Europeans have launched 'Galileo' project which is the equivalent of GPS and I hope it will promote SI units. You have to ensure that it allows only km & m and not the feet & yards.
Madan --- Han Maenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The change to universal use of GPS instruments in > planes would at last allow > us to revert to the pre-WWII situation in flight! > And goodbye to the awful > inHg as well!! Booting ifp from the airspace of > metric countries and then > everywhere else will be the final nail in its > coffin. I will be as important > as the French law of 1837 was. And the BWMA can > start thinking about > disbandment. > The 'invasion' in our airspace in 1945 was a massive > set back for the metric > system and could have killed it altogether. And I > have always wondered, how > close have we been to that end between 1945 and > 1960, as there was > significant backsliding in France in that era? > > Han > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, 2002-07-22 20:52 > Subject: [USMA:21340] Re: Flight levels > > > > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 11:06:29 > > Gene Mechtly wrote: > > ... > > >Air-pressure altimeters will soon be replaced > entirely by GPS devices > even in small private aircraft at very low cost. > Vertical separation of > corridors does not have to depend on altitude for > safety. > > > > > Indeed! I'm really looking forward to the day > when these instruments will > be "standard" in all aircraft! And, hopefully, > these will NOT carry the > hideous "option" for the nautical mile crap! :-( > > > > >I would like to see proposals from Baron and > Marcus (and from any other > experienced pilots) on their recommendations for > altitudes and bearings for > a new set of corridors, optimized in rounded m and > km, of course, > with *no* consideration of present corridors in feet > and kilofeet. > > > > > Thanks, Gene, for the opportunity you're giving > us, pilots, to have some > say on the issue. > > > > While I haven't thought about this thoroughly yet, > please find here > enclosed some sparse ideas for a few things. > > > > Bearings: > > > > I'd use 00-09 for the first quadrant (the > fundamental unit to use here > would be the grade/gon), 10-19, for the second, > 20-29, for the third, and > 30-39 for the fourth. The first number would > indicate the quadrant in > question, evidently, 0 for NE, 1 for SE, 2 for SW > and 3 for NW. Easy, to > the point. This bearing would be placed in all > airports runways and would > replace the current 00-35 ones. > > > > Amateur navigational charts would be produced with > the new spherical > cartographic system based on gons to the centigon > accuracy (0.01). > > > > Altitude flight levels would still use the > convenient "halves", i.e. > 000-199, 200-399 gons. > > > > Altitude separations would be in 250 m increments > or 500 m (the former > definitely around busier air traffic areas). After > 5000 m we'd use the > 1013.5 hPa air pressure setting (as opposed to 18000 > ft). Separations would > be every 500 m upwards of that. > > > > There would obviously be more "rules" to define, > but I'd have to go back > to my manuals and all to try to come up with the > equivalent metric ones. > However, one alternative to this tedious job would > simply be for us to adopt > either the already-in-use Chinese or Russian model > and make it official > everywhere else. > > > > >If there is agreement, we might want to promote > them to world aviation > authorities as a new standard, say, for 2005 > implementation. > > >... > > Indeed. But, perhaps the more sensible thing to > do, again I repeat, would > be for us to simply look at the present metric > flight rules options and > request that one of them be adopted by everyone. > > > > Marcus > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com
