NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Just been trying to find a new car that will actually run the fancy
cruise control at a level above the current speed limit that you specify,
and automatically slow down in towns on rural roads and speed up again as
you leave them

You mean, it *automatically* overrides the value that you have set
(presumably using GPS) when you enter a part of the road that has a lower
limit.

I mean it runs the car at the amount over the speed limit
what ever the applicable speed limit is on that bit of road.

I started off with the cars that actually read the speed limit
signs on the roads, assuming that they would be likely to
have that capability in their cruise controls. But it turns out
that none of them can do that, even the expensive Volvos.

The rationale I got from volvo was that those speed sign
recognition systems can be fooled by signs on off ramps
from motorways and you dont want the cat to slow down
in that situation when you are continuing on the motorway.

And we have time restricted speed limits too, particularly
outside schools where the speed limit only applys in two
time bands at the start and end of school and in some
states dont apply in school holidays.

I preferred speed sign recognition because that would still
work with road works with temporary speed restrictions
and with motorways which vary the speed limit with the
traffic volume.

But now that I can't find any car that will do it by speed
sign recognition, I'd be happy with one that did it by
database of speed limits. Plenty of the gps systems
like Waze do use that database and its no big deal
if I do have to override the system for road works etc.

But now I am getting even more demanding. There
is one place on one of our highways where the
local cop is notorious for deliberately lurking in
the bushes at the side of the road in his cop car
waiting to catch buggers like me that choose
to run at the excess over the speed limit that
doesnt see you get booked. I would like to
have the system automatically slow down
to right on the speed limit there. But that
means I need a car that will accept the speed
number I provide it from my phone with that
exception programmed into my gps geo wise.

That's clever.

It would be if I can find one that does that.

It will have to be done for self driving cars but while
I can find some that park for you, I cant find one that
will do that speed limit stuff even if it cant do the
fancy bit for the arsehole lurking cop.

I havent yet worked out of the Tesla can do that,
because an electric car wouldnt work for me.

Ours (Honda CRV) allows you to exceed the cruise level (if you press the
accelerator when you need to overtake) and then returns to the set level.
That only works with cruise control, not with speed limiter.

Yeah, the Honda system is quite fancy. It it will even do the fully
automatic
distance from the car in front or you right down to full traffic jams where
the cars are inching along with long times stopped. While I dont get into
that situation very often at all, it would be handy for the big field days
and stuff like that where you can end up in that situation for half an
hour or so as the cars stack up going into the massive great fields
full of cars, thousands of them in the carpark.

For some reason, the cruise control only works for speeds of 30 mph or
higher, so you have to set the limiter rather than cruise control when you
need to keep to a 20 limit. Not a problem, but I get so used to using CC
for other limits that it catches me out for a 20 limit. Maybe they want
you to remain in more immediate control of the speed (using the
accelerator) at low speeds, rather than doing so by clicking CC off if you
need to slow down.

Doesnt explain why the ACC still works in traffic jams tho.

and discover when reading owners manuals that
the VW Golf reversing camera does actually help you when backing a
trailer/caravan.

When my parents had a caravan (early to mid 70s) reversing cameras weren't
an option. The only way of seeing what was behind was extensions to the
wing/door mirrors and a periscope that looked through the front and rear
windows of the caravan and displayed its image near the normal rear-view
mirror.

My dad had to take himself off with the caravan and find a bit of open
ground (maybe a deserted makeshift car park on the site of a demolished
building) to practice reversing. He got pretty damn good at it,
manoeuvring backwards through a narrow street in Sedburgh (IIRC) when an
oncoming lorry (which should have given way to him) refused to reverse.
Dad had almost finished when a policeman arrived and "booked" the lorry
driver for contravening road regulations (priority to oncoming traffic
sign) - shame he wasn't there a few moments earlier!

I went an an advanced driving course which included reversing a caravan
and driving on a skid pan. I was fine on the skid pan, but I was the only
person in the group who failed spectacularly to reverse the caravan even
in a straight line, let along around a corner. The course tutor said some
people never manage to master it. He tested me by standing me in front of
a mirror and getting me to try to touch his hand which was behind my head
so I could only see it through the mirror; the fact that I found that
difficult went hand-in-
hand with the fact I found reversing an articulated vehicle difficult, he
said.

Sounds plausible.

Mind you, I manage parallel parking without any problem - as long as I
have the mirror on the kerb side of the car pointing downwards so I can
see how close my back wheel is to the kerb and so know when to start to
turn - fortunately the Honda automatically drops the passenger door mirror
when you go into reverse (which can be turned off if you want), and
normally you park facing in the direction of the traffic so it is the
passenger side which is close to the kerb.

Yeah, thats the other thing that I would like that my current car doesnt
have.

But I would prefer to go much further and have a full set of cameras
at all 4 corners of the car and have an intelligent system that shows
you just two of the cameras based on which cameras has stuff closest
to them, particularly for right angle parking with modern cars which
slope down so dramatically that you can see the front corners at all
when sitting in the drivers seat. And to show you the curb like your
mirror does when parallel parking. And which is a full 360 dash cam
when driving not parking and is that when the car is parked overnight too.

Cant find one that does that either.


How do you find the Honda warranty wise ? With the Hyundai Getz
I was stunned to find that I didnt have even a single warranty claim
or even a minor reconfig quibble. Thats why I am considering the
i30 which is essentially an updated Getz. Doesnt have that Honda
traffic jam ACC tho.

On 11/01/2019 23:07, Steve Walker wrote:

Yes. There are two sensible ways to do it:

dd/mm/yy - as that give the probably most relevent unit first and the
later ones can be ignored if not required.

yy/mm/dd - as that sorts properly on a computer.

Why on earth would mm/dd/yy make any sense at all?

I work for a US company. I was sending out emails to a few groups just
after Christmas, and was tempted to comment about the number of people
who are on leave until 1st July (01/07).

2018/01/07 works for everyone. Even the Chinese we work with.

Andy

On 12/01/2019 02:08, Fredxx wrote:
My preferred format for computer files is yy-mm-dd

Some us remember the millennium bug.

Put 20 on the front. You may be working with old data occasionally, and
it doesn't cost anything significant any more - not like it did back in
the 60s.

Andy

On 12/01/2019 13:15, wrote:
I use metres feet and inches:-)

Me too. It drives my wife mad - we just bought a table, and I was happy
that the new one at 110cm was a little wider than the old one, which was
only 3ft - room for serving dishes at Christmas!

This house, probably like most in the UK, was built Imperial. Especially the electric and plumbing stuff.

Our was built with convenient lengths of tree. Possibly cubits and
spans. If it was measured to feet it's changed over the years.

Andy

whisky-dave Wrote in message:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 01:31:19 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 14 January 2019 16:07:10 UTC, NY wrote:
"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Max
Demian
writes
On 13/01/2019 21:55, bert wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 12/01/2019 02:09, Fredxx wrote:

Furlongs? I thought everyone knew you get 10 cricket pitches in a
furlong.

You mean wickets not pitches.
A cricket oval is somewhat larger than a chain.

Just shows how confusing the old stuff was.

10 chains one furlong 8 furlongs 1 mile. Simples.
A chain being 22 yds so a mile is 1760yds. What's not to like :-)

The fact that not one single solitary unit is related to another by a
factor
of 10. Maybe the people that dreamed up the imperial system were mutants
with extra fingers and toes, and so counted in a base other than 10.

I wouldn't mind if everything was related together by a factor of (for
example) 12. You'd learn your 12 times table up to a point beyond 12x12
and
become fairly proficient with it. But when you have to handle different
conversion factors all over the place, it becomes ludicrous.

On sunday I was trying to work out why they say a plane is
flying at 30,000ft (about 5.6 miles) why not use miles or km ?

Because aviation works like that. You need to specify what height
they have to fly at so they don?t run into each other and you need
a lot more levels than every mile or km vertically.

So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft rather than
9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters or 10km.
or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.




At least in the UK we tend to use the largest commonly-used unit for
expressing any given length or weight: road distances are measured in
yards
or fractions of a mile; people's weights are expressed in stones and
pounds.

But looking at a tape measure I have here it totals up to 11 inches
then 1 ft the next is 13 inches, but if measuring (in imperial which
I sometimes do) I'd say something was say 1 ft 1 inch or 13 inches.

That tape measure is ****ed by design.

your usual intelectual approach to things.

Ah the irony...
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:49:29 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

That tape measure is ****ed by design.

Strange so many ****ed by design things are sold.

And you're too stupid to actually consider what you are
buying and buy the ones that arent ****ed by design.

Maybe that;s why we designed our own concorde rathe rthan buy the american or russain versions which were so ****ed by design one never took off and the other crashed on i';s first flight, best to stick with UK/French designed supersonic commercail planes.

the Russian one did neither, though it was certainly not a happy design.


NT

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:06:25 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile troll****

MORE endless smartassing by our resident senile wisenheimer? LOL

--
pamela about Rot Speed:
"His off the cuff expertise demonstrates how little he knows..."
MID:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:26:19 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

For some reason I never learned all those little dodges when I was at
school in the late 60s and the 70s. Not because of calculators - they
either weren't an affordable price or else were banned at school - but
because we were taught always to work it out with a pen and paper. Shame.
There are several skills that other people have which I have no
comprehension of: mental arithmetic and reversing a trailer/caravan are
two that spring to mind!

Just been trying to find a new car that will actually run the fancy cruise
control at a level above the current speed limit that you specify, and
automatically slow down in towns on rural roads and speed up again
as you leave them and discover when reading owners manuals that
the VW Golf reversing camera does actually help you when backing
a trailer/caravan.

Did you finally find another senile idiot like you who can't get enough of
hearing himself talking, senile Rot? BG

--
dennis@home to know-it-all Rot Speed:
"You really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about."
Message-ID:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:37:09 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile troll's endless senile blather unread

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:41:18 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft
rather than 9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters
or 10km. or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

Because that doesnt give enough flight levels.

BS, as a metre is only 3 inches more than a yard.

Flight levels arent done in yards, they are done in feet
and even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should
have noticed that there are 3 feet in a yard.

What's that got to do with it.


and most airlines fly at around 30,000ft anyway.

But there are a number of available flight levels
at around that flight level 300 when done in feet
and far fewer when done in KM.

How.

Are yuo saying theres a flight level at 30,000ft and another at 29,999 and another at 30,001 ?

Or you're just too thick to understand the real reason.

https://www.quora.com/In-aviation-wh...asured-in-feet

Why? Because the Americans felt comfortable with that, and the rest of the world followed!

Everything is in feet!

The American Society for Promotion of Aviation was organized by ex-military aviators in NYC in 1925.

5,000 feet was a great height. And yes, it WAS denoted in feet.


So NOTHING to do with flight levels.



I can understand why they still use knots as it;s a nautical term becauxse they fly over water, they only use land speed when taking off or landing.



reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

I ignored all your other **** on stuff like Concorde
because its even sillier **** than this silly ****.

In reality it's because you're too thick to understand it.

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 19:06:38 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
On sunday I was trying to work out why they say a plane is
flying at 30,000ft (about 5.6 miles) why not use miles or km ?

Because aviation works like that. You need to specify what height
they have to fly at so they dont run into each other and you need
a lot more levels than every mile or km vertically.

So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft
rather than 9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters
or 10km. or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

Because that doesnt give enough flight levels.

I presume flight levels measured in feet and 1000 feet apart are a
worldwide standard,

Yes they are and 1000 metres apart would give only a third of them.

Rubbish.
If you can have planes a yard apart then you can then fly 1 metre apart.




It would be *very* prone to errors if air traffic control gave round
numbers of metres (and therefore non-round number of feet) when you
entered "metric airspace"

No such animal.

I doubt the USA will ever give up on feet and inches and that is the reason..




Its a bit like the language used. It sposed to be universally english
but in the wilds of Tadzhikistan etc they dont bother with that.

They do when communicating with other air traffic, they have to.





I wonder if the world will ever redefine airspace to use metres (maybe
have flight levels ever 300 m which is *roughly* 1000 feet),

Unlikely because its much harder to say. Flight level 10.3 doesnt work.

That's not the reason.



since metres are the international scientific/engineering standard. I
suppose they won't change unless the advantage of doing so outweighed the
problems during transition.

And there is no advantage in doing that. Flight Level 320 is just a unitless
number.

and it cou,d refer to 320 metres or 320 inches or 320 miles as long as you know what 320 means.
When american cops say Ten-four how many feet are they flying at ?



Do air-traffic control throughout the world specific air-pressure settings
(*) in inches of mercury,

No, only the USA and Canada.

See how backward some countries are and somethimes it too difficult to get them to change NASA tried and now NASA mostly use the metric system.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/pluto/2018/12...ach-to-ultima/

New Horizons will approach to within 3,500 kilometers (about 2,200 miles) of Ultima early on New Years Day
Which is actually 2174.799 miles NOT 2200 so 25 miles out not exactly very accurate, but for simple minds I guess 2200 is accurate enough.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:41:18 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft
rather than 9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters
or 10km. or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

Because that doesnt give enough flight levels.

BS, as a metre is only 3 inches more than a yard.

Flight levels arent done in yards, they are done in feet
and even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should
have noticed that there are 3 feet in a yard.

What's that got to do with it.

It determines how many of them you can have when
you want a nice round number like flight level 320.

and most airlines fly at around 30,000ft anyway.

But there are a number of available flight levels
at around that flight level 300 when done in feet
and far fewer when done in KM.

How.

Are yuo saying theres a flight level at 30,000ft and another at 29,999 and
another at 30,001 ?

Nope, flight level 320, 325 etc.

all the rest of your pathetic excuse for trolling flushed where it belongs

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 04:02:47 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

all the rest of your pathetic excuse for trolling flushed where it belongs

Lost another argument again, you totally ****ed up 85-year-old senile Ozzie
troll? LOL

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 19:06:38 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
On sunday I was trying to work out why they say a plane is
flying at 30,000ft (about 5.6 miles) why not use miles or km ?

Because aviation works like that. You need to specify what height
they have to fly at so they don't run into each other and you need
a lot more levels than every mile or km vertically.

So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft
rather than 9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters
or 10km. or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

Because that doesn't give enough flight levels.

I presume flight levels measured in feet and 1000 feet apart are a
worldwide standard,

Yes they are and 1000 metres apart would give only a third of them.

Rubbish.
If you can have planes a yard apart then you can then fly 1 metre apart.




It would be *very* prone to errors if air traffic control gave round
numbers of metres (and therefore non-round number of feet) when you
entered "metric airspace"

No such animal.

I doubt the USA will ever give up on feet and inches and that is the reason.




It's a bit like the language used. It sposed to be universally english
but in the wilds of Tadzhikistan etc they don't bother with that.

They do when communicating with other air traffic, they have to.





I wonder if the world will ever redefine airspace to use metres (maybe
have flight levels ever 300 m which is *roughly* 1000 feet),

Unlikely because its much harder to say. Flight level 10.3 doesn't work.

That's not the reason.



since metres are the international scientific/engineering standard. I
suppose they won't change unless the advantage of doing so outweighed the
problems during transition.

And there is no advantage in doing that. Flight Level 320 is just a unitless
number.

and it cou,d refer to 320 metres or 320 inches or 320 miles as long as you
know what 320 means. When american cops say Ten-four how many feet are
they flying at ?



Do air-traffic control throughout the world specific air-pressure settings
(*) in inches of mercury,

No, only the USA and Canada.

See how backward some countries are and somethimes it too difficult to get
them to change NASA tried and now NASA mostly use the metric system.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/pluto/2018/12...on-final-appro
ach-to-ultima/

New Horizons will approach to within 3,500 kilometers (about 2,200 miles)
of Ultima early on New Year's Day Which is actually 2174.799 miles NOT
2200 so 25 miles out not exactly very accurate, but for simple minds I
guess 2200 is accurate enough.

Disagree. That is misleading precision. Depending on the precision of
the original estimate it might even have been less misleading to say
"about 2000 miles".

--

Roger Hayter

Peeler wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 04:02:47 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

all the rest of your pathetic excuse for trolling flushed where it belongs

Lost another argument again, you totally ****ed up 85-year-old senile Ozzie
troll? LOL

Try to be a bit more selective in your heckling; he's actually right
on this occasion.

--

Roger Hayter

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 22:02:51 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:


Lost another argument again, you totally ****ed up 85-year-old senile Ozzie
troll? LOL

Try to be a bit more selective in your heckling; he's actually right
on this occasion.

Duh.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 22:02:50 +0000, (Roger Hayter) wrote:

Disagree. That is misleading precision. Depending on the precision of
the original estimate it might even have been less misleading to say
"about 2000 miles".

.... which will mutate to "about 2000 miles (3218.688 kilometers)".

And so folk will continue to say that metric is not related to real world
measurements, and use things like AWG and alphabet drill sizes instead.

A #1 AWG drill and a L drill are roughly the same diameter, you know.


Thomas Prufer

Thomas Prufer wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 22:02:50 +0000, (Roger Hayter) wrote:

Disagree. That is misleading precision. Depending on the precision of
the original estimate it might even have been less misleading to say
"about 2000 miles".

... which will mutate to "about 2000 miles (3218.688 kilometers)".

And so folk will continue to say that metric is not related to real world
measurements, and use things like AWG and alphabet drill sizes instead.

A #1 AWG drill and a L drill are roughly the same diameter, you know.


Thomas Prufer

We still use SWG in the uk, though it is rapidly being replaced by
metric wire.

--

Roger Hayter

On 16/01/2019 13:27, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:41:18 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message




and most airlines fly at around 30,000ft anyway.

But there are a number of available flight levels
at around that flight level 300 when done in feet
and far fewer when done in KM.

How.

Are yuo saying theres a flight level at 30,000ft and another at 29,999 and another at 30,001 ?

Or you're just too thick to understand the real reason.

https://www.quora.com/In-aviation-wh...asured-in-feet

Why? Because the Americans felt comfortable with that, and the rest of the world followed!

Everything is in feet!


Actually the flight level abbreviation FL refers to the altitude in
thousands of feet but not everything is in feet.

Russia, China (and a few other places) use meters. For Older western
aircraft with mechanical displays this means a look up table for the
aircrew to see what altitude they should be at. (most modern electronic
displays can show ft or m)

If really interested the FAA document regarding some aspects of Chinese
airspace is here

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/sepa...1425125 5.pdf





--
Chris B (News)

On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 17:09:39 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:41:18 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft
rather than 9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters
or 10km. or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

Because that doesnt give enough flight levels.

BS, as a metre is only 3 inches more than a yard.

Flight levels arent done in yards, they are done in feet
and even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should
have noticed that there are 3 feet in a yard.

What's that got to do with it.

It determines how many of them you can have when
you want a nice round number like flight level 320.

you can do the same with metres planes to not fly at 1 foot spacings.
320 foot is about 100 metres so not have levekls of 100 metres rather than 320 feet




and most airlines fly at around 30,000ft anyway.

But there are a number of available flight levels
at around that flight level 300 when done in feet
and far fewer when done in KM.

How.

Are yuo saying theres a flight level at 30,000ft and another at 29,999 and
another at 30,001 ?

Nope, flight level 320, 325 etc.

320 what 325 what feet !


all the rest of your pathetic excuse for trolling flushed where it belongs

because it proves you wrong as always.

Anyway why do you think you need levels you've previously stated that aircraft all work on auto pilot so why would they need any levels ?

On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 22:03:20 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 19:06:38 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
On sunday I was trying to work out why they say a plane is
flying at 30,000ft (about 5.6 miles) why not use miles or km ?

Because aviation works like that. You need to specify what height
they have to fly at so they don't run into each other and you need
a lot more levels than every mile or km vertically.

So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft
rather than 9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters
or 10km. or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

Because that doesn't give enough flight levels.

I presume flight levels measured in feet and 1000 feet apart are a
worldwide standard,

Yes they are and 1000 metres apart would give only a third of them.

Rubbish.
If you can have planes a yard apart then you can then fly 1 metre apart.




It would be *very* prone to errors if air traffic control gave round
numbers of metres (and therefore non-round number of feet) when you
entered "metric airspace"

No such animal.

I doubt the USA will ever give up on feet and inches and that is the reason.




It's a bit like the language used. It sposed to be universally english
but in the wilds of Tadzhikistan etc they don't bother with that.

They do when communicating with other air traffic, they have to.





I wonder if the world will ever redefine airspace to use metres (maybe
have flight levels ever 300 m which is *roughly* 1000 feet),

Unlikely because its much harder to say. Flight level 10.3 doesn't work.

That's not the reason.



since metres are the international scientific/engineering standard. I
suppose they won't change unless the advantage of doing so outweighed the
problems during transition.

And there is no advantage in doing that. Flight Level 320 is just a unitless
number.

and it cou,d refer to 320 metres or 320 inches or 320 miles as long as you
know what 320 means. When american cops say Ten-four how many feet are
they flying at ?



Do air-traffic control throughout the world specific air-pressure settings
(*) in inches of mercury,

No, only the USA and Canada.

See how backward some countries are and somethimes it too difficult to get
them to change NASA tried and now NASA mostly use the metric system.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/pluto/2018/12...on-final-appro
ach-to-ultima/

New Horizons will approach to within 3,500 kilometers (about 2,200 miles)
of Ultima early on New Year's Day Which is actually 2174.799 miles NOT
2200 so 25 miles out not exactly very accurate, but for simple minds I
guess 2200 is accurate enough.

Disagree. That is misleading precision. Depending on the precision of
the original estimate it might even have been less misleading to say
"about 2000 miles".

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

NASA has ostensibly used the metric system since about 1990, the statement said, but English units are still employed on some missions, and a few projects use both. NASA uses both English and metric aboard the International Space Station.

The dual strategy led to the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter robotic probe in 1999; a contractor provided thruster firing data in English units while NASA was calculating in metric.


--

Roger Hayter

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 10:57:00 UTC, Chris B wrote:
On 16/01/2019 13:27, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:41:18 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message




and most airlines fly at around 30,000ft anyway.

But there are a number of available flight levels
at around that flight level 300 when done in feet
and far fewer when done in KM.

How.

Are yuo saying theres a flight level at 30,000ft and another at 29,999 and another at 30,001 ?

Or you're just too thick to understand the real reason.

https://www.quora.com/In-aviation-wh...asured-in-feet

Why? Because the Americans felt comfortable with that, and the rest of the world followed!

Everything is in feet!


Actually the flight level abbreviation FL refers to the altitude in
thousands of feet but not everything is in feet.

Russia, China (and a few other places) use meters. For Older western
aircraft with mechanical displays this means a look up table for the
aircrew to see what altitude they should be at. (most modern electronic
displays can show ft or m)

If really interested the FAA document regarding some aspects of Chinese
airspace is here

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/sepa...1425125 5.pdf

Well that is an exciting read, but perhaps you can explain one thing.

For example; if an aircraft is cleared to
8900m and flies with the metre altimeter and
does not use the China RVSM conversion
table his actual altitude in feet would be
29,200 instead of 29,100. This compromises
the 1000ft vertical separation!

If china can sort it out whay can;t teh USA or the rest of the world.

On 17/01/2019 12:32, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 10:57:00 UTC, Chris B wrote:
On 16/01/2019 13:27, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:41:18 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message





Why? Because the Americans felt comfortable with that, and the rest of the world followed!

Everything is in feet!


Actually the flight level abbreviation FL refers to the altitude in
thousands of feet but not everything is in feet.

Russia, China (and a few other places) use meters. For Older western
aircraft with mechanical displays this means a look up table for the
aircrew to see what altitude they should be at. (most modern electronic
displays can show ft or m)

If really interested the FAA document regarding some aspects of Chinese
airspace is here

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/sepa...1425125 5.pdf

Well that is an exciting read, but perhaps you can explain one thing.

For example; if an aircraft is cleared to
8900m and flies with the metre altimeter and
does not use the China RVSM conversion
table his actual altitude in feet would be
29,200 instead of 29,100. This compromises
the 1000ft vertical separation!

If china can sort it out whay can;t teh USA or the rest of the world.

Taking your second point first the rest of the world could choose to fly
in metres rather than feet, they just don't, and as it is now a very
small minority that use m you could argue that they should use feet.

As for your first point it all starts to get complicated. Aircraft
altitude is measured by air pressure, at low altitude the pressure drops
by about 1 millibar per 30 feet, At high altitude a 1 millibar pressure
drop represents a much bigger distance. Up until about 20 or 25 years
ago all high altitude aircraft were procedurally separated by 2000ft.
due to the decreasing accuracy at high altitude

Due to the demand for high level flight routes (initially over the
Atlantic) there was a major exercise to reduce this separation to 1000ft
(Reduced Vertical Separation RVSM) - but this has very specific
requirements on the proven accuracy of the aircraft altitude (and other)
systems). If you cant meet the requirements you cant fly in RVSM airspace.

This RVSM which was initially only over the Atlantic has now spread to
worldwide - but complications arise when feet systems adjoin metric
systems.

The detail answer to your query is given later in the paper.
=================================

Altitude/ Flight Level Clearances To prevent undesirable ACAS TA/RA
triggering in RVSM airspace and since most civil aircraft use FEET as
the primary altitude reference with a minimum selectable interval of 100
feet;
a) ATC will issue the Flight Level clearance in metres. Pilots shall use
the China RVSM FLAS table to determine the corresponding Flight Level in
feet. The aircraft shall be flown using the flight level in FEET.

b) Pilots should be aware that due to the rounding differences, the
metric readout of the onboard avionics will not necessarily correspond
to the cleared Flight Level in metres, however, the difference will
never be more than 30 metres.

c) Aircraft equipped with metric and feet altimeters such as the Il-96,
Il-62, Tu-214 or Tu-154 shall use the feet altimeter in RVSM airspace.
If unable to use the feet altimeter, the operator shall contact the
China RVSM Program office and apply for special approval to operate into
China RVSM as described in China AIP section 9 (Contact information can
be found in section 9.4.3).

Outside of the RVSM FL band, metre altimeters may be used.


--
Chris B (News)

"Chris B" wrote in message
...
Due to the demand for high level flight routes (initially over the
Atlantic) there was a major exercise to reduce this separation to 1000ft
(Reduced Vertical Separation RVSM) - but this has very specific
requirements on the proven accuracy of the aircraft altitude (and other)
systems). If you cant meet the requirements you cant fly in RVSM airspace.

I am reminded of the comments that David Gunson made in his legendary
after-dinner speech "What Goes Up... Might Come Down". I'm doing this from
memory, so I may not be word perfect, but it was something like...

"The chances of two aircraft being at the same place, at the same height, at
the same time is so mathematically remote as to be not worth bothering
about. Air-traffic controllers force them down narrow corridors to increase
the chances of a collision, thereby justifying their jobs in keeping them
apart."

On 17/01/2019 13:36, NY wrote:
"Chris B" wrote in message
...
Due to the demand for high level flight routes (initially over the
Atlantic) there was a major exercise to reduce this separation to
1000ft (Reduced Vertical Separation RVSM) - but this has very specific
requirements on the proven accuracy of the aircraft altitude (and
other) systems). If you cant meet the requirements you cant fly in
RVSM airspace.

I am reminded of the comments that David Gunson made in his legendary
after-dinner speech "What Goes Up... Might Come Down". I'm doing this
from memory, so I may not be word perfect, but it was something like...

"The chances of two aircraft being at the same place, at the same
height, at the same time is so mathematically remote as to be not worth
bothering about. Air-traffic controllers force them down narrow
corridors to increase the chances of a collision, thereby justifying
their jobs in keeping them apart."

Actually all joking apart, the ATC system was evolved in the early days
of international air travel. Today with all airliners having GPS and
Satcom there is work in hand to enable them to fly wherever they like,
rather than just down recognised air corridors, using technology to let
other aircraft know where they are and "see and avoid" - much like
private pilots work in the bottom 5000ft of airspace using the Mk1 Eyeball.

It will still all come back to ATC and procedures in the area of
airports I suspect.

--
Chris B (News)

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 13:20:49 UTC, Chris B wrote:
On 17/01/2019 12:32, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 10:57:00 UTC, Chris B wrote:
On 16/01/2019 13:27, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:41:18 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message





Why? Because the Americans felt comfortable with that, and the rest of the world followed!

Everything is in feet!


Actually the flight level abbreviation FL refers to the altitude in
thousands of feet but not everything is in feet.

Russia, China (and a few other places) use meters. For Older western
aircraft with mechanical displays this means a look up table for the
aircrew to see what altitude they should be at. (most modern electronic
displays can show ft or m)

If really interested the FAA document regarding some aspects of Chinese
airspace is here

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/sepa...1425125 5.pdf

Well that is an exciting read, but perhaps you can explain one thing.

For example; if an aircraft is cleared to
8900m and flies with the metre altimeter and
does not use the China RVSM conversion
table his actual altitude in feet would be
29,200 instead of 29,100. This compromises
the 1000ft vertical separation!

If china can sort it out whay can;t teh USA or the rest of the world.

Taking your second point first the rest of the world could choose to fly
in metres rather than feet, they just don't, and as it is now a very
small minority that use m you could argue that they should use feet.

But most of the world has gone metric. It's called metric airspace.


It says so here.

https://www.quora.com/In-aviation-wh...asured-in-feet

For most aircraft still flying with analog gauges, when flying into metric airspace, we use a simple conversion card on a clipboard. When Shanghai Control clears us to descend to 3600 meters, we check the card and descend to the equivalent: 11,800 feet.



As for your first point it all starts to get complicated. Aircraft
altitude is measured by air pressure,

Is that relivant and don;t they measure from sea level rather than land.


at low altitude the pressure drops
by about 1 millibar per 30 feet, At high altitude a 1 millibar pressure
drop represents a much bigger distance. Up until about 20 or 25 years
ago all high altitude aircraft were procedurally separated by 2000ft.
due to the decreasing accuracy at high altitude

The weather changes air pressure do so how does that affect the meters.


Due to the demand for high level flight routes (initially over the
Atlantic) there was a major exercise to reduce this separation to 1000ft
(Reduced Vertical Separation RVSM) - but this has very specific
requirements on the proven accuracy of the aircraft altitude (and other)
systems). If you cant meet the requirements you cant fly in RVSM airspace.

This RVSM which was initially only over the Atlantic has now spread to
worldwide - but complications arise when feet systems adjoin metric
systems.

So there are two system and not just feet like the americans like to use.



The detail answer to your query is given later in the paper.
=================================

Altitude/ Flight Level Clearances To prevent undesirable ACAS TA/RA
triggering in RVSM airspace and since most civil aircraft use FEET as
the primary altitude reference with a minimum selectable interval of 100
feet;
a) ATC will issue the Flight Level clearance in metres. Pilots shall use
the China RVSM FLAS table to determine the corresponding Flight Level in
feet. The aircraft shall be flown using the flight level in FEET.

b) Pilots should be aware that due to the rounding differences, the
metric readout of the onboard avionics will not necessarily correspond
to the cleared Flight Level in metres, however, the difference will
never be more than 30 metres.

Strand they don;t stat that in feet isnl.t it, if that rally is the defaault for the ROTW .


c) Aircraft equipped with metric and feet altimeters such as the Il-96,
Il-62, Tu-214 or Tu-154 shall use the feet altimeter in RVSM airspace.
If unable to use the feet altimeter, the operator shall contact the
China RVSM Program office and apply for special approval to operate into
China RVSM as described in China AIP section 9 (Contact information can
be found in section 9.4.3).

Outside of the RVSM FL band, metre altimeters may be used.


--
Chris B (News)

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 17:09:39 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:41:18 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000
ft
rather than 9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters
or 10km. or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

Because that doesnt give enough flight levels.

BS, as a metre is only 3 inches more than a yard.

Flight levels arent done in yards, they are done in feet
and even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should
have noticed that there are 3 feet in a yard.

What's that got to do with it.

It determines how many of them you can have when
you want a nice round number like flight level 320.

you can do the same with metres

Nope. And since you are too stupid to realise that, here
goes the chain on your pathetic excuse for trolling.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 10:57:00 UTC, Chris B wrote:
On 16/01/2019 13:27, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:41:18 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message




and most airlines fly at around 30,000ft anyway.

But there are a number of available flight levels
at around that flight level 300 when done in feet
and far fewer when done in KM.

How.

Are yuo saying theres a flight level at 30,000ft and another at 29,999
and another at 30,001 ?

Or you're just too thick to understand the real reason.

https://www.quora.com/In-aviation-wh...asured-in-feet

Why? Because the Americans felt comfortable with that, and the rest of
the world followed!

Everything is in feet!


Actually the flight level abbreviation FL refers to the altitude in
thousands of feet but not everything is in feet.

Russia, China (and a few other places) use meters. For Older western
aircraft with mechanical displays this means a look up table for the
aircrew to see what altitude they should be at. (most modern electronic
displays can show ft or m)

If really interested the FAA document regarding some aspects of Chinese
airspace is here

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/sepa...1425125 5.pdf

Well that is an exciting read, but perhaps you can explain one thing.

For example; if an aircraft is cleared to
8900m and flies with the metre altimeter and
does not use the China RVSM conversion
table his actual altitude in feet would be
29,200 instead of 29,100. This compromises
the 1000ft vertical separation!

If china can sort it out whay can;t teh USA or the rest of the world.

No reason to do that given that the flight level system works fine now.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 05:04:47 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


you can do the same with metres

Nope.

LOL! Sicko!

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

In article
,
says...


I am reminded of the comments that David Gunson made in his legendary
after-dinner speech "What Goes Up... Might Come Down". I'm doing this from
memory, so I may not be word perfect, but it was something like...


Not bad at all!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KbUNzi58wM


--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 18:04:57 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 17:09:39 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:41:18 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000
ft
rather than 9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters
or 10km. or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

Because that doesnt give enough flight levels.

BS, as a metre is only 3 inches more than a yard.

Flight levels arent done in yards, they are done in feet
and even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should
have noticed that there are 3 feet in a yard.

What's that got to do with it.

It determines how many of them you can have when
you want a nice round number like flight level 320.

you can do the same with metres

Nope. And since you are too stupid to realise that, here
goes the chain on your pathetic excuse for trolling.

Lots of countries use metres.

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 18:52:11 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 10:57:00 UTC, Chris B wrote:
On 16/01/2019 13:27, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:41:18 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message




and most airlines fly at around 30,000ft anyway.

But there are a number of available flight levels
at around that flight level 300 when done in feet
and far fewer when done in KM.

How.

Are yuo saying theres a flight level at 30,000ft and another at 29,999
and another at 30,001 ?

Or you're just too thick to understand the real reason.

https://www.quora.com/In-aviation-wh...asured-in-feet

Why? Because the Americans felt comfortable with that, and the rest of
the world followed!

Everything is in feet!


Actually the flight level abbreviation FL refers to the altitude in
thousands of feet but not everything is in feet.

Russia, China (and a few other places) use meters. For Older western
aircraft with mechanical displays this means a look up table for the
aircrew to see what altitude they should be at. (most modern electronic
displays can show ft or m)

If really interested the FAA document regarding some aspects of Chinese
airspace is here

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/sepa...1425125 5.pdf

Well that is an exciting read, but perhaps you can explain one thing.

For example; if an aircraft is cleared to
8900m and flies with the metre altimeter and
does not use the China RVSM conversion
table his actual altitude in feet would be
29,200 instead of 29,100. This compromises
the 1000ft vertical separation!

If china can sort it out whay can;t teh USA or the rest of the world.

No reason to do that given that the flight level system works fine now.

Every reason as it might have been OK in the 1920s but most things move on, in those days furlongs wwere also used chains and rods were still about.

Even NASA has moved on.

On 18 Jan 2019 at 11:16:49, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 18:52:11 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 10:57:00 UTC, Chris B wrote:
On 16/01/2019 13:27, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:41:18 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message




and most airlines fly at around 30,000ft anyway.

But there are a number of available flight levels
at around that flight level 300 when done in feet
and far fewer when done in KM.

How.

Are yuo saying theres a flight level at 30,000ft and another at 29,999
and another at 30,001 ?

Or you're just too thick to understand the real reason.

https://www.quora.com/In-aviation-wh...asured-in-feet

Why? Because the Americans felt comfortable with that, and the rest of
the world followed!

Everything is in feet!


Actually the flight level abbreviation FL refers to the altitude in
thousands of feet but not everything is in feet.

Russia, China (and a few other places) use meters. For Older western
aircraft with mechanical displays this means a look up table for the
aircrew to see what altitude they should be at. (most modern electronic
displays can show ft or m)

If really interested the FAA document regarding some aspects of Chinese
airspace is here


https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/sepa...1425125 5.pdf


Well that is an exciting read, but perhaps you can explain one thing.

For example; if an aircraft is cleared to
8900m and flies with the metre altimeter and
does not use the China RVSM conversion
table his actual altitude in feet would be
29,200 instead of 29,100. This compromises
the 1000ft vertical separation!

If china can sort it out whay can;t teh USA or the rest of the world.

No reason to do that given that the flight level system works fine now.

Every reason as it might have been OK in the 1920s but most things move on, in those days
furlongs wwere also used chains and rods were still about.

Even NASA has moved on.

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.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 12:58:32 +0000, 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.

As is the use of English only.



--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 12:58:32 +0000, 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.

As is the use of English only.

For some value of "English" ;-)

On Friday, 18 January 2019 12:58:35 UTC, Bob Martin wrote:
On 18 Jan 2019 at 11:16:49, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 18:52:11 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 10:57:00 UTC, Chris B wrote:
On 16/01/2019 13:27, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:41:18 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message




and most airlines fly at around 30,000ft anyway.

But there are a number of available flight levels
at around that flight level 300 when done in feet
and far fewer when done in KM.

How.

Are yuo saying theres a flight level at 30,000ft and another at 29,999
and another at 30,001 ?

Or you're just too thick to understand the real reason.

https://www.quora.com/In-aviation-wh...asured-in-feet

Why? Because the Americans felt comfortable with that, and the rest of
the world followed!

Everything is in feet!


Actually the flight level abbreviation FL refers to the altitude in
thousands of feet but not everything is in feet.

Russia, China (and a few other places) use meters. For Older western
aircraft with mechanical displays this means a look up table for the
aircrew to see what altitude they should be at. (most modern electronic
displays can show ft or m)

If really interested the FAA document regarding some aspects of Chinese
airspace is here


https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/sepa...1425125 5.pdf


Well that is an exciting read, but perhaps you can explain one thing.

For example; if an aircraft is cleared to
8900m and flies with the metre altimeter and
does not use the China RVSM conversion
table his actual altitude in feet would be
29,200 instead of 29,100. This compromises
the 1000ft vertical separation!

If china can sort it out whay can;t teh USA or the rest of the world.

No reason to do that given that the flight level system works fine now.

Every reason as it might have been OK in the 1920s but most things move on, in those days
furlongs wwere also used chains and rods were still about.

Even NASA has moved on.

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.

https://www.quora.com/In-aviation-wh...asured-in-feet

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.

--
Max Demian

"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.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...

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.

I would have thought that it's because they want a one-syllable word (like
"mile") that begins with k for kilometre.

Is that the reason, or is there another one?

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...

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.

I would have thought that it's because they want a one-syllable word (like
"mile") that begins with k for kilometre.

But that doesnt explain why they changed from miles to km.

Is that the reason,

No.

or is there another one?

yep. The military standardised on kilometers because NATO did that.