Russian METAR cloud heights

[delarue]

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!

[FZRA]

Originally Posted by delarue

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.

[Check Airman]

Well that's not confusing at all...

[krismiler]

China has cloud base in metres on the ATIS as well.

[a334]

What is more confusing is the meters per second for wind...

[Smythe]

not to mention QFE!

[krismiler]

Double the metres per second and you get knots, simple.

[A320ECAM]

Originally Posted by krismiler

Double the metres per second and you get knots, simple.

Absolutely!

[a334]

Originally Posted by krismiler

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

[Banana Joe]

Some military ATS in Europe also give wind in meters per second.

[hans brinker]

Originally Posted by a334

Sure, but I still don't see the point of metres per second to begin with

metric system?

[delarue]

Originally Posted by Banana Joe

Some military ATS in Europe also give wind in meters per second.

Defeatists!

[delarue]

Originally Posted by FZRA

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

However, the ATIS normally quote the height in metres.

Many thanks!

[Smythe]

https://www.favt.ru/novosti-novosti/?id=3288

[krismiler]

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

[ve3id]

Originally Posted by krismiler

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

[a334]

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

[hans brinker]

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.

[Smythe]

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.

[a334]

Originally Posted by hans brinker

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