Dear Marcus, Baron, and All, Thanks for the insight re 'rules of thumb' that you showed in this posting.
As you know, I believe that devising (or promoting of existing) rules of thumb can be a highly effective way to help people in their transition to metric units. BTW I'm still collecting and adding to my list, but I haven't receive many lately. Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS Geelong, Australia on 2002-07-19 05.11, Ma Be at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 'Course, Baron, I realize that (we actually have some "nice" figures as rules > of thumb when it comes to working with ft/min, like 1000 being the... > "standard" or desired value to use when following procedures, 2000 being the > most extreme one would go - but, quite frankly, commercial pilots don't always > follow these "common sense", "academy" 'rules'... ;-) I've seen them doing > even 3500!!! on many an occasion...). However, please note that my comment > was in view of the discussion for a *new* parameter or format. In that sense > I have to favor the purest possible value, right?... > > And, for rules of thumb, one would work with 5 m/s as a new "standard". > > An interesting situation would be to rework all known flight parameters we > pilots would have to accustom to IF we also changed our watches and arc > angles... But this would be the subject of another discussion, he, he... :-) > > Marcus > > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:01:14 > Carter, Baron wrote: >> marcus, >> >> m/s may be your preference but as you know the aviation community uses >> ft/min. >> >> baron carter >> CFI,CFII,MEI >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ma Be [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Thursday, 18 July, 2002 13:23 >> To: U.S. Metric Association >> Subject: [USMA:21230] Re: Unit for Speed >> >> >> As a professional pilot I must also side with m/s (even over km/h). What >> really matters to us is this rate of descent relationship vis-a-vis our >> present flight level. Since I flatly reject the stupid ft crap in favor of >> meters (evidently) then there should be no argumentation about which format >> this ratio should be presented as: m/s, and ONLY so! (There is >> unfortunately very little relevancy that would be attached to km/h *in this >> particular case*) >> >> Marcus >> >> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:33:50 >> Gene Mechtly wrote: >>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Carl Sorenson wrote: >>>> ... >>>> With digital readouts on dashboards now, it would be easy to include the >>>> option of m/s. I wouldn't mind the option of seeing speed in m/s, but I >>>> wouldn't use it all the time. >>> >>> On those two statement, we are now in complete agreement Carl. >>> >>> Gene. >>> >>> >> >> >> Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably >> Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. >> Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com >> > > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably > Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. > Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com >
