PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Tech Log (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/)
-   -   Russian METAR cloud heights (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/620718-russian-metar-cloud-heights.html)

delarue 20th Apr 2019 14:03

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!

FZRA 20th Apr 2019 14:54


Originally Posted by delarue (Post 10451978)
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 20th Apr 2019 15:16

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

krismiler 21st Apr 2019 03:37

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

a334 21st Apr 2019 04:08

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

Smythe 21st Apr 2019 04:32

not to mention QFE!

krismiler 21st Apr 2019 06:50

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

A320ECAM 21st Apr 2019 08:54


Originally Posted by krismiler (Post 10452369)
Double the metres per second and you get knots, simple.

Absolutely!

a334 21st Apr 2019 15:13


Originally Posted by krismiler (Post 10452369)
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 21st Apr 2019 15:36

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

hans brinker 21st Apr 2019 15:39


Originally Posted by a334 (Post 10452601)
Sure, but I still don't see the point of metres per second to begin with

metric system?

delarue 21st Apr 2019 16:46


Originally Posted by Banana Joe (Post 10452618)
Some military ATS in Europe also give wind in meters per second.

Defeatists! :E

delarue 21st Apr 2019 16:47


Originally Posted by FZRA (Post 10451999)
It's ICAO standard i.e. 2,900 feet.

However, the ATIS normally quote the height in metres.

Many thanks! :ok:

Smythe 21st Apr 2019 19:51

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

krismiler 22nd Apr 2019 00:13

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 22nd Apr 2019 00:21


Originally Posted by krismiler (Post 10452842)
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 22nd Apr 2019 00:40

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 22nd Apr 2019 02:01

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 22nd Apr 2019 02:23


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 22nd Apr 2019 03:12


Originally Posted by hans brinker (Post 10452875)
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

krismiler 22nd Apr 2019 05:18

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.

Andrewgr2 22nd Apr 2019 07:09

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,

krismiler 22nd Apr 2019 14:01

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.

anotheruser 22nd Apr 2019 14:44

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.

FlightDetent 22nd Apr 2019 20:58

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

Smythe 22nd Apr 2019 21:57


For an untrained, earthbound person wind in m/s is very easy to understand.
It is, but everything in aviation is in kts.

langleybaston 22nd Apr 2019 22:51

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.

krismiler 23rd Apr 2019 01:08

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.

Anvaldra 23rd Apr 2019 09:00

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

Check Airman 23rd Apr 2019 12:37


Originally Posted by langleybaston (Post 10453508)
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 :D

Clown330 23rd Apr 2019 13:39

In this case it is 2900'

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

krismiler 23rd Apr 2019 13:45


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.

Anvaldra 23rd Apr 2019 13:53

I agree, it's inconveniently but possible :)


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:03.


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