Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Spot the error?

Well, I don’t think a “candidate” has an “explanation” available when taking an exam to confuse himself/ herself with. That calculation was not part of the exercise.

In such exams my default assumption is that such wording is deliberate and it’s not a correct answer (unless there is no better answer when I go the way of least wrong).

Actually, there are places in Europe where altitude is given in metres. There are even metric flight levels. ICAO flight plan supports both (prefix S is for metric flight levels and M for metric altitude, if I’m not mistaken).

Is the PSR precisely independent of the wind?

In “Europe”, the USSR region still uses metres for altitude. The Swiss military used to use it till some years ago (I remember their VFR charts, and thinking “those cows look bigger than they should be”).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

No, it’s not independent. However, it makes no difference if you switch inbound and outbound speed (addition and multiplication are commutative). So confusing a tailwind for a headwind in itself doesn’t change the result. You’ll just get there faster. But only when calculating the distance. That is the same both ways. With time, you will get the result for the wrong (other) direction.

Actually, there are places in Europe where altitude is given in metres.

Where? I was expecting to get metric clearances in the Ukraine, but no, everything was in feet (except the national charts)

The Swiss military used to use it till some years ago

What does the civil VFR chart have to do with the military?

LSZK, Switzerland

Russia used to have all metric, but several years ago went imperial above transition altitude and stayed metric below.

I suppose Peter was using a military chart? They are sometimes recommended if you can get your hands on one.

In 2004, there was only one “ICAO chart” for Switzerland. See here, somewhere… It mixed both feet and metres on the same chart! It probably killed a number of people.

Back to the OP, can anyone think why the worked example in the QB showed the wrong GS?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

In “Europe”, the USSR region still uses metres for altitude. The Swiss military used to use it till some years ago (I remember their VFR charts, and thinking “those cows look bigger than they should be”).

So did the Swedish military (as well as km/h and m/s rather than knots and fps). They switched to feet etc. when our parliament decided that the Swedish armed forces were going to be used for international missions rather than defending Swedish territory.

Soaring in Sweden still use metric as originally it was heavily influenced by the military.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Soaring in Sweden still use metric as originally it was heavily influenced by the military.

Not just in Sweden. Metric instruments are definitely used in the VFR world in the continental Europe. I would say most commonly in gliders but I have seen them in modern aerobatic planes as well (POH is then in metric units as well). Frankly, I was surprised that those antiquated units are used in European aviation.

All militaries of member states of NATO should use metric units. Even US military does to some extent. Well, except for air forces. So ground troops use kilometres and aviators nautical miles.

Last Edited by Martin at 22 Apr 08:38

There is actually a good reason for using nautical miles. Not so with feet.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 22 Apr 10:52
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Metric instruments are definitely used in the VFR world in the continental Europe.

In France the DR400 has an ASI labeled in km/h.

Edit: and some older (US-built) airplanes have ASIs labeled in mph.

Last Edited by Aviathor at 22 Apr 11:35
LFPT, LFPN
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top