Pound or Kilos?

[calzoni92]

Hi, new to Globe Cargo.

Was wondering what units Atlas and Polar actually use in their cockpits? Since i want to set up my 744 accurate as possible to airline i am flying it for i would like to know if PO and 5Y use Kilos or Pounds?

Specifically: What unit is displayed under both fuel quantity and the fmc in the 744?

BTW are all the times under the open board flights and the bid flights in zulu?

Cheers

leo

[yoni63]

Leo,

All bid times are Zulu, as for the units of measure, I believe real world Polar is using metric right now, however we are using Imperial (pounds) currently at the VA. There has been some talk of changing that, but have not heard anymore in a while.

[calzoni92]

Thanks! thats just what i wanted to know.

Leo

[John Khan]

Just about everyone else in the world is using Metric now. It is sooooo much easier having 1000 Kg as 1 Tonne (even if it is spelt funny) and working in decimal amounts, rather than 2240 lbs.....

The weight conversion roughly is 2.25 ie I Kg = 2.25 lbs.

Liquids. 1 gal (Imperial) = 4.5 Lts.

The basis is 1 Lt of water = 1 Kg weight.

SG of jet fuel is 0.8 ie:- I Lt weighs 0.8 Kg. -- I think everyone uses weight rather than litres so doesn't matter..

Sorry I don't have a clue what a US gallon is except it is slightly less than an imperial (real) one.

Using metres in altitudes is a pain but there aren't many places that do and there is a conversion on the MCPs for it.

In Fsim9 I have Options\Settings\International \Units of measur set at "Metric (altimeter in feet)".

John

John

[yoni63]

Just about everyone else in the world is using Metric now. It is sooooo much easier having 1000 Kg as 1 Tonne (even if it is spelt funny) and working in decimal amounts, rather than 2240 lbs.....

The weight conversion roughly is 2.25 ie I Kg = 2.25 lbs.

Liquids. 1 gal (Imperial) = 4.5 Lts.

The basis is 1 Lt of water = 1 Kg weight.

SG of jet fuel is 0.8 ie:- I Lt weighs 0.8 Kg. -- I think everyone uses weight rather than litres so doesn't matter..

Sorry I don't have a clue what a US gallon is except it is slightly less than an imperial (real) one.

Using metres in altitudes is a pain but there aren't many places that do and there is a conversion on the MCPs for it.

In Fsim9 I have Options\Settings\International \Units of measur set at "Metric (altimeter in feet)".

John

John

John, I agree it is much much easier, that is if you are in a country that uses it regularly. I myself would be required to carry around a conversion chart, or use the internet. You say using 1000kg is just as easy as saying 1 tonne. Well to me its easier to say 2000 lbs is 1 Ton. Not trying to dispute you, just making a point from my world. I have used imperial for as long as I have been able to add and subtract. The basic math courses even dropped teaching this back years ago because it was really causing alot of issues. Not saying the system is flawed, just saying, It's easier for someone born and raised in Japan to speak Japanese then it is for them to speak English.

[DHG750R]

Bryan is correct , Atlas & Polar use Kgs as our weight measurement.
Flightplans , weight and balance are kilos

measuring fuel uplifted from the truck into the aircraft however is in us gallons.

Fly safe

[John Khan]

No worries Bryan,

I used imperial for many years but it is not hard to convert, just a matter of using the metric to get used to it. IE. divide the lbs by 2 and a quater and vica versa.

I cannot believe, however, that metric is used for weight, and then US galons for fuel, to me it is asking for trouble to mix measurements like that, plus the extra calculations for weights.

I remember seeing a movie some time ago, supposedly a true story, about an airline that had taken over someone else's aircraft on the Boeing production line.

When the aircraft was delivered it had the weights for fuel quantities in kilos not galons or whatever and nobody knew how to do a conversion. This airline captain decided US Galons and Kilos were about the same and loaded what he thought was right and then with 150 or so passengers took off on the flight.

They soon realised they did not have sufficient fuel and instead of going something like getting the bloody thing back on the ground, they kept going and RAN OUT OF FUEL.

Luckily the FO had trained in the area and knew an old Air Force airport nearby that was no longer used. They managed to make a forced landing on it, making a horrible mess of the brand new aircraft ,but everyone got out of it.

At the end of the movie this dickhead was treated as a hero instead of being locked up in jail for the rest of his life.

I know this was only a movie but I truly hope that they only said this was based on a true story and actually wasn't one. If it was true........!!

Then again I know I am 5ft 10 in tall, but I can never remember what that is in centimeters, - 178 I think. (2.5cm to 1 inch). And 100 Kilos in weight but havn't got a clue in lbs, not that we neded it!

John

[nwadc10]

John, the story you are referencing is the "Gimli Glider".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

I didn't read the article I just posted here but if memory serves me correctly there was a bit more to the story than a simple "get-there-itis". The incident aircraft was retired just earlier this year with a lot of fanfare including a fly-by at the departure airport.

As for the metric system, we should be practicing our KG conversions. When GCFM is released all weights will be in KG with no option for any other measurement per the real company. In the real world, I wouldn't mind switching to metric temps but I can't give up my statute miles...a km is just too small for large distances in my mind. Weights, eh, I guess I don't really care. There are a number of professions in the US that use the metric system so it would probably be easier to switch that too.

[John Khan]

Justin

Even though we use metric measures for everything, distances will always be made in nautical miles as far as flying goes, I'm sure, due to the reason for nautical miles.

As a matter of interest, can I ask how many of our pilots know the reason for nautical miles?? (Don't tell them Justin, see how many know.)

On the ground we always used statute miles until they decided to use kilometers, but again, it is a matter of using the measurements and it does not take long to get used to them, and not long after that we forget the statutes.

I have just read the article and still find it incredible that they were not continuously checking the fuel quantities, fuel flows etc. - as they went along. Especially as they really had no idea how much fuel was on the thing in the first place!!

I was also under the impression that the 767 fuel quantity was automatically in the FMC system, not entered manually by the crew? Reading further in the article there are a lot of discrepencies which should never have been allowed and it is always easiest in hindsight to say what everyone should have done, but still it is amazing that this flight even started with all the queries.

Regards
John

PS. My sincere appologies to all Americans, I thought it was an US airline, not Canadian.

[nwadc10]

Justin

Even though we use metric measures for everything, distances will always be made in nautical miles as far as flying goes, I'm sure, due to the reason for nautical miles.

As a matter of interest, can I ask how many of our pilots know the reason for nautical miles?? (Don't tell them Justin, see how many know.)

Follow-up question, where does the term "knots" come from?

And here's a question I've had for years and nobody has been able to answer. I've googled it and still came up empty handed and looking for the answer. Where did the term "shoot an/the approach" come from? Why do we "shoot" an instrument approach? I have no idea.

[John Khan]

Justin

I have heared that when the sailors in earlier times were going along, they estimated the speed of the ship compared to the ocean over which they were travelling, and tied a knot in a rope at given intervals to measure a distance travelled.

This is the only explanation I have ever heared.

As for "shooting an approach" the only thing I have heared of that is from the second world war in the Pacific. Making as fast an approach and landing as possible on some of the Pacific Islands where there were still Japanese soldiers hidden trying to shoot at you.

John

[nwadc10]

Justin

I have heared that when the sailors in earlier times were going along, they estimated the speed of the ship compared to the ocean over which they were travelling, and tied a knot in a rope at given intervals to measure a distance travelled.

You are correct...that was too easy.

This is the only explanation I have ever heared.

As for "shooting an approach" the only thing I have heared of that is from the second world war in the Pacific. Making as fast an approach and landing as possible on some of the Pacific Islands where there were still Japanese soldiers hidden trying to shoot at you.

John

Very interesting, can anyone confirm that or have another theory? This is the first idea on this phrase I've heard.

[John Khan]

In the 70s I worked at the Aeronautical Research Laborotories in Melbourne.

There were 3 guys there who flew in the RAAF during WW2 in the Pacific area. It was one of them who said this about "shooting" an approach.

Everyone was very nervous all the time in the islands of the Pacific even after they were supposedly re-taken.

He also said that if there were any Americans in the area, you had to be even more careful ,as they would shoot at you faster than the Japanese would. (No offence intended, but that was the case in a lot of places, not only there and then.)

John

[Brogs]

Justin,
I can definitely confirm the one about the Knots, the only way they had of estimating their speed was by the knotted rope, and before the advent of Marine Chronometers "thanks to John Harrison" they estimated distance by Dead Reckoning, there is a great Book by Derva Sobel called "Longitude" which is a great read, also there is a lot of info here- http://www.nmm.ac.uk/Harrison - as for the other qoute, its the first I,ve heard of it !

John Harrison was a great Craftsman , his first Clock was made entirely of Wood, and it is still running today, 300 yrs later !

Justin

I have heared that when the sailors in earlier times were going along, they estimated the speed of the ship compared to the ocean over which they were travelling, and tied a knot in a rope at given intervals to measure a distance travelled.

You are correct...that was too easy.

This is the only explanation I have ever heared.

As for "shooting an approach" the only thing I have heared of that is from the second world war in the Pacific. Making as fast an approach and landing as possible on some of the Pacific Islands where there were still Japanese soldiers hidden trying to shoot at you.

John

Very interesting, can anyone confirm that or have another theory? This is the first idea on this phrase I've heard.

[yoni63]

I give on the "shooting an approach." I figure it was just something someone said and it caught on and spread as a way of saying "flying an approach" or "executing an approach" or whatever.