I encountered this in the Navy when calculating time and monies for TAD.
What I was told by Navy travel personnel is that US airlines (and the
FAA, I guess) published a book of standard air miles between airports. I
think this took into account take off and approach lanes so it's almost
immaterial on at least short hops which kind of mile is meant. I think
that the basis was supposed to be nautical miles, but via the assigned
lanes, etc.
Jim
Pat Naughtin wrote:
>
> Dear John and All,
>
> Recently I was dreaming about visiting Athens and Paris as I passed a travel
> agents. In this happy conjunction of circumstances, I entered and enquired
> about the prices of fares.
>
> The travel agent suggested that I might be better off buying a 'round world'
> ticket and coming home via Canada and the USA. She then told me that I could
> plan a route up to 29 000 miles for a certain price; up to 31 000 miles for
> an additional amount; and so on.
>
> When I naturally enquired 'What kind of miles are used to calculate the
> fares?' she confidently told me that they were 'air miles'; and no amount of
> questioning could elicit any further information such as the origin or the
> length of an 'air mile' - she simply didn't know.
>
> Does anyone know what 'air miles' are. Are they the same as one or other of
> the land miles, or are they really nautical miles placed higher than sea
> level?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pat Naughtin CAMS
> Geelong, Australia
>
> on 07.12.2000 15.58, kilopascal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 2000-12-06
> >
> > Why don't they just drop the term "mile" and just call the unit
> > "nautical(s)". Nautical miles per hour will still be called knots, but it
> > will be newly defined as nauticals per hour. I'm sure someone can come up
> > with a proper symbol.
> >
> > The reason I think this would be a good idea is for a couple of reasons:
> >
> > 1.) It will dissolve the connection with statute miles.
> >
> > 2.) It will end the common practice of dropping the term "nautical" in
> > peoples minds when nautical mile is used, thus allowing people to assume a
> > nautical mile and statute mile are one and the same.
> >
> > Which reminds me; when an airline pilot is telling the passengers that he
> > has x miles visibility or x miles of something, is he converting nautical
> > miles to statute, or is he really telling us nautical miles and just
> > dropping the term nautical? Does anyone know?
> >
> > I'm sure someone else can also come up with some good reasons to change the
> > nautical mile name to something else.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they
> > are free!
> >
> > Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > Behalf Of James R. Frysinger
> > Sent: Wednesday, 2000-12-06 19:23
> > To: U.S. Metric Association
> > Cc: U.S. Metric Association
> > Subject: [USMA:9582] Re: CIA World Fact Book
> >
> >
> > I used "NM" in my career in the Navy and never saw it any other way,
> > except for the occasional "n. mi." or the spelled out version. There is
> > no international standard symbol for nautical mile that anyone on this
> > list could find.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > Gregory Peterson wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I faxed a suggestion to the CIA World Fact Book {they don't have
> > an email address for some strange reason..... >;) } asking them
> > to change the unit "nm" use for nautical miles to something more
> > appropriate since "nm" means "nanometres".
> >>
> >> Today I received a call from a Mr. Bob Frasier (he told me his
> > family was originally from Nova Scotia and he's related to the all
> > the Frasiers 'down-east'). He manages the World Fact Book and was
> > willing to change "nm" to "NM" since the Navy and Defence
> > Department also use this capitalized abbreviation. Good enough for
> > me. He also invited any other comments that I may have on the site.
> >>
> >> He told me that they receive 460'000 hits per month to their
> > site, mostly from American school children. Since this site is
> > primarily metric I was pleased to hear this statistic.
> >>
> >> greg
> >> Saskatoon SK Canada
> >
> > --
> > Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
> > James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
> > 10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
> >
> >
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
