On 22/01/2019 11:19, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 21 January 2019 17:14:11 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 21 January 2019 13:08:08 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 19 January 2019 02:59:40 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/01/2019 15:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 18 January 2019 12:58:35 UTC, Bob Martin wrote:

I'm amazed to find myself agreeing with Rod Speed, but he's right.
Flight levels are in feet, it's an aviation standard & won't be
changed.

But he;s wrong about the reason.
The american won't change and that's that, NASA had to even thopugh
they
are american. They won't give up their feet any more than their
guns.

They could change if they needed to. Their military talks about
'klicks'
for kilometres, due, I assume, to their propensity for joining other
armies for foreign expeditions.

Nope, it isnt for that reason.

Give yourself an education.

https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...military-slang

That says what I said, ****wit.

It proves the USA is going metric,

The USA has always used the metric system in science in modern
times and that doesnt mean that the USA is going metric either.

No it hasn't it NASA only changed in about 1990 to metric.

https://www.space.com/3332-nasa-finally-metric.html

When NASA returns astronauts to the Moon, the mission will be measured kilometers, not miles.

That implies they used miles during the Apollo missions. On board calculations used metric but teh atronauts wanted imperial on the displays including pounds of thrust and miles or feet per second.




and one day aircraft heights may well also be measured in klicks rather
than miles.

Not a chance, because the flight level system works fine
and there is nothing to be gained by it going metric
because the flight level system has much neater numbers
and more flight levels than doing it metric would do.

Irrelivant you can have the same number of steps and yuo can call them anything you like.

But end up with (as the closest equivalent) 9900m, 10200m, 10500m,
10800m, which I would consider to be more prone to error than simple
round, 1000s, which are certainly far easier to determine the odd and
even levels for crossing aircraft in different directions.

SteveW