Can confirm, all aviation worldwide deals in feet and knots. It's also because it's much easier to do calculations on the fly (literally) - in your head. Metric is precise and logical but harder to use in stressful situations.
Can you please give some real-world example of why it's easier to do calculations? Not disputing what you say, just hard for me to imagine why it would be so.
1 knot is about 100 ft/min which is very convenient for descent at a specific glide slope (i.e. for 100 knots ground speed at 5% slope you want 500 ft/min descent rate). Standard is 3° which is about 5%.
Knots are also handy for navigation as 1 nautical mile equals 1 minute of latitude. And of course a knot is 1 nautical mile per hour. So if you're doing 300 knots, that's 5 degrees of latitude per hour.
The calculation in the metric system would not necessarily be more complicated, but it would be different because the reference points in the metric system are not directly aligned with the geography of the Earth.
"1 knot is about 100 ft/min which is very convenient for descent at a specific glide slope (i.e. for 100 knots ground speed at 5% slope you want 500 ft/min descent rate). Standard is 3° which is about 5%."
You are right. It's an easy calculation. But I would say its easy because its historically based on imperial units. Its easy to think about easy calculations like this in metric units like:
A 5% slope means descending 1 meter vertically for every 20 meters horizontally.
The gradient thing would work if ground speed and vertical speed were both in m/s, but km/h is more common in metric for a ground speed. You don't usually think in terms of hours during a climb/descent!
Glide slope of 3.6% would fit nicely though. Then, 100 km/h ground speed goes with vertical speed 1 m/s.
Metric navigation would use the fact 90 degrees of latitude is 10,000 km.
I suspect that the math is even easier using meters, meters, and meters per second than nautical miles, feet, and knots. I'll eat my hat if you can tell me the conversion from feet or inches to nautical miles without looking it up
This sums it up. Metric is nice and clean tenths, but the real world is seldomly easily expressed in clean tenths.
Another example: The feet is cleanly divisible in thirds, quarters, and twelfths, which is greatly appreciated in industry and particularly construction.
Also to be bluntly mundane, almost everyone can just look down and have a rough measure of a foot which is good enough for daily use.
Also, the "sterility" of metric doesn't do it any sentimental favours. Japan loves measuring size/volume in Tokyo Domes, for example.
If you're an amputee I truly am sorry for you and hope the handicap hasn't disrupted your life too much.
Jokes(...?) aside though, your absolute deference to precision is an example of why metric flies over people's heads. Feets, Tokyo Domes, arguably even nautical miles and so on are relatable at a human level unlike metric which is too nice and clean.
This sort of argument is odd to someone in a country which uses both, where a yard is intuitively "a bit smaller than a metre", a pint corresponds to a pint glass or "about half a litre" rather than anything meaningful and I'm aware that a rod and a furlong are things but have absolutely no idea what they correspond to. A foot is comfortably bigger than the average foot size, and an inch really isn't an easier unit to approximate than a centimeter
The SI was specially aimed to reduce such meaningless discussions, yet we steel have big endians and little endians comparisons, long after the dust settled.
One meter is about one long step for an adult. To approximate the length of a field, you just walk along it with big steps and count. It will not be correct, but pretty close. A cm is a little bit smaller than the width of your index finger. It's all bout what you are used to. Metric doesn't "fly over people's head" where metric is the standard way to measure things, but inches, feet, gallons, pounds, miles fly over our head because we are not used to it so don't have any frame of reference.
No, it doesn't. I'm European, never used imperial before I became a pilot, and it's easier. Check it out, the formulas are much simpler to do in your head. Intuition doesn't matter, all that matters is that I can do the calculations quickly so I know I'm within parameter limits.
I'm curious which ones you find easier? There or a few thermodynamics equations that are much more practical in SAE.
This is because the many units are often developed out of within discipline experiment, whereas metric tries to use fundamental units across disciplines.
