I would like to ensure but HOW? ----- Original Message ----- From: "M R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 2:24 PM Subject: [USMA:21711] Re: Flight levels
> 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 >
