“Argentina is a country blessed with natural resources and also has the metric system. Draw your own conclusions.”
Apparently the IMF did when they bailed out Argentina in the late 20th century. Not sure where you’re going with this.
littemouse; it would not matter whether Argentina had the metric or English system, it was and still is a mismanaged and screwed up country. That’s the point I was tying to make. I was addressing the role the metric system might play in making a country efficient and prosperous. As others pointed out it makes a little but not much difference.
In industries that really matter in world trade, such as machinery, the manufacturers on their own went metric without the help or dictates of the government. That’s problably the way it should be.
The medical profession and pharmaceutical industry went metric long ago, but new mothers are still told their baby, weighed in kilograms, weighs so many POUNDS. People’s weight and height on their passports is still in non-metric. Politicians are sensitive to these things and are very reluctant to go “hard Metric”.
I had a drafting professor who fought the metric system for a long time, since it meant retraining for him. He would have been better off directing his energies at becoming well versed in metric.
Dag, I’m truely sorry to hear about your eyesight. I myself have had both eyes operated on twice for glaucoma, and have cataracts that I’ve already been told by my optomologist will ultimately require surgery. I suddenly gave in to reality on the cataracts one morning when I kept washing my glasses and suddenly realized that the “clouding” was in my eyes rather than my glasses. The glaucoma, well, let’s just say I no longer take night driving for granted. Or good vision.
As regards the conversion of the medical industry to metric, I cannot see any patient advantage. The advantage is the ability to market worldwide. That doesn’t affect the patient, only the industry itself. The patient gets the same dosage as he/she would, just volumetrically called by a different name.
“littemouse; it would not matter whether Argentina had the metric or English system, it was and still is a mismanaged and screwed up country. That’s the point I was tying to make.”
That’s the point I was trying to make, with more emphasis on the was than the is. Russia, the other metric country you mentioned, had its own bailout, and predictably a lot of it was lost to corruption.
Same… Thanks for sharing. A little more awareness when younger and fewer people would have such problems with glaucoma when older. If you are nearsighted or not, but especially so, when you have cataract surgery, pay special attention to post surgical care. The biggest cause of retinal detachment is cataract surgery. My ophthalmologist failed to inform me of a detached retina after his Cataract surgery on me. I developed secondary glaucoma and lost my eye sight in that eye because of this neglect. I would go to a retinal specialist before and after cataract surgery to keep an eye on it especially with glaucoma complications. Cataract surgery is not to be treated lightly as many advertise. Optic nerves cannot be repaired and retinal detachments can be serious if not treated immediately.
As far as the metric system in the medical field is concerned. In all my years associated with the medical field, Determining proper dosages for medications, transfusions etc. where calculations had to be made, I just found metrics so much easier to deal with and much less prone to mistakes. When I worked in and around our military clinic pharmacy, you would be hard pressed to find anything but metric measurements for prescription dosages.
There had to be a reason…I know the argument for standardizing unit measure between allies during wartime. I have never in my experience seem anything but metrics as the first choice during these situations with nary a thought to using anything else.
I still remember years ago when the pharmaceutical industry used “grains” from the old “avoidupois” system. It’s an international industry and the metric system was destined to become the system of choice.
Littlemouse; I agree that Argentina is less “screwed up” than it used to be.
If the federal government decided that all purchases of newly designed equipment has to be metric, the problem would be solved. For those concerned about military equipment, the military is divided up into units. If, for example, the Navy or Air Force were to acquire a new type of aircraft, it would be bought to outfit a new squadron. There would not be a mix of inch/metric within that squadron. After all, the Marines had to deal with the Harrier which had a Rolls Royce engine in it.
Dag, I cannot thank you enough for sharing your experience and your hard-earned wisdom. You can bet your fortune that I’ll take every word of this advice to heart when that time arrives.
Re: the metric issue, when I was in, everything regarding the aircraft was in inches. Granted, that was some years back.
Honestly, I can’t see any reason why one aircraft couldn’t be in inches and another (different) aircraft in metric. To me it’s no different that working on a Honda in the Monday and a '67 Chevy on Tuesday. Nomatter.
And I guess that’s my point: why force one over the other? Why not let the marketplace decide. It works quite fine if not meddled with. The conversionn of the auto industry was a natural evolution, not a mandate.
“Re: the metric issue, when I was in, everything regarding the aircraft was in inches. Granted, that was some years back.”
Yea, did you know that most of them now only have one wing? ;-)Honestly, I can’t see any reason why one aircraft couldn’t be in inches and another (different) aircraft in metric. To me it’s no different that working on a Honda in the
Have you considered the costs of outfitting the entire military repair force with essentially TWO sets of tools? They’re not known for buying cheap tools btw. As a taxpayer do you think that is a wise choice going forward?
It’d be one heck of a lot cheaper than trying to convert all of the aged aircraft to metric. Cheaper by many, many, many decimal points. Yes, it’s a wiser choice. I make that statement backed by 4 years as an avionics tech in the Air Force followed by 23 years in the manufacturing industry, much of it designing and creating hardware for DOD systems including aircraft and missiles (the Cruise and Harpoon). Oh, and submarines too.
Do you know a single auto shop, or a single auto hobbyist, that isn’t equipped to handle both?
Do you know a single auto shop, or a single auto hobbyist, that isn’t equipped to handle both?
I met one…but that was 30+ years ago.
Unless you’ve only specialized on Foreign vehicles you will have SAE and Metric tools. To work on many domestic vehicles you need both anyways.
It would be cheaper for me to only have one set of tools…But not that much cheaper.
I think some of you guys missed my point, each squadron has only one type of aircraft, all the same model.
Aircraft maintenance is not like anything else as far as tools go. When you go out to work on an aircraft, you take a tool box that is specific to the job you will be doing and it has only the tools you will need for that job, not a complete set of tools.
The tools are inventoried before you go out, then they are inventoried after you come back in, by yourself AND the inspector. If it is a safety of flight maintenance, they are inventoried a third time by a QAR. A loose tool in an aircraft is a very dangerous thing.
Nada.
In my shop we worked B52’s, KC135’s, choppers (the nav systems), and an unending variety of transiesnts, as well as smaller planes used for transportation. The only “heavy” that ever landed at my home base that we didn’t work on were SR71’s, and that’s because everything about them was classified and they brought in their own crews.
When we headed to the flightline, we headed out with our toolbag, the writeup in hand, and any spcialized test equipment that the thought we might need just based on experience. We never really knew what tools we were going to need until we got on the plane and diagnosed the problem. We brought most everything. Our tool bags were stuffed.
And there was no inventory. We were issued a full inventoried toolkit when we processed onto the base, and had to turn the tools back in when we processed off of the base. That’s the way it works at every base. One could not function if one needed to guess what tools he’d need, check them out, and check them back in when the job was done. And “Redballs”, calls of a plane sitting on the runway ready to take off that exhibits a problem needing immediate attention, would be impossible. There’s a mission to perform. There’s a rack of bombs that need delivery. There’s no time for checking out tools.
As a matter of fact, overseas during Operation Linebacker (the bombing of Hanoi) we worked 12 hour shifts. We’d get on the maintenance truck with our toolbag and go from plane to plane. The “wrietups” would be radioed in to the truck, and with the exception of a break to eat (yum, powdered eggs!) we’d stay on the truck for the entire shift, fixing anything that needed fixing. A G-model, a D-model, a 135, nomatter. We’d radio in any parts we needed and they’d be picked up by the truck.
Yes, FOD (foreign object damage) can be dangerous. That’s why we receive constant training on the subject. Besides, once you get your hat broken in just right you don’t want to lose it to a turbine and have to replace it…
And yes, I’ve seen a turbine self-destruct on the flightline during runup due to FOD. It isn’t pretty. Once a single blade breaks off, the whole thing comes apart. I’ve also seen an engine being run up on a KC135 break off the mounts and shoot across the flightline. Not pretty.
The Navy has “Tool Control”. Just prior to the program, I knew of one of the incidents that led to the program. A guy in my shop left a flashlight in an F-8. He realized it just as it took off. The controls on the plane jammed, but because the guy went to maintenance control and reported what happened, he was able to relay to the pilot exactly where the flashlight was located. With this information, the pilot was able to figure out what movements of the controls he could use and managed a successful emergency landing. I thought all the services went with this program.
I watched a C-140 get away from its crew one time. Once it started to move, nothing could stop it until it rolled into the fire station at Rota, Spain.
BTW, you don’t check out the tool individually, the tool boxes are pre-made for certain types of maintenance. For example, if you are called out for a radar gripe, you take the tool box for the radar, not for the engine. For the pane captains and the flightline troubleshooters, there is a small tool pouch with the tools necessary to open panels, etc. for inspection and troubleshooting. The tool boxes are laid out in a shadowbox format for instant inventory, same with the pouches. It sounds cumbersome but it is really efficient, no time wasted looking for a tool, you know right were it is.
We did it differently inm the Air Force. Everyone had their own fully equipped toolbox and loaded the toolbag with their preferred tools. Subject matter bas broken out into different shops. A fire control problem on any “heavy” went to the fire control shop. A navigation, autopilot, of stab system problem came to us. Etc., etc.
The only tool control we had was ourselves. And that at the end of our tour we had to turn in the same tools we’d been issued.
The Navy was that way when I first went to the fleet, but changed around 1972. After that, no one in NavAir had their own tools. I thought that some kind of tool control went FAA wide after that. When I was in Rota, we had a pilot do something stupid and tore a big hole in the main structural bulkhead for the F-14. It required an FAA inspector after that repair and he checked for tool control as part of the inspection.
Interesting how much difference context makes in our perceptions of the difficulties of converting to metric. We’re both talking about aircraft maintenance, we’re both talking about it in the context of the military, yet our different experiences have given us totally different perspectives on the problem.
I’ll stand by my belief that unless it’s driven by the marketplace conversion to metricv has no advantage, as I’m sure you’ll stand by your position. It proves my oft-stated belief that knowledgable, well, meaning people with similar orientations can look at the same data and draw totally different conclusions.
I don’t disagree with your stand. I only said that if the government was serious about making the switch, they could do it through their purchasing policy.