Timeline for Why don't Russian aircraft sell as much as their European/American counterparts?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 19:08 | comment | added | Jan Hudec | @Urquiola, multiples of 10 are slightly easier than multiples of 3, but you can quickly learn those too if you use them. But it's totally irrelevant regarding plane types—no matter what plane you fly, you fly in metres in China (and some other Asian countries) and in feet anywhere else. Except Russia where you currently fly in metres below transition, but in feet above. In either case, your plane will display what you need. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 22:08 | comment | added | Urquiola | About measuring units, I was told about the convenience of feet over fractions of meter some 25 years ago by a former jet fighter and then airline pilot, but situation may have changed | |
| Jan 3, 2016 at 20:38 | comment | added | Jon Story | That's still nonsensical. The altitudes wouldn't necessarily match up exactly but you can easily use 300m of separation just as well as we currently use 1000ft. You fly at FL 80 and I'll fly at FL 83 instead of 260 and 270. Again if we used mixed it could be a nuisance, but not if everyone in one airspace used the same scheme. | |
| Jan 3, 2016 at 20:33 | comment | added | reirab | @JonStory The problem is not so much landing as altitudes. Altitudes that are even multiples of 1,000 or 500 feet are convenient. Using metric would mean either than the numbers are nasty or that the vertical separation is much more (or much less.) Multiples of 150 or 300 would be annoying to deal with. | |
| Jan 3, 2016 at 20:28 | comment | added | reirab | As far as I know, most modern airliners have the ability to display either metric or imperial units, anyway. | |
| Dec 25, 2015 at 22:38 | history | edited | Urquiola | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improved text
|
| Dec 25, 2015 at 22:32 | history | edited | Urquiola | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improved text
|
| Dec 25, 2015 at 16:31 | comment | added | David Richerby | @JonStory And the feet-vs-metres thing can't be anything like a deal-breaker, since there are plenty of Airbus and Boeing planes in service with Russian and Chinese carriers. | |
| Dec 24, 2015 at 21:27 | comment | added | Jon Story | Using feet for landings is really not important: 500feet/150metres, 50 feet/15 metres... in an aircraft you're travelling fast enough that you're only accurate to 10 feet/3m at the best of times, and even then only for a moment. "100, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10" is not really much different to "30, 15, 12, 9, 6, 3". That's not to say that changing wouldn't risk problems, but once people are used to it, it's just as accurate. | |
| Dec 24, 2015 at 21:08 | comment | added | David Richerby | Those "British units" were U.S. gallons, which aren't the same as British gallons, which aren't used any more (except that car fuel consumption is always quoted as miles per gallon, even though fuel is sold by the litre). | |
| Dec 24, 2015 at 12:12 | comment | added | Sanchises |
The incident you refer to is known as the Gimli Glider, which was an Air Canada Boeing 767. Furthermore, you might want to use the occasional . or newline to make your answer more readable
|
|
| S Dec 24, 2015 at 11:44 | history | suggested | Deer Hunter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Closing phrase deleted.
|
| Dec 24, 2015 at 11:18 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 24, 2015 at 11:44 | |||||
| Dec 24, 2015 at 10:36 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Dec 24, 2015 at 11:56 | |||||
| Dec 24, 2015 at 9:50 | history | answered | Urquiola | CC BY-SA 3.0 |