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 20th Apr 2019, 14:03
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Earth
Posts: 26
Russian METAR cloud heights

Are cloud heights on Russian METARs in feet or metres?

For instance:

UOOO 201800Z 20006MPS 2500 DRSN HZ SCT029 M27/M30 Q1005 R19/39//35 NOSIG RMK QFE737/0983

Is that scattered at 2900 ft or something else?

Thanks!
delarue is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2019, 14:54
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by delarue View Post
Are cloud heights on Russian METARs in feet or metres?

For instance:

UOOO 201800Z 20006MPS 2500 DRSN HZ SCT029 M27/M30 Q1005 R19/39//35 NOSIG RMK QFE737/0983

Is that scattered at 2900 ft or something else?

Thanks!
It's ICAO standard i.e. 2,900 feet.

However, the ATIS normally quote the height in metres.
FZRA is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2019, 15:16
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,350
Well that's not confusing at all...
Check Airman is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2019, 03:37
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 464
China has cloud base in metres on the ATIS as well.
krismiler is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2019, 04:08
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Earth
Posts: 54
What is more confusing is the meters per second for wind...
a334 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2019, 04:32
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 388
not to mention QFE!
Smythe is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2019, 06:50
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 464
Double the metres per second and you get knots, simple.
krismiler is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2019, 08:54
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ontario
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by krismiler View Post
Double the metres per second and you get knots, simple.
Absolutely!
A320ECAM is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2019, 15:13
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Earth
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by krismiler View Post
Double the metres per second and you get knots, simple.
Sure, but I still don't see the point of metres per second to begin with
a334 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2019, 15:36
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 854
Some military ATS in Europe also give wind in meters per second.
Banana Joe is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2019, 15:39
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 346
Originally Posted by a334 View Post
Sure, but I still don't see the point of metres per second to begin with
metric system?
hans brinker is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2019, 16:46
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Earth
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by Banana Joe View Post
Some military ATS in Europe also give wind in meters per second.
Defeatists!
delarue is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2019, 16:47
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Earth
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by FZRA View Post
It's ICAO standard i.e. 2,900 feet.

However, the ATIS normally quote the height in metres.
Many thanks!
delarue is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2019, 19:51
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 388
https://www.favt.ru/novosti-novosti/?id=3288
Smythe is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 00:13
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 464
The metric system is much simpler and less likely to lead to confusion, we would be better off adopting it in its entirety than continuing with the present mishmash.

A Russian pilot orders his fuel in kilograms, the tank quantities are given in kgs, he uses kgs on the load sheet and engine fuel flow indicates kg/hr. SIMPLE

A western pilot could easily, depending on the type of aircraft and country he was in, order his fuel in litres, have tanks in USgal, use kgs on the loadsheet and have fuel flow indicated in pounds per hour. GLIMI GLIDER
krismiler is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 00:21
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 139
Originally Posted by krismiler View Post
The metric system is much simpler and less likely to lead to confusion, we would be better off adopting it in its entirety than continuing with the present mishmash.

A Russian pilot orders his fuel in kilograms, the tank quantities are given in kgs, he uses kgs on the load sheet and engine fuel flow indicates kg/hr. SIMPLE

A western pilot could easily, depending on the type of aircraft and country he was in, order his fuel in litres, have tanks in USgal, use kgs on the loadsheet and have fuel flow indicated in pounds per hour. GLIMI GLIDER
I agree with everything you a say except the last part. In Canada we are very proud of the GIMLI GLIDER.

In a fourth form physics class, the master got us to work out the energy used to push a certain weight up a slope of a certain incline. It took 30 minutes out of a forty-minute period in the avoirdupois system. Then he said "Now do it in metric". "Oh sir!" we all said as one, looking at the minute hand with 9 minutes left. We did it easily. Q.E.D
ve3id is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 00:40
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Earth
Posts: 54
I'm from Canada too but born in Europe, so I've been mixed between metric and imperial. I'm used to both at this point, but the russian meters per second still makes no sense to me, considering that the entire world uses knots for wind and distance, which is neither metric nor imperial anyways... I see no reason for the meters per second, km/h would make way more sense if you want to use metric units, but that's just my 2 cents
a334 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 02:01
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 346
Anytime someone prefers the imperial system I ask them to convert pounds per cubic yard to ounces per cubic inch.

"but feet/hands/stone/yard/fahrenheit/pound/inch/rod/furlong/league/chain/link/perch/pint/quart/gallon is better" is based on familiarity, not superiority. That said, wind in m/s makes no sense if the aircraft speed is in km/hr.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 02:23
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 388
but the russian meters per second still makes no sense to me
unfortunately, in the MET world, and AWOS systems, meters per second as the worldwide standard.
AWOS systems at airports typically feed the local weather models in that standard.
Output for the airport is converted to the local standard, and runway specific.
METAR, TAF, winds aloft, surface analysis charts, etc use true north as the reference.
ATIS/AWOS/ASOS broadcasts, or any information a controller gives you over the radio, is magnetic.
Smythe is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 03:12
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Earth
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
Anytime someone prefers the imperial system I ask them to convert pounds per cubic yard to ounces per cubic inch.

"but feet/hands/stone/yard/fahrenheit/pound/inch/rod/furlong/league/chain/link/perch/pint/quart/gallon is better" is based on familiarity, not superiority. That said, wind in m/s makes no sense if the aircraft speed is in km/hr.
I by no means prefer the imperial system. The only thing that I prefer from an aviation view point is feet for altitude, because it's what I was taught on, and still fly on so it's as you said, just a familiarity aspect. Recently I flew a piper which had both MPH and knots (with MPH being the bigger numbers on the outside) on the airspeed indicator and it was the most annoying thing since knots is the only thing i'm used to seeing from previous aircraft I have flown. Whenever it comes down to the basics, I understand and use metric on a daily bases. It's funny though that things such as basic measurements for a room are still using imperial units here in Canada, even though we are on the metric system, which makes no sense to me

I suppose the wind aspect is a little strange because as I have said, knots is neither imperial nor metric, so in that regard it should be knots worldwide no matter what, but I suppose since meters per second is the easiest in terms of conversion to knots, you could argue for it
a334 is offline  

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.