Pat,
I concur with Marcus on the 4 digit and the accuracy. As to altitude:-
"> 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.
Altitude separations of 500 m would be too great. It would be a 'waste' of
space. Current separations in the US below 18 000 ft are 500 ft (includes
VFR and IFR). There is only IFR traffic above 18 000 ft. In the lower
flight levels separation is 1 000 ft and in the higher levels 2 000 ft.
The 2 000 ft separation is in the process of being reduced to 1 000 as
aircraft are being equipped with more accurate instruments. Below 18 000
ft IFR and VFR traffic are separated by the hemispherical rules:
000-179 VFR odd thousands +500 IFR odd thousands
180-359 VFR even thousands + 500 IFR even thousands
To maintain the current separations would require a unit of about 150 m.
This is not a good factor for multiples. The odds and evens rule could not
easily be applied as this would only give 100 m separation without provision
for VFR and IFR separation. Which, applying the same concept, would give
only 50 m separation. This is not good as we need 150 m separation. To
keep the same standards we have now we would require 300 m separation with
150 m tacked on for the VFR guys. Now we have reached Marcus' point - there
is no easy rule (odds/even (+500). Pilots need KISS.
On to the 18 000 ft cutover to flight levels. The cutover to flight levels
is not an international standard it is based on the geography (mountainous)
of the country. So, different countries cut over to flight levels at
different altitudes. For example, Australia cuts over at 10 000 ft. Also,
oceanic areas may cutover at 5 000 ft.
cheers
Baron Carter
CFI,CFII,MEI
-----Original Message-----
From: Ma Be [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 13:54
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:27400] Re: Flight levels
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
