Russia, China, Mongolia, North Korea, and the CIS states currently have metric-airspace. All the satellite nations that wanted to lean European switched to feet.
Separations are 1000' or 300 m (in opposite directions) The airliners that fly those routes have glass cockpits. Their biggest complaint is the climb or descent between imperial and metric flight levels; also between Russia and China, there are different metric flight level assignment schemes requiring another climb or descent. I think (but don't know for sure) that there are huge issues in the air traffic control system, which are bigger than the issues in planes. However, if there is going to be a conversion, in should be a ring-like expansion of the existing metric airspace, starting with surrounding Eastern European and Asian countries and gradually expanding. ________________________________ From: John Frewen-Lord <j...@frewston.plus.com> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Mon, July 25, 2011 12:47:55 PM Subject: [USMA:50917] Re: Metrication of air travel For many years, the USA had by far the largest air travel market in the world, and so could call all the shots. That is no longer true. The rest of the world could bring together the following factors, if it so chose, to effect a change in the not too distant future: 1. The air travel market outside the US today easily eclipses that of the US, and is still expanding, whereas the USA is a relatively mature market, with little further expansion possible (and maybe even is contracting). 2. The old USSR (and maybe the CIS today?) used metres for altitude and km for horizontal separation and speeds, which must have given pilots of western aircraft something to think about when flying into Moscow, so there is some experience there in using metric units in the aviation business. 3. As Michael Payne said, modern aircraft (and outside of the US that is most of the world's aircraft, made in the last 30 years) have electronic displays which are (or easily could be) switched to metric units. 4. When I lived in Canada, I once on a transcontinental flight sat next to an air traffic controller, who said there were plans, of which Canada was a lead nation, to convert to metric units. That was 25 years ago. But it shows there was a will even back then. So why don't the metric nations of the world unite and force the change? Technically it is quite easy. The USA would find it most difficult, as many US airlines have quite elderly fleets - but that is changing, Delta have announced a fleet renewal program, and American have just ordered 350 aircraft (100 737s and 250 A320s). There is also the military to think about - I remember reading around 20 years ago after the break-up of the USSR that many Soviet military aircraft in the satellite nations were being co-opted into NATO fleets - and having to have all their instrumentation converted to imperial units, which was retrograde step if ever there was one. As the military around the world uses metric units everywhere else, surely there would be an incentive here. Perhaps there is not the will today to change around the world, even in otherwise totally metric countries? There would be a cost of course, but surely there would be a benefit. Michael Payne mentioned the possibility of reduced altitude separations. They used to be 2000 feet, and at one time I thought it would be good to be able to reduce them to 500 m. But I believe they have recently been reduced to 1000 feet, so that argument unfortunately falls away. But personnel in metric countries would surely not have to learn an alien measuring system, so there would be a benefit there. It is a big thing to change, but there is surely today enough power and influence outside of the USA to make the change happen. John F-L ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael GLASS" <m.gl...@optusnet.com.au> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 1:43 PM Subject: [USMA:50915] Metrication of air travel > Dear USMA, > > I wrote to our civil aviation safety authority as follows: > > I note that the safety rules are drawn up in feet while all Australian maps > are now in metres. This is obviously a safety issue because the training > manual for hot air ballooning warns, "Watch out – aviation charts and > your altimeter are calibrated in feet, but topographical maps usually show > contours and spot heights in metres!" > > "ABF Pilot Training Manual, Part 8, Navigation, Version 1 - May 2006" > Could CASA push for the metrication of all the measures? I am sure that it > would be safer for all if all the measures were metric. > > Yours sincerely, > > Michael Glass > > This is their reply: > > Dear Mr Glass > > On behalf of the Director of Aviation Safety, thank you for your email. > > The common international standard for altitude measurement in aviation is > feet and this is why Australian aeronautical charts use feet as the > measurement of altitude. Where topographical maps are used in aviation > activities that you must be careful to remember they are showing altitude in > metres and to take care when converting data. There is no current plan to > change the aviation measurement of altitude from feet to metres and it is > likely Australia would only move in this direction if there was an > international change. > > Regards > > Peter Gibson > Manager Corporate Communications > Civil Aviation Safety Authority > 0419 296 446 > > Over to you, USMA. How about pushing for a change with your civil aviation > authorities? > > Best wishes, > > Michael Glass > >
