Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Russian METAR cloud heights

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Russian METAR cloud heights

Old 22nd Apr 2019, 05:18
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 510
Is metres per second or km/hr used for en route winds ? Surely km/hr would make more sense with distances and airspeed given in kilometres, in which case METAR wind could use km/hr as well.

IIRC vertical speed is given in metres per second on the VSI in Russian aircraft instead of feet per minute which may have something to do with the METAR format being the same.
krismiler is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 07:09
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Only occasionally above FL50
Age: 67
Posts: 114
It seems to me that all those who claim to ‘use the metric system’ don’t. If they did airspeed would be in m/s, fuel flow in kg/s, altitude in m etc. At least pressure is now in hectopascals (in the UK at least) so we are slowly getting there!

The messiest aircraft I’ve flown for units was a PA32 with fuel flow in US gal/hr. Fuel loaded in litres. W&B calculated in lbs. Lots of opportunities to get it wrong,
Andrewgr2 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 14:01
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 510
In China, ATC use metric flight levels ie metres, but will instruct you to descend at 2000’ per minute. Japan gives QNH in inches, possibly because it’s more precise than mb.

Then we have statute miles and nautical miles, imperial gallons and US gallons.
krismiler is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 14:44
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: in the shadows
Age: 44
Posts: 35
Despite I very much prefer the metric system in everyday life and as much better than the imperial/nautical system it is in engineering, feet for altitude is easier to count: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 thousand feet etc. vs. 300, 600, 900, 1200, 1500 ... metres. 100 metres vertical spacing would be too close, 500 metres would be a waste of space and still not be as easy to count as thousands of feet.

Wether it's knots or kilometres per hour doesn't make much difference, but they should use the same unit for airspeed and wind speed (and distance of course). Kilometres per hour for airspeed and metres per second for wind speed doesn't make much sense imho. Using the same unit not only helps with speed vs. distance calculations but also roughly comparing a crosswind relative to airspeed without having to think too much.
anotheruser is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 20:58
  #25 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 41
Posts: 2,530
For an untrained, earthbound person wind in m/s is very easy to understand.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 21:57
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 406
For an untrained, earthbound person wind in m/s is very easy to understand.
It is, but everything in aviation is in kts.
Smythe is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 22:51
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,603
As an ex met-man familiar with the mix [and a survivor of the deg F/deg C change] I regret to say that anything other than a total change to metric is ultimately to fart against thunder.
One is, however, stuck with awkward 360 degrees, 60 minutes, 24 hours. 7 day weeks and 12 month years. These, I suspect, are beyond redemption.
langleybaston is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2019, 01:08
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 510
You forgot years being AD/BC based on the birth of Christ which is often referred to as common era while some countries use the Islamic Hijri calendar.
krismiler is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2019, 09:00
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lat N55
Age: 52
Posts: 70
Having flown the Russian types around the world for many years I never had a issue with units conversion and qnh/qfe utilization in spite of equipment and rule difference. As my colleagues as well
Anvaldra is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2019, 12:37
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,377
Originally Posted by langleybaston View Post
As an ex met-man familiar with the mix [and a survivor of the deg F/deg C change] I regret to say that anything other than a total change to metric is ultimately to fart against thunder.
One is, however, stuck with awkward 360 degrees, 60 minutes, 24 hours. 7 day weeks and 12 month years. These, I suspect, are beyond redemption.
Easier than having your heading indicator marked in radians. Imagine trying to maintain a heading of exactly pi
Check Airman is online now  
Old 23rd Apr 2019, 13:39
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Russia
Posts: 19
In this case it is 2900'

but if you have RMK QBB110 it means cloud base is 110 meters
Clown330 is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2019, 13:45
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 510
I never had a issue with units conversion and qnh/qfe utilization in spite of equipment and rule difference.
Try operating into a Chinese airport a few hundred feet AMSL which uses QFE when you have an altimeter reading in feet and your company uses QNH. Basically you set QNH on the altimeter and have a conversion chart which gives you the number of feet to set on the FCU in response to the controller's instruction given in metres referenced to QFE. This chart is unique to the airport and obviously differs from the standard feet/metre conversion chart.
krismiler is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2019, 13:53
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lat N55
Age: 52
Posts: 70
I agree, it's inconveniently but possible
Anvaldra is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.