On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 14:52:06 +0000, Mike Bristow
wrote:

In article ,
Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:03:00 +0000, Mike Bristow
wrote:

In article ,
Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:29:53 +0000, Mike Bristow
wrote:

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.transport.london.]
In article ,
Recliner wrote:
The Real Doctor wrote:
"Flight level - "A fancy way of telling you how many thousands of feet
you are above sea level. Just add a couple of zeroes. Flight level
three-three zero is 33,000 feet.""

Is that wrong? [Yes, I know it's the barometric altitude, but that's not
something that's normally mentioned.]

The use of FLxxx rather altitude is precisely to avoid having to
work out what your height above sea level is. In other words, by
bringing in "above sea level" they've negated the whole purpose of
Flight levels.

Not for a layman.

This is a piece to explain the jargon. The reason why they're wrong
is Quite Interesting; so why get it wrong?

They're not trying to explain jargon or provide complicated
explanations of the physics behind the jargon. They're simply
providing a quick, simple translation of jargon for ordinary people,
not the pedants who inhabit this group.

I disagree; but neither of can read the mind of the editor or
journalist.

Also, it's hundreds of feet, not thousands.

That's exactly what the article says when it says you need to add a
couple of zeros.

"A fancy way of saying how many thousands of feet you are above sea level".

It's not. It's a fancy way of saying how many hundreds of feet you are
above sea level.

It's a simple way of saying that, and a fancy way of giving the
altitude in thousands of feet.

Nonsense! FL330 is three hundred and thirty hundred feet[1]. It
is not three hundred and thirty thousand feet! There's a big
difference!

There is, but I didn't find the original article in the least bit
confusing, and I don't suppose its target readers did either.