On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 08:04:23 Pat Naughtin wrote: >Dear Marcus, > >I just found this letter on my old computer - unsent! > >It was written on 2002-07-23 at 11.23 > >Cheers, > >Pat Naughtin LCAMS >Geelong, Australia >-- > ? Wow, Pat... That was a long time ago, my friend. But I'm glad you took the time to... "uncover" this. Therefore, please allow me to provide you with my input then. > >Dear Marcus, > >Although I know little about flying, I have interspersed some remarks about >angles. I apologise in advance if I have taken too many liberties with your >thoughts. > No need for apologies, Pat. Sometimes non-users may come up with great ideas that may ultimately help our class (pilots).
On the other hand I plan to give you some feedback about critical aspects that I find pilots in general would want. >on 2002/07/23 04.52, Ma Be at ... >> 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), > >and I'd use 000-999 for the first quadrant (the fundamental unit to use here >would be the quadrant itself, however I would suggest that the unit name be >shortened to quad with q as its SI symbol. > Dear Pat, it's unfortunate that the use of 3 digits for this would be unacceptable to our class. Please remember that we require as little as possible in terms of digits since we may require quick reaction, quick mental calcs and quick/easy readings to do our jobs. Therefore, I'm sorry to say that but the quad with 3 digits would NOT work or be acceptable. >> evidently, 0 for NE, 1 for SE, 2 for SW and 3 for NW. > >evidently, 000 for NE, 1000 for SE, 2000 for SW and 3000 for NW. > Another typical example as to why I find that this proposal would meet with stiff resistance. Why would they resort to 3 digits in this case when just *one* would suffice? ... >> 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). > >Amateur navigational charts would be produced with the new spherical >cartographic system based on quads to milliquad accuracy (0.001 q). > Not enough accuracy, Pat. 1 thousandth of a quad would yield only 10 km accuracy, while 1 hundredth of a gon would provide us with 1 km accuracy. For "macroviews" ok, 10 km could do, but not for approaches, departures, that sort of thing. >> Altitude flight levels would still use the convenient "halves", i.e. 000-199, >> 200-399 gons. > >Altitude flight levels would still use the convenient "halves", i.e. >0000 mq - 1999 mq, 2000 mq - 3999 mq. >... Ditto, i.e. one extra unnecessary digit! I hope that above helps, Pat. Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
