Why 000-179 ... and not 001-180??

[Icebound]

Since 000 is not a real direction... (North is 360) ..., is there some
significant history why easterly/westerly cruising altitudes were chosen on
the basis of: 000-179 <---> 180-359
as opposed to the more intuitive: 001-180 <---> 181-360 ???

[Bryan Mason]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:36:21 GMT, "Icebound"
> wrote:

>
>Since 000 is not a real direction... (North is 360) ..., is there some
>significant history why easterly/westerly cruising altitudes were chosen on
>the basis of: 000-179 <---> 180-359
>as opposed to the more intuitive: 001-180 <---> 181-360 ???

Don't know why it was set up this way, but it's always been a good
memory aid for me. Headings beginning with 0 remind me of O (the
letter "o") which makles me think "Odd thousands + 500"

-- Bryan

[Julian Scarfe]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
.rogers.com...
>
> Since 000 is not a real direction... (North is 360) ..., is there some
> significant history why easterly/westerly cruising altitudes were chosen
on
> the basis of: 000-179 <---> 180-359
> as opposed to the more intuitive: 001-180 <---> 181-360 ???

Invented by a C-programmer perhaps? :-)

More likely invented by someone who proposed odd altitudes 000 < track <=
180 and even tracks for 180 < track <= 360, and overruled by an ICAO
committee that didn't understand the difference between an integer and a
real.

Julian Scarfe

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
.rogers.com...
>
> Since 000 is not a real direction... (North is 360) ...,
>

360 and 0 are used interchangeably for North.

[John Gaquin]

"Icebound" > wrote in message

> Since 000 is not a real direction... (North is 360) ..., is there some
> significant history why easterly/westerly cruising altitudes were chosen
on

Of course it is a real direction - its the same direction as 360. Its
merely a piece of terminology that is no longer in use for one reason or
another. If you understand the information and concept being conveyed, then
the communication has been successful. I don't see one mode as more or less
'intuitive' than the other.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
>>
>> Since 000 is not a real direction... (North is 360) ..., is there some
>> significant history why easterly/westerly cruising altitudes were
>> chosen on
>>
>
> Of course it is a real direction - its the same direction as 360. Its
> merely a piece of terminology that is no longer in use for one reason or
> another.
>

Zero is no longer in use for north? Is it not the marine standard for
north?

[Icebound]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> .rogers.com...
> >
> > Since 000 is not a real direction... (North is 360) ...,
> >
>
> 360 and 0 are used interchangeably for North.
>
>

Well, yes and no. They mean the same thing, of course... but they are not
really "used interchangeably".

Direction 000 in a METAR is used to represent calm wind, not North wind.

I have never seen "00" painted on a runway.

Computer routines for calculating direction will often expect input and
normalize results into the 1-360 range, not 0-359.

Very rarely do you hear "... heading is 000" as opposed to "... heading is
360"

etc....

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
>
> Well, yes and no. They mean the same thing, of course... but they are not
> really "used interchangeably".
>

Well, how can they mean the same thing if one of them "is not a real
direction"?


>
> Direction 000 in a METAR is used to represent calm wind, not North wind.
>
> I have never seen "00" painted on a runway.
>
> Computer routines for calculating direction will often expect input and
> normalize results into the 1-360 range, not 0-359.
>
> Very rarely do you hear "... heading is 000" as opposed to "... heading is
> 360"
>

You'll find more compasses with 0 for north than with 360.

[Icebound]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ble.rogers.com...
> >
> > Well, yes and no. They mean the same thing, of course... but they are
not
> > really "used interchangeably".
> >
>
> Well, how can they mean the same thing if one of them "is not a real
> direction"?
>

"... is not used as a direction". I will admit to semantic sloppiness.

>
> >
> > Direction 000 in a METAR is used to represent calm wind, not North wind.
> >
> > I have never seen "00" painted on a runway.
> >
> > Computer routines for calculating direction will often expect input and
> > normalize results into the 1-360 range, not 0-359.
> >
> > Very rarely do you hear "... heading is 000" as opposed to "... heading
is
> > 360"
> >
>
> You'll find more compasses with 0 for north than with 360.
>
>

I thought about that, but when I went looking, almost all compasses I could
find had a big fat "N" there, and no number at all.

[Brian Burger]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > Very rarely do you hear "... heading is 000" as opposed to "... heading is
> > 360"
> >
>
> You'll find more compasses with 0 for north than with 360.

But more runways with "36/18" on the ends, rather than "00/18".

Seems pretty interchangable to me...

Brian.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Icebound wrote:
>
> I thought about that, but when I went looking, almost all compasses I could
> find had a big fat "N" there, and no number at all.

My Airpath has 0. Model C-2400-L4P, according to the POH.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.