Pierre et al.
Flight levels certainly should be in rationalized metric such as you
suggest. Probably 100 m might be better. However, flight-level separation
should be determined on the state-of-the-technology at time since accuracy
of altimeters and pressure sensors vary according to the type of aircraft.
Training is essential and conversion must be done at one time while some
aircraft will be in flight. That' problem too must be considered.
Regards, Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: "Baron Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 2:15 PM
Subject: [USMA:38324] Re: Plane and train schedules was Brand New Phone
The FAA was including metric equivalents in its various Practical Test
Standards for pilots. These equivalents are now being withdrawn from newly
issued standards. So it would seem that the FAA is backpedaling on this
matter.
Baron Carter
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of m. f. moon
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:42
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:38323] Re: Plane and train schedules was Brand New Phone
Pierre, probe deeper and you will find a detailed ICAO document on how to
convert metric flight levels to feet and reverse including rounding etc. CIS
states including Russia and China use metric with the rest of the world use
feet.
Marion Moon
------ Original Message ------
Received: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:00:59 AM PDT
From: Pierre Abbat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:38322] Re: Plane and train schedules was Brand New Phone
On Monday 26 March 2007 04:03, STANLEY DOORE wrote:
I was under the impression that the world flies at foot-based flight
levels.
Western Europe and Brazil fly in feet, but Russia and China fly in meters.
To change to all-metric entails a massive cost of changing altimeter
measurement and display equipment and training pilots. All of these are
based on safety. New commercial planes have soft displays so it would be
less costly to change displays on them, however, the need for education
and
training still exists for pilots, many of whom are private small plane
people.
Would it make any sense to take the existing flight levels and round each to
the nearest 100 or 50 meters? Or would it be better to use the 300 m spacing
that Russia and China use? The latter system would result in an H-day
scenario when the levels change. (H day (högre = right) was when Sweden
switched sides of the road.)
Pierre
