For the non pilots out there, the key points are the wind is blowing 20 knots, visibility is 2000 meters in blowing sand, but it is clear and temperature is 30 Celsius.
Donāt think Iāll take the motorcycle out today.
I think his point was that it looked like you converted meters to miles and then to kilometers. That would be silly since 1 km is exactly, by definition, 1000 meters, hence the name KILOmeters. The conversion to miles is the only approximation (about 0.62 miles/km) .
Not exactly an echo, more of a clarification.
Unless I missed something in this exchange, of course.
This thread reminds me of the first time I saw BLDU in a METAR and then in Real Life BLSA (or BLDU for that matter) is not something in which Iād want to fly a regularly equipped aircraft.
You said ācoverts (sic) just shy of 2 KMā so I was wondering if you meant the 1.2 miles converts to just shy of 2 kilometers or if 2,000 meters converts to almost (ājust shy ofā) 2 kilometers.
Nah, I did that in the specific order purposely since people that may be like myself relate to miles vs the metric system.
I knew that 2000 meters equal 2 km, but for me, I need to related to to something I am familiar with, thus going in the order I did in my initial reply. After all, US METARS are in miles.
Iād suspect around AZ area, BLDU / BLSA is a common event from what I have observed from a distance.
Like you said, for a little guy like myself, that environment would not be condusive of safe operations of a piston plane. Bad for the engine, and Iād suspect the paint would get sand blasted off as well.
The sentence is grammatically correct but could have been rearranged to better express the idea that 2,000 meters is about 1.2 miles and the 1.2 miles is just under 2 km.
Mathematical diagram of the sentence: 2,000 meters equals 1.2 miles equals just shy of 2 km. Therefore, 2,000 meters is just shy of 2 km.
Revised sentence: Per onlineconversion.com, 2,000 meters (2 kilometers) is about 1.2 miles.
Like I said, it was grammatically correct but it could be confusing. My last word on the subject.
I have a headache now. Or to put it another way, now I headache have.
Anyway, to answer Allens original question meters are used for short range visibilities. 0-9000, with 10km being the next one. When you get into the old Soviet Union they also use millimeters of mercury instead of millibars and they use meters per second for wind speed.
John
Wind is just about finished but itās still pretty dusty out there.
Very interesting as with the US METARS, visibility is reported up to 10 miles (anything more is reported as āvisibility greater then 10 milesā when I listen to ASOS / AWOS)
I take it then when itās less then 10 km, that the visibility is reported in increments of 100ās?
In the āfull schemeā of things, does it really matter? Probably not as this is just my curious side of me coming out, thus me asking silly questions of this nature.
In the real world, heck, I have a terrible time judging distance on severe clear days, so whether the viz was 5 or 7 miles really doesnāt make that much difference in the full scheme of things.
I guess one wouldnāt need to know the viz down to the 100 meter range when viz is slightly restricted in light haze, fog or whatever falls/floats in the air we breath.