A while ago, I reported that LA Airport's baggage weighing scales had switched to kilos, but the employees continued to speak in pounds. I can't find that thread, so I am starting a new one.
I was back at the airport today. I walked through the terminal and saw that of all the international airlies, there was only one scale set to pounds (out of perhaps 20). However, our bag was a little overweight. The worker told us so, flipped the switch to pounds, told us to remove two pounds from the bag, and flipped the switch back. Note that no one mentioned pounds before he did this.
I asked him why he didn't just leave the setting on pounds, and he replied "sometimes they are strict about these things."

I am sure there is some compulsion behind this. So they are forced to leave the scales in kilos, but they switch it to pounds whenever they need to tell the passenger a weight. The scales have been set to kilos for about two years now, and people are still not used to them.
So much for progress.

Bud,

Are you talking about international or domestic check-in counters? In the case of international counters, airline luggage agreements are in kilogrammes and international passengers have a right to have their luggage weighed in kilogrammes because their tickets are in kilogrammes.

Well, Bud's obviously weren't.

Bryan,

I believe that you live in the London area - maybe you should visit one of the London airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Stanstead or Luton) and see for yourself what is displayed in terms of allowable luuggage size.

In the last few years I have done a fair amount of flying. I have used Heathrow, London City, Gatwick, Frankfurt, Naples, Rome, Eindhoven, Amsterdam, Zurich, Madrid and Johannesburg airports. I have not seen anything advertised in pounds at any of these airports.

<<<and see for yourself what is displayed in terms of allowable luuggage size. >>>

Sorry, martin, the virgin and b.a. "allowable luuggage" stuff is in cm and inches, and kilos and pounds.
It follows (almost) Bud's rekoning - that the kilo's and cm are there for international requirements - but you can still read it in english if thats what you prefer (lucky really, since there's about 90% of us in the UK!)

Martin - be honest - would you have them scrub out the imperial stuff "in the name of progress". Or would you turn a blind eye to a little bit of 'choice'?

I travel a lot, and I have never, ever, anywhere seen or heard anyone refer to baggage weight in anything other than kilos.

You haven't seen those frames that you can try out your bag in then?

Virgin Atlantic use them and so does B.A.

Its no big deal if you haven't chanced upon them but I know that they're at Gatwick and Heathrow (I can't remember if they're at Luton since any trip from there tends to be a 'weekender')

The bulk of flights originating in the UK go to metric countries where luggage will be weighed in metric only. Thus, giving passengers the option of lbs or kg at the UK end is actually doing them a dis-service - they will have to use kg at the other end!

You're telling me that bags from the UK will gain weight during the flight?

Steve,

Bags are invariably heavier on the return flight.

You have not been married that long. When 'er indoors gets anywhere near a shop, you luggage will breed, especially if it has been anywhere near a shop in another country (and regardless of whether they use metric or Imeprial measure).

Martin, to answer your question, it was the international counter. But even our international counter used to weigh in pounds until a few years ago.
I'm not sure what you mean by "tickets are in kilograms." Our tickets don't mention any weight units at all.

On a side note, I have to differ with you about baggage gaining weight. When you fly to your home country, (especially if Asian), you are obligated to take gifts for everyone. Your baggage should be much lighter on the way back.

Well there's an insight if I ever asked for one!




Martin - indeed on the return they stick a label with "heavy" written on it onto the cases!!!

I've never had overweight luggage, but every time I've flown, which includes trips to other countries, the size limits for bags were always in inches.

I can see a "mother in law" joke in there somewhere!

International air travel conventions generally dictate that luggage should be weighed in kilogrammes. Only US domestic flights now will weigh luggage in pounds.

Sadly, American dominance of the aircraft industry means that instruments are calibrated in imperial measures. So when a pilot from a metric-speaking country (all bar 2 of the 200 or so countries in the UN) has to report his/her altitude, position and speed to air traffic control, they must (quite literally) speak in another language, in so far as he/she must speak in feet, miles and knots and in the English language, regardless of where they come from. The only exception to this is Paris CDG where they have been known to insist on French.

Fuel tanks are calibrated in gallons and there have been instances of planes crashing because they put X US gallons in their tanks rather than X UK gallons. The litre is the same wherever you go.

The fact that imperial measures are predominant in the aviation industry, is to my mind no suggestion whatsoever of the superiority or suitablility for continued use of them.

A metre is only three or so feet, so I don't see any dilemma for pilots in changing over - I mean, Air Traffic Controllers don't ask pilots to descend to exactly 2013'-3" to make their landing approach. They speak in thousands of feet or divisions thereof. So why couldn't they use 100m divisions to set altitude?

<<So when a pilot from a metric-speaking country (all bar 2 of the 200 or so countries in the UN) >>

Does that mean 2 = US and UK?
Or is it the old myth that the UK is a fully metric country?


<<Fuel tanks are calibrated in gallons and there have been instances of planes crashing because they put X US gallons in their tanks rather than X UK gallons.>>

Could you provide proof of an incident when a passenger aircraft crashed due to confusion between US gal and UK gal? Are you not confusing this with and referring to a different issue involving weight of fuel?

<<The fact that imperial measures are predominant in the aviation industry, is to my mind no suggestion whatsoever of the superiority or suitablility for continued use of them. >>

It works

<<<They speak in thousands of feet or divisions thereof. So why couldn't they use 100m divisions to set altitude?>>

At what point during an average day when 100's of thousands of people are quite literally "in the air" does all the pilots "switch"? Who changes the dials (or do they put a sticker on it)?

Or would all planes be grounded so that instrumentation changes, pilot instruction and training be performed?

During the switchover where should countries borrow money in order to reduce the effects of global stock exchange crashes?

After how many fatalities do planes and pilots "switch back" due to inconsistencies or mistakes?




And more than anything else.....


****WHY****?


I see the call for saying metres instead of feet while flying an aeroplane more daft than ensuring all the roadsigns in the UK are replaced with one's with higher numbers based upon a different scale!!!

Jeesh!

First of all, as with any significant change, you need to have a long lead-in period. But you have to start from somewhere. New aircraft manufactured after a certain date could be provided with metric instruments.

Most aircraft nowadays are fly-by-wire and imperial instruments on existing aircraft could in most cases be modified with simple circuitry which would
cost little to produce or install. This would be best when all aircraft instruments become computerised or digital which is not that far away.

Then, you pick a time of low air traffic to implement the change. Traditional holiday periods such as Christmas day would be a good example of when the air traffic levels (mainly from more affluent countries such as North America or Europe) are at their lowest.

If you took the attitude that just because something works it can't be improved, we'd still be using pounds, shillings and pence and using the horse and cart. But then perhaps some people on this forum wish we still did.

"First of all, as with any significant change, you need to have a long lead-in period. But you have to start from somewhere. New aircraft manufactured after a certain date could be provided with metric instruments. "

A mix of units with aircraft landing every minute in Heathrow!!?? (for example) WOW!

<<Most aircraft nowadays are fly-by-wire and imperial instruments on existing aircraft could in most cases be modified with simple circuitry which would
cost little to produce or install. This would be best when all aircraft instruments become computerised or digital which is not that far away.>>

I assume frmo this you are a pilot? You seem to know a lot about aircraft.

<<Then, you pick a time of low air traffic to implement the change. Traditional holiday periods such as Christmas day would be a good example of when the air traffic levels (mainly from more affluent countries such as North America or Europe) are at their lowest.>>

Erm - timezones cover billionsof people accross the globe.

<<If you took the attitude that just because something works it can't be improved,>>

How ON EARTH can you improve flights and aeroplanes by makeing the figures in the dials look different? Speak sense man!

I find that breathing works, btw.

<< we'd still be using pounds, shillings and pence and using the horse and cart. But then perhaps some people on this forum wish we still did.>>

Thats not my point of view. Pls desist generalising.

To my best knowledge, fuel is weighed- so one would have so many pounds of of petrol on board, not so many gallons (US or otherwise). End of confusion.

addendum:

>>>
there have been instances of planes crashing because they put X US gallons in their tanks rather than X UK gallons.
<<<

I want proof of this. A reliable source, dates, and a number of incidences.

I suspect the resident pilot is making things up!

;-)

re: "there have been instances of planes crashing because they put X US gallons in their tanks rather than X UK gallons...

REPLY: Not to mention white vans crashing into bridges with their heights signed only in metric and, er, pigs flying

A couple of things:

I don't claim to be a pilot, but one of my oldest friends is a private licence holder.

Commercial airlines weigh their fuel in lbs, but smaller single-engines private aircraft fill their tanks with gallons of fuel.

The CAA recently prosecuted a private pilot (albiet unsucessfully) for making an emergency landing in a turboprop aircraft at Exeter Airport which had run out of fuel. The pilot is reported to have though that he had taken on X Kg of fuel, when in fact he had taken on X lbs. His fuel gauges were calibrated for litres.

Secondly, pilots measure distances in nautical miles, but flight visibility in kilometres. Likewise, separation from other aircraft is measured in nautical miles but separation from clouds are measured in metres.

In smaller aircraft, the specs of the machines are quoted in metric units, including the tank capacity which is quoted in litres. Yet you have to refill in gallons.

That's why we should change. I'm not saying that using dual systems automatically means an aircraft will crash, but the risk of errors due to confusion are greatly increased in my view. Most international airline pilots are intelligent and experience flyers. Even so, why increase the risks involved with flying?

Andy, your above post doesn't so much seem to suggest we should metricate, but rather that we should cease metricating. I mean, that confusion ONLY occurred because of metrication.

Jesus, how many times have we run over this territory where metricists use evidence of confusion caused by metric as a reason to metricate?

Bryan,
The confusion may have occurred because of metrication, but if we are to go 100% one way or the other, then there is far far less to metricate, than to un-metricate.

That logic is so bent I can't even begin to say. Twenty years ago, had you been in the debate, you would have come up with another reason for why we should metricate aeroplanes. Unbelievable.

Note this is Andy, not AndyA.

I wasn't referring to just aeroplanes, I was talking about the general situation as a whole.

Of course I would have come up with another reason to metricate. There are so many of them its easy ;-)

"Secondly, pilots measure distances in nautical miles, but flight visibility in kilometres. Likewise, separation from other aircraft is measured in nautical miles but separation from clouds are measured in metres."

I did not realise this - is this for big passenger carriers? I've never heard of metric in use "officially" in aviation.

"In smaller aircraft, the specs of the machines are quoted in metric units, including the tank capacity which is quoted in litres. Yet you have to refill in gallons."

I honestly think that the "owners manual" - as it were - must be in both (or all three if you include US gallons). Heck if they can show that info in my car's manual surely they can do it in an aircraft manual?

"That's why we should change. I'm not saying that using dual systems automatically means an aircraft will crash, but the risk of errors due to confusion are greatly increased in my view. Most international airline pilots are intelligent and experience flyers. Even so, why increase the risks involved with flying? "

Currently the safest way to travel is by air or sea, both predominantly imperial.
When a plane crashes its all over the TV, yet a 737 carrries about 100 people. how many people die behind the wheel of a car in northern italy, for example?
The only planes I hear about crashing are the unreliable topolev russian passenger aircraft - and forgive me if I'm wrong - but aren't they "more metric" than your standard airbus or boeing?
I'd focus your energies on where metric can actually "HELP" if I were you. My equivalent argument would be to suggest that doctors should go totally imperial with their drugs, since that's how we weigh ourselves. But I wouldn't suggest such a daft thing.

My local airport has a meter connected to a bowser which they refuel small private planes from. The meter is calibrated in (and delivers in) litres.

In addition, any sale of avgas in quantities of less than 100 litres has had to be in litres since 1995 (same time that petrol pumps went metric).

OK, I know that that only happens if the tank of a very small plane is just over half full at the time of filling, but it does happen.

<<
In addition, any sale of avgas in quantities of less than 100 litres has had to be in litres since 1995 (same time that petrol pumps went metric).
OK, I know that that only happens if the tank of a very small plane is just over half full at the time of filling, but it does happen.
>>

So under this law, if the pilot of a small plane wants to fill up his whole tank, he can do it in gallons, but if it is half full and he wants to fill the rest, he must use litres?
And this law was made in the name of "progress".

"My local airport has a meter connected to a bowser which they refuel small private planes from. The meter is calibrated in (and delivers in) litres."

IS this because when they (daftly) converted car petrol pumps to litres they ommited any exceptions - so all petrol delivering machines "based on the UK physically" had to obey zat rule alzo?

Oops - sorry about the zeds!

It makes eminent sense to use litres when filling up aircraft - especially because of the difference between UK and US gallons.

<<<Jeesh>>>

Steve/Bud

Yeah, was a direct consequence of the regs that changed petrol pumps to metric.

Road tankers delivering fuel are caught by a totally different set of regulations (and deliver in metric), but a bowser isn't a road tanker.

Therefore, I can't see any problem having a meter calibrated in gallons on a bowser that delivers >100 litres.

However, all the UK-approved patterns of avgas meters I can find are in metric, and I doubt there's an imperial meter testing rig anywhere in the country.