"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Interesting that he seems able to narrow down all
orchestras to a 1dB range
like that. Reminiscent of the way undergrads sometimes
write down a lab experiment result to as many
significant figures as their hand calculator displays -
regardless of having input figures only roughly
accurate. :-)

I've just flown back from the USA on a plane that was,
according to the "flight information" channel on the
in-flight entertainment screen, flying at a constant
height of 37,000 feet - or 11277m. (Actually, according
to my calculations, to the nearest metre, that should
have been 11278m). Or is it possible that the actual
height was 37,000 feet plus or minus quite a bit, and
that there was a spurious precision to the "11277"?

If you are worried about an airplane's altitude to the 5th digit, you
obviously need to find something else to do with your mind! ;-)

BTW, which part of the plane was the measurement centered at? ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

If you are worried about an airplane's altitude to the 5th digit, you
obviously need to find something else to do with your mind! ;-)

Well OK I could have read my boring novel, or attempted to watch the
in-flight movie on a really crappy LCD monitor with the sound from a pair of
cheap earphones trying to compete with the background noise level. I think
I'd rather watch the numbers!

BTW, which part of the plane was the measurement centered at? ;-)

Goodness knows!, but whilst trundling around San Fransisco airport it
hovered around 42 feet, if that proves anything.

David.

David Looser wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote

If you are worried about an airplane's altitude to the 5th digit, you
obviously need to find something else to do with your mind! ;-)

Well OK I could have read my boring novel, or attempted to watch the
in-flight movie on a really crappy LCD monitor with the sound from a pair of
cheap earphones trying to compete with the background noise level. I think
I'd rather watch the numbers!

I take my own headphones. Beyer DT331s. You can get an adaptor for the dual
sockets on 747s too I recently discovered.

Graham

On 2008-10-21, David Looser wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

If you are worried about an airplane's altitude to the 5th digit, you
obviously need to find something else to do with your mind! ;-)

Well OK I could have read my boring novel, or attempted to watch the
in-flight movie on a really crappy LCD monitor with the sound from a pair of
cheap earphones trying to compete with the background noise level. I think
I'd rather watch the numbers!

I was stunned how bad the earphones were on my last transatlantic flight
(United). I didn't realize you could make something that sounded
that bad. Even the "free" earbuds that came with my last mp3 player
were high-end in comparison.

BTW, which part of the plane was the measurement centered at? ;-)

And, indeed, where is the reference point for the other end?

Goodness knows!, but whilst trundling around San Fransisco airport it
hovered around 42 feet, if that proves anything.

I once sat in a 747 on the ground at Kai Tak waiting for takeoff (a long
time ago) and noticed that we were apparently at -4 metres.

--
John Phillips

In article , John Phillips
wrote:


I once sat in a 747 on the ground at Kai Tak waiting for takeoff (a long
time ago) and noticed that we were apparently at -4 metres.

Sound like the pilot was a little late with the round-out during the
previous decent. Perhaps understandable given the approach. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article ,
John Phillips wrote:


I once sat in a 747 on the ground at Kai Tak waiting for
takeoff (a long time ago) and noticed that we were
apparently at -4 metres.

Sound like the pilot was a little late with the round-out
during the previous decent. Perhaps understandable given
the approach. :-)

I don't think its big enough to handle 747s, but I've visited this airport
in person, and it will send plane altimeters even further in the negative
direction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea_Airport

Jim Lesurf wrote:

John Phillips wrote:

I once sat in a 747 on the ground at Kai Tak waiting for takeoff (a long
time ago) and noticed that we were apparently at -4 metres.

Sound like the pilot was a little late with the round-out during the
previous decent. Perhaps understandable given the approach. :-)

LOL !

On one of many trips to Bombay / Mumbai on landing it's wasn't the usual BA
'greaser' (i.e. you hardly notice the touchdown). It wasn't a BAD landing, just
not quite their usual standard. Shortly after the F.O. came on the PA to
apologise on account of them having to avoid a dog crossing the runway !

Crazy country.

p.s. I've always found BA's cabin crew great too.

And avoid Air India. 'Palace in the skies' my arse! They have the sulkiest
cabin crew I've ever come across bar possibly Air France. Equal score actually
I'd say.

Lufthansa scores for sheer Germanic efficiency and consistency. Swissair (as
was) scores for the most beautiful member of cabin crew who relayed my request
to the Captain and I got to stay awhile on the flight deck of a 747-300 and
learnt a few things from him.

And then there was the flirt from a Easyjet 'air hostess'. That brightens your
day up too.

Graham