Also, that description sounds like tracing a bug through a few layers of software where there wasn't proper error handling along the way, just trusting the data being passed around.
Keep in mind that the U.S. is not the only place where measures are mixed. If anything, British people end up using more measures than Americans. Here in Canada, we have a lot of things read out in both, because of the immense sticking power of customary measures.
U.S. organizations are actively encouraged and (for the most part) fully allowed to adopt SI measures, but it's not like switching road sides, where everything makes sense after you hear "drive on the right now".
Keep in mind that powered flight was basically entirely developed by Americans and pre-SI Brits, and already had more than fifty years of history by the time either pioneering country adopted SI in any significant way. It should not surprise you in the slightest that an American plane expected to hear fuel mass given as weight in pounds; in fact, it should astonish you that anyone is trying to measure it in kilograms in North America.
Even in Britain, in almost all engineering contexts, SI units would be assumed. Your point about Americans assuming imperial units is precisely wwhy it's so dangerous that metrification hasn't happened there.
If the US went metric, then there would no longer be any need to assume anything but metric anywhere, and it would be safer for it.
Yes, there's a long standing tradition, but it only takes a couple of generations to completely change, and that would likely be hastened by being the last large country to do so and having a large cultural footprint on the rest of the world.
If the US did convert to metric, in 3 or 4 generations the whole world would be metric, and there wouldn't be any "wrong assumptions", and it is making bad assumptions that lead to preventable failures.
If China can manage to go metric, the US can too.
This is true in the United States as well, but fueling a commercial airplane is not an academic, scientific, or even an engineering exercise. It is as routine and pedestrian as refueling a bus.
> Your point about Americans assuming imperial units is precisely wwhy it's so dangerous that metrification hasn't happened there.
Or maybe it's an argument for why "metrification" is itself dangerous. The problem is the transition, not being on either side of the fence. It seems to me that the only safe mode of transition is first to dual readout, and only then to SI-exclusive.
Don't get me wrong, I like SI units, I use them every day, and I don't long to spend any time multiplying and dividing by irregular fractions; I just don't like the dismissive "shoulda been metric" rhetoric that floats around everywhere; as though you can just stop selling letter paper and force everyone to use A-series compatible envelopes, and convert the clean (if baroque) markings on the paper products to bizarre decimal fractions of a g/m² without any empathy for the old guard.
Some people care about how Britain still drives on the wrong side of the road, but that doesn't mean they should berate you every time a drunk roadtripping Frenchman turns out into oncoming traffic.
> as though you can just stop selling letter paper and force everyone to use A-series compatible envelopes, and convert the clean (if baroque) markings on the paper products to bizarre decimal fractions of a g/m² without any empathy for the old guard.
The first part was done in Britain in the 1950s, but with the weights rounded to convenient metric numbers.
Refuelled in litres, but with efficiency measured in miles per gallon. It's kind of a mess.
All three British bus manufactures give all measurements except speed in metric, although none give an actual fuel consumption. (Just "20% better" etc.)
[1], as the first reference I can find, uses both l/100km and mpg.
[1] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fuel_consumption_of_p...
That might be a tiny bit optimistic. I'm in my mid 50s, and UK schooling taught me nothing but metric. I vaguely remember some sort of half-hearted campaign and leaflets about it, I think that was before we joined the EU. In 2019, and we are still not there yet.
I'm not sure the last popular holdouts are ever likely to change at this point.
I'm surprised, but thankful, that the Brexit lunacy hasn't (yet) brought calls to return to Imperial and £sd. :)
Unfortunately:
Return of pounds and ounces? Britain might allow firms to use imperial measures after Brexit https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/return-pounds-ou...
EXCLUSIVE: Experts Slam "Bonkers" Proposal To Re-Introduce Imperial Measurements After Brexit, In Letters To Government http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/04/exclusive-experts-slam-bonk...
Now that we are to be a sovereign nation again, we must bring back imperial units https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/01/now-sovereign-na...
The french played a very dominant role as well.
As far as I've known, that largely involved a tremendous number of English channel crossings, but I will look more into that so I don't stay ignorant; thanks. ;- )
Here are a few places for you to begin your research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_in_the_pioneer_era
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Semaine_d%27Aviation_de...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Blériot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_pour_l%27avi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9ro-Club_de_France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornu_helicopter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27A%C3%A9rophile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arm%C3%A9e_de_l...
Aside: How many American-made components do you see with big bold French labels on them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fdr_sidefront.jpg
Aviation: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aviation
Aéroplane: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aeroplane
Hélicoptère: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/helicopter
[0] https://business.financialpost.com/transportation/air-canada...
the pilots were initially punished (which is outrageous), then lauded, for their skills.
When mistakes happen by accident, they tend to give people lots of slack to encourage honest accounts so that they and the rest of the community can learn from the mistake. This is the reason behind things like the NASA form, which is sometimes seen as a "get out of jail free" card. You write a detailed account of what happened after certain kinds of accidents/incidents, and if they conclude that you weren't being too stupid, or it wasn't a repeat issue that you should have learned from, they'll skip certain minor enforcement actions against you.
Landing a 767 without power, not so much... https://youtu.be/GlkCofOyxUA
> "The thing is, helicopters are different from planes. An airplane by it's nature wants to fly, and if not interfered with too strongly by unusual events or by a deliberately incompetent pilot, it will fly. A helicopter does not want to fly. It is maintained in the air by a variety of forces and controls working in opposition to each other, and if there is any disturbance in this delicate balance the helicopter stops flying immediately and disastrously. There is no such thing as a gliding helicopter. This is why being a helicopter pilot is so different from being an airplane pilot and why, in general, airplane pilots are open, clear eyed, buoyant extroverts, and helicopter pilots are brooders, introspective anticipators of trouble. They know that if something bad has not happened, it is about to."
-Harry Reasoner
Helicopter turbine engines operate on exactly the same principles at the 90,000lb thrust turbofan under the wing of a 777. They are incomprehensibly reliable.
Things that lead to helicopter autororation are usually mechanical failure of the transmission.
Then there is the challenge of landing a Harrier Jump Jet on an aircraft carrier.
Then there is the challenge of landing a Harrier Jump Jet on an aircraft carrier that happens to be postage stamp sized and in the South Atlantic high seas during an actual war, the Falklands War.
This still seems amazing and unbelievable to me.
Here’s one with an outside view, which I think is easier to grasp for non-pilots: https://youtu.be/twGid07JR9s
Basically, the helicopter “falls” down and slightly forward, driving the main rotor disc (potential energy turning into disc rotational energy), then the pilot flares the helo, slowing the forward speed and taking energy from the rotor disc to slow the vertical descent, finally resulting in the aircraft settling to the Earth at a slow speed. Just like gliding an airplane, it’s a one-shot kind of a thing (except in training where you generally keep the engine running and available).
Note that the rotor disc is connected to the engine via a one-way clutch, so the engine can drive the rotor but not vice-versa. Otherwise, a seized engine would result in a rotor disc stoppage (and an uncontrolled descent).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTqu9iMiPIU&feature=youtu.be...
That's a bit misleading. The Gimli Glider landed without thrust but almost certainly had electrical and hydraulic power. Same deal with the British Airways 777 that crashed at Heathrow.
Meanwhile, LATAM landed a 777 with no electrical power[1] not that long ago. That's a whole different ballgame.
The surprising part of that story was the seemingly endless string of fuck-ups that resulted in them running out of fuel mid-flight.
You must have been really lucky.
Sure, planes are perfectly capable of gliding to a safe landing after losing power. The problem is that there usually isn't a safe place nearby on the ground to land them at. So instead of a smooth, safe landing on some tarmac, they have a horrible crash-landing onto some kind of ground, if they're lucky. If they're not lucky, there's only mountains around and they just crash into them.
The nice thing about helicopters losing power is that a helicopter only needs a very small patch of level ground to land safely. Airplanes need an airstrip of some kind, and big airplanes need really long ones. Usually, if they're lucky, there's a decently straight highway close by.