A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #26  
Old June 7th 06, 12:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

On 2006-06-07, Ken Reed wrote:
If it's over 1,000 feet from the base to the top, it's a mountain.


According to ?


Poking around the Internet, there appears to be many definitions for a
mountain - 1000 feet is what they told us at school (probably because we
lived within sight of the Malvern Hills, which are a little over 1000
feet and defined locally as 'mountains'), and probably due to the old
Ordnance Survey definition (more on that later).

Wikipedia says that "In the United States, a mountain is 1,000 feet
(304.4 metres) or more in height from bottom to summit. A hill is 500
(152.4 metres) to 999 (304 metres) feet. A discernible hill that is less
than 500 feet high is a knoll" (with the caveat 'citation needed').
However, the USGS says there is no official definition as to what makes
a mountain a mountain and not merely a hill - it seems to be locally
defined.

In the UK, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs defines
mountain as all land over 600 m. This is a close metric equivalent
of 2,000 ft (which is 609.6 metres). The British Ordnance Survey (the
people who do all the surveying and mapping in the UK) used to define a
mountain as being 1000 feet or more, but no longer appear to have an
official definition of what makes a mountain.

So, in summary - if you're in the US, anything over 1000 feet bottom to
top is a mountain, in the UK - if you're following the old OS
definition, also 1000 feet. But you need 2000 feet if you're following
DEFRA's definition.

Online dictionaries are rather vague - "A natural elevation of the
earth's surface having considerable mass, generally steep sides, and a
height greater than that of a hill."

In any case, if it's steep sided and you run a plane into the side of
it, you're going to be just as dead whether the definition of mountain
is 1000 feet or 2000 feet over the prevailing terrain, or not officially
defined at all. Even small mountains, such as Snaefell in the Isle of
Man (just over 2,000 feet) generate the usual mountain effects -
downdrafts, rotor, mountain wave, local weather variations etc. so not
respecting the smaller mountains is foolish.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FORSALE: HARD TO FIND CESSNA PARTS! Enea Grande Aviation Marketplace 1 November 4th 03 01:57 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 04:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.