Ladies - and you other ordinary blokes,
I have enjoyed and appreciate all of your responses
to my original and subsequent posts on knotted terminology.
However, all of us human have an
interesting little quirk, and it is that we read lines the way we want to read
them.
Therefore, some of the responses, enjoyable
to read, either failed to read my original post they way it was intended, or
more likely I failed to impart clearly my question/statement.
Now, purely as a tiny matter of levity - Barry,
you should pop over to Da Nang, and have a look at the MIG 21’s doing
about 600 KMH by the time they are crossing the upwind threshold. One bloke I
flew with there was saved by the fact that the AP and the AT were permanently
engaged when he flew with me on the ‘Bus, as after twenty odd years on
the Mig, he had trouble with the rear end pucker factor on approach
particularly. Mind you he did have 1000 hours total after Migs, was the chief
test pilot on them, and was then aged 51. Now remember –just an aside.
Now, ( I do hope I
can get this right), I don’t care what the numbers are, are what they are
called.
However, as has been pointed out by Scott,
someone beat me to measuring the planet and calculating time etc., etc., and so
we have differing standards in use by different nations.
But there is a standard for aviation, and
it is, in terms of rate of lateral navigation, KNOTS.
Now my original proposal was to suggest
that we who subscribe to LML, should use the standard,
because of its relevance to the safety aspects of flying the Lancair.
I have no doubt that many US pilots
use the term MPH in their posts, when in fact they mean KNOTS. It is just a
convention THEY are used to. But I am not, and I note that there are others
from parts far flung who are also not used to seeing MPH used in common terminology,
when in fact KNOTS may well be meant by the correspondent.
No one has a higher regard for American
aviation than I, (I have yet been unable to convince the POMS THEY didn’t
invent it), but this for me is a matter of safe operation of the Lancair,
which, as I pointed out unnecessarily, is a high performance aircraft. If we
all try to standardise our terminology, then it assists safety. That is why all
professional operators have standardisation programs.
For Bob and others who have MPH ASI’s,
use the qualifier MPH if you express speed, and if we assume the KNOT standard we
know you mean MPH. Yes- I can do the conversion. Takes hours, but…….
Regards to all,
Dom
VH CZJ