NavList:

   

Reply

DUH!

0� to 179�.

(Looks like I need a calculator.)

gl


Gary LaPook wrote:
> I'm guessing that the "decent"units you are hinting at are meters. But 
> then you run into problems with flight levels. To avoid midair 
> collisions aircraft fly at different flight levels depending on the 
> direction of flight.  Aircraft proceeding generally eastbound, on 
> magnetic courses of 0� to 189�,  fly at odd thousands of feet and 
> aircraft generally westbound, 180� to 359�, at even thousands of feet. 
> (Talking about instrument flight rules here, visual flight rules are 
> similar.) See Federal Flight Regulation 91.179 at:
>
> 
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=fcb7f258c93bc5abf78002493329d3a3&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.6.45&idno=14 

>
>
> International, ICAO, rules are the same.
>
> The thousand foot spacing prevents head on mid air collisions by 
> compensating for inaccuracy in the altimeters and for less than 
> perfect pilot technique in maintaining assigned altitudes.
>
>
> But if we switched to meters then we would have to space flight levels 
> 1000 meters apart which is too great since such large spacing is not 
> necessary for safety and would eliminate 2/3 of all the current flight 
> levels which would cause more planes to be operating on the few 
> remaining flight levels making them more crowded and collisions more 
> likely. And 100 meter spacing would not be great enough spacing given 
> the above factors.
>
> So, I think we will just stick to using feet in aviation.
>
> gl
> Marcel Tschudin wrote:
>> That's the punishment for using originally some "strange" units. The
>> problem wouldn't exist if all would use the same "decent" units ;-)
>>
>> BTW: I find this Web-page useful for obtaining statistical data from a
>> location. The forecasts however don't seem to be very reliable.
>>
>> Marcel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>
>
>
>
>

   

Reply