Imperial measurements

[Foreigner]

No prizes for guessing why - many of the components are sourced from the USA, including most of the internal machines and equipment. These are all designated in imperial, and warranties are only given if everything that supports and interacts with them are also specced imperial (American suppliers can't be bothered trying to convert and adjust for a relatively small market). So its easier to just design the whole thing in imperial.

The Americans won't give an inch!

 

[TomVexille]

As far as I can tell, Imperial does seem to be the industry standard. I can't remember the last time I heard anything about aviation that was done in metric. It suits me just fine

 

[TonyHancock]

As far as I can tell, Imperial does seem to be the industry standard.

Imperial and US measurements can be two different things so don't get too comfortable. Gallons anyone?

 

[gaz0303]

Nice little graphic here -commons.wikimedia.org

Trying to think of some clever imperial way to describe the axis of US, Mynamar and Liberia.

 

[TomVexille]

Imperial and US measurements can be two different things so don't get too comfortable. Gallons anyone?

True, but avgas is measured by weight

 

[prozac]

Imperial and US measurements can be two different things so don't get too comfortable. Gallons anyone?

Now that brings back memories working in offshore oil and supplying rigs in the Timor Sea. US drillers would want to know how many gallons were in the 150,000lt fuel I had just pumped up to them. Now you could easily be fooled into thinking that was gallons, which of-course are an Imperial measurement. Like me the first time you would be wrong, as they of course meant US gallons. Being pre-internet, this had us searching to find an answer.

 

[Hermes]

This has been a fascinating discussion, but no one has answered my basic question: why does Fairfax -- the SMH and The Age -- insist on using imperial measures in their "flight tests" rather than metric? They give the metric measure in brackets, so why not simply use that?

 

[TomVexille]

This has been a fascinating discussion, but no one has answered my basic question: why does Fairfax -- the SMH and The Age -- insist on using imperial measures in their "flight tests" rather than metric? They give the metric measure in brackets, so why not simply use that?

Because it's what "most" airlines use. And most people seem to understand what those measures mean in that context.

 

[Foreigner]

This has been a fascinating discussion, but no one has answered my basic question: why does Fairfax -- the SMH and The Age -- insist on using imperial measures in their "flight tests" rather than metric? They give the metric measure in brackets, so why not simply use that?

Do they use both the big F and big C words as well?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This has been a fascinating discussion, but no one has answered my basic question: why does Fairfax -- the SMH and The Age -- insist on using imperial measures in their "flight tests" rather than metric? They give the metric measure in brackets, so why not simply use that?

Because many people are used to the imperial measurement. It's pretty much industry standard. Metric measurements are added for the convenience of those who do not think in terms of seat pitch being in inches.

I for example cannot picture seat pitch in metric. If you say a seat has a 31 inch pitch I know instantly what that means and I can visualise it. Give it to me in metric and I'm lost.

 

[Buzzard]

I still buy eggs by the dozen

 

[mulubinba]

I wonder whose empire do these "imperial" measurements refer to?

 

[Foreigner]

,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[anat0l]

I guess the answer is that Fairfax are, to a degree, quoting from the source of the data. Most things in aviation, even the commercial side of it like seat pitch and the size of the IFE monitor, are still given in imperial units. It arrives to the Fairfax journalists like that and journalists have to make the conversion themselves (hopefully not quoting to too many significant digits).

I don't know if this is followed all the time at Fairfax or other publications, but sometimes the distinction can be important. For example, you don't want a case where a company providing information to Fairfax goes, "We didn't say that the pitch was 96.5 centimetres - we said 38 inches!"

I still get plenty of pilots - even Qantas or Virgin Australia - that report their flight altitudes in feet. It might be tradition, but there are also other factors; for example, Flight Level (FL), important in aerial navigation, is based on imperial units (hundreds of feet). Speed is still in knots, even though it is conveniently converted for us in the passenger cabin if you look at the inflight map show. Interestingly, frequent flyer currencies are often based on statute miles, even in metric countries. Very few programmes - LAN LANPASS comes to mind - are based on metric units.

That said, not everything in aviation is imperial. Fuel load is in tonnes (not tons), or litres. Same with loads, viz. passengers, luggage, cargo, etc.. The magic number 23kg, which is a common maximum weight for an Economy class baggage allowance, was actually derived from its imperial equivalent, the more "rounded" 50 lbm.

I don't know exactly where the "industry standard" for things like seat pitch, width or the sizes of screens got set for imperial, though I guess it's been like this for a long time, and one of the major (if perhaps the biggest and oldest) players in the aircraft game is based in the US. Competitively or commercially, it probably didn't make sense for, say, Airbus, to try and market their craft in metric and forcing their potential customers to try and decide between two totally different looking sets of numbers (although that said, most of those numbers likely involve a mixture of imperial and metric measurements!).

I'm reading a lot of recipes at the moment. Converting degrees F to C is not a big deal, but imperial cups to metric cups and fluid ounces to millilitres is a pain in the backside.

Any good engineer will need to be ready to deal with both sets of units, and convert fluently between them (as long as they get / look up the correct conversion factors).

 

[seanpodge]

It's a bit odd, but I don't think Anglophone socities will ever quite fully abandon imperial measurements. Particularly in aviation, they seem very hard to shift. I've even read articles in Chinese that use British imperial measurements.

 

[samh004]

We should abolish metric and embrace out imperial roots.

Metric makes more sense, for the most part.

I can live with knowing my seat pitch and screen size in inches.

 

[Foreigner]

I still buy eggs by the dozen

Baker's dozen donuts at our place

 

[Foreigner]

Fahrenheit (°F) or Celsius (°C) ?

I can't come to terms with the big F.

 

[TonyHancock]

True, but avgas is measured by weight

Let's hope it is not measured in tons then.

 

[serfty]

This has been a fascinating discussion, but no one has answered my basic question: why does Fairfax -- the SMH and The Age -- insist on using imperial measures in their "flight tests" rather than metric? They give the metric measure in brackets, so why not simply use that?

Because in this day and age, many publishers are lazy.

Content for many articles is simply copied and pasted from other sources including other website articles. These articles may contain only US or imperial measurements

By regulation (in Australia), the metric equivalent MUST be published as well.

I have no doubt there are software macros in use that do this at the touch of a button - easiest way (and to avoid the grammar police) is to automatically insert the metric equivalent in parentheses immediately after the imperial figure.

You didn't envisage some sub editor poring over a calculator or conversion tables did you?