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!

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

However, the ATIS normally quote the height in metres.

Well that's not confusing at all...:ugh:

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

not to mention QFE!

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

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

metric system?

Defeatists! :E

Many thanks! :ok:

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

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

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.

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.

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

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,

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.

For an untrained, earthbound person wind in m/s is very easy to understand.

It is, but everything in aviation is in kts.

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.

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

Easier than having your heading indicator marked in radians. Imagine trying to maintain a heading of exactly pi :D

In this case it is 2900'

but if you have RMK QBB110 it means cloud base is 110 meters

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.

I agree, it's inconveniently but possible :)