I guess the only concern I have in this whole discussion is what happens when a glider using meters and an airplane using feet are in the same area?
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Mic on July 24, 2007, 07:06:55 AM
Well, THEORETICALLY speaking, gliders are only flying under VFR rules, in class D to G areas. In class D, the transponder is mandatory and the traffic information and separation is managed by ATC. In all thoses class (D to G) airspaces, the see and avoid rule is in force. A glider pilot allways fly with the "nose outside". He never needs to look at his instruments. Exepted some seconds each 10 minutes on the GPS. As the glider is unable to keep strictly his altitude, when he's transmitting his position, he'll give an average altitude or a range such as "flying from 3000ft to 3300ft".
The two only problems are : - The IFR flight descending into non controlled area to save time and not using the see and avoid rule - The military jets who flies at very high speed and below 1500ft, unable to see and avoid. We have a circular in France advising all civilian pilots that they must avoid to fly from ground to 1500ft as the military aircrafts are able to practice tactical flight training at any time and any location.
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: G-man on July 25, 2007, 01:36:25 AM
In class D, the transponder is mandatory and the traffic information and separation is managed by ATC.
Not in Class D airspace in the US. No transponder required for class D.
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Mic on July 25, 2007, 06:24:09 PM
Arf ... lucky guys !!
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: undatc on July 25, 2007, 10:36:55 PM
You actually don't need a transponder or radio even.
Just need prior coordination with the controlling ATC facility in B or C. Thou I'm sure if your reason to transverse a B or C is so you can just doodle around with your glider, im pretty sure they are going to deny you. But say you needed to cross it to land at a glider facility for repairs, im sure ATC would work with you.
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Mic on July 26, 2007, 06:39:19 AM
Well, in France the transponder and the radio contact are mandatory in a D airspace. All a lot of our previously E airspaces are re-classed now in D to be sure less VFR will use them...
As you now, VFR are quite like terrorists in France ... Our Authority's dream is a clear sky with only professionnal users, flying on regular airways with a lot of electronic devices to avoid any collision (against the ground, other aircraft, birds, clouds, UFO, ...)
Title: Re: Meters or feet???
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on July 26, 2007, 06:22:52 PM
That's kind of sad. It's apparently what the FAA and the airlines want here, too. APOA is fighting hard to prevent that from happening.
