I understand the GPS system is not metric and that the Europeans are working on a new system for civil use that will be metric. Any one aware of this?
Info I found online: Galileo is intended to complement (or is the correct word compete with? - Euric) the existing satellite navigation system, which relies entirely on GPS, the American Global Positioning System. Developed by ESA and the EU on the basis of equal co-funding, Galileo is designed to provide a complete civil system. Scheduled to be operational by 2008, it will offer the citizens of Europe and the world an accurate and secure satellite positioning capability. A broad range of applications will be supported by the system: control of road, rail, air and sea traffic, synchronised data transmission between computers, and many others. Projections point to very significant economic benefits, with a return on investment of 4.6 and creation of over 140 000 jobs. The Galileo system will be built around 30 satellites (27 operational and 3 reserve craft) occupying three circular Earth orbits, inclined at 56 deg to the Equator, at an altitude of 23,616 km. This configuration will provide excellent coverage of the planet. Two Galileo control centres will be established in Europe to control satellite operations and manage the navigation system. Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2003-11-01 16:04 Subject: [USMA:27389] Re: Flight levels 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 -- 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. on 2002/07/23 04.52, Ma Be at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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), 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. > 10-19, for the second, 1000 mq -1999 mq, for the second, > 20-29, for the third, and 2000 mq - 2999 mq, for the third, and > 30-39 for the fourth. 3000 mq - 3999 mq for the fourth. > The first number would indicate the quadrant in question, Agreed > 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. > Easy, to the point. Agreed > 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). > 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. > 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 > > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably > Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. > Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com > > Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS Geelong, Australia
