The only requests we get for inches of mercury are over the outside telepone line from members of the public who've just been given barometers for their birthdays...always a pain in the **** to lookup the conversion...perhaps our friendly milkybars => hectypastels conversion chappy could put his awesome skills back to work!!!

Yup, here in the USofA we still use inches. for us we just say "Altimeter 2992" or along those lines... Gets folks all confused here when someone on an international flight asks for QNH <G>...

regards

Heard a story (apocryphal) a few years ago about a US aircraft in London.

London: "**** Cleared to descend to 3000 feet, QNH 1015"

****: "Roger, uh cleared descend 3000 feet, QNH 1015. Ahh, could you give me that in inches?

London: (Quick as a flash) "Certainly, **** descend to 36,000 inches, QNH 1015"

Pissed meself for days after hearing that.
:D


Edited to say "Someone tell me it's true!"

[ 17 July 2001: Message edited by: Bally Heck ]

Same thread as Bally,
An American female pilot of a light a/c asked for the QNH. When given 1001Mb she asked for it in inches....an anonimus voice then said "Give it to her slowly, man"
Probably an urban myth.....
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy :D

And Karrank has just blown another urban legend, that Ozmates can't count higher than 100 because they don't have more than 100 sheep in a flock..... :)

Baaaaaa.......

First off ...ICAO says it's hectopascal...millibars have been out since General Motors was still Corporal Motors ....
I have had 2/3 cases where , when the QNH, is < 1000, and you pass it too American crews they set it as inches ...mostly because our colleages in the US pass (Scott will bear me out here ) it without the mentioning the two ...ie. 29.93 is passed as 993 and so on ....hence the reson that , ICAO (I think) recommends the QNH is passed as xxx hpa when it is less than 1000 hpa ...a case in point was a Delta flight into Dubai the other night whichset himself 500 ft above /below what he should have been ...mode C check brought the error to light ...fortunately ...
Question: Why is the UK MATS manual always quoted as the "bible" of all ATC issues ? It ONLY applies to the UK ....not all ICAO centres / countries .....surely it should be what does ICAO say ...THEN the local ANR's and then and ONLY then what does Manual ATS say ...in that order ...
No offense to the UK MATS ...wonderful document in it's own right ... :cool:

For the sake of accuracy, I don't know how long ago Corporal Motors disappeared but ICAO only changed from mB to hPa about five years ago.

As to the UK MATS Part 1, I guess it gets quoted a lot because a lot of the contibutors to this site are from the UK. You're right that it should all stem from ICAO, as modified by each country.

But I'll vote for the MATS 1 over Doc 4444 anytime because it gives far more interpretation and guidance.

Rad1
Correct on that one ...ie. More guidance and clarity of the UK MATS manual vs ICAO Docs (in particular 4444) ...no dispute there ...
I also take your point about the amount of UK based ATC's writting on this forum ...BUT ..note big "BUT" ....I just think it is fair to spell out that the UK MATS has jurisdiction only in the UK ...and therefore when it comes to general "universal" questions or topics ...ref shld be made to the ICAO docs, with possible mention made of what the UK procedure is, as additional info and not visa versa ..or even worse ...only from the UK MATS ....
I am also one of the first to say that ICAO don't specify/clarify things enough...if they did ..there should not have been the need for a UK MATS manual ...or rather it would have been a 1/4 of the size it is ..
The other important thing we all need to remember is that this forums is read not only by ATC's who should understand the bee all's and end all's but also by thousand of pilots and the like ...varying from PPL to ATP's ....they see these thread's and don't know what the MATS manual or even DOC4444 is ...they therfore take things as qouted to be universal law ...that's the point I was trying to bring across ...
So please lets think "lateral" when it comes to answering these threads ....
:cool: ;) :)

What about 701 Millibars? :confused:

Rad 1
"MATS 1 better than ICAO" - you jest! Why is the Editor just starting a major re-write?

On the specific subject, I think that "hectopascals" sounds pretty naff, but if ICAO now uses that term, WIH do we, in the UK, yet again, have to be different?

And - more to the point - why can't the US and various other States come into line and all use hPa for pressure and feet for vertical measurement? You would think that world-wide standardisation of such criteria ought to be pretty basic?

Working on new tower's in Saudi at the moment. QFE here today - 789. QNH - 1015! That would be me fairly high up a mountain (6,770ft) then.......