Why do the RAF still use QFE?

[mad_jock]

Mate your preaching to the converted.

I really don't think it matters what service you get off them. The only reason they want to speak to you is to control you for their benefit.

Hell they used to give you vectors and level instructions on a flight information service. So a meer technicality of the name of the service won't change them trying to run the NE of scotland like class A.

[WX Man]

I can't believe some people are even talking about using GPS height, Radalts and all sorts of other ways of measuring your altitude. The whole idea of everyone using QNH is to simplify things!

[mad_jock]

I hear you Wx.

It is quite funny though the idea that the rest of the world are going to change because a small section of the RAF thinks its a good idea.

[HEDP]

I can understand the ease of QNH for AT on scheduled ops but spare a thought for the other users who perhaps have to fly more circuits at different airfields than perhaps your average GA user. Having different altitudes to remember for each element of a circuit can be a nightmare and lead to eyes in the cockpit at the wrong time IMHO whilst looking up the altitudes to be flown.

Imagine 3 airfields in relatively close proximity each with a different elevation. That's three different airfield altitudes to remember, three different crosswind/baseleg altitudes and three different downwind altitudes. Unless you have a cracking memory or are eyes in instead of eyes out in the circuit then a simple QFE change and a standard circuit seems somewhat easier and safer to achieve with eyes out at all times.

Horses for courses; AT/scheduled ops with no circuits then it matters not a lot, lots of circuits at different airfields and the majority mil user then QFE seems somewhat safer. Overall safer if a standard is used for all military then QFE wins hands down. Doesn't mean that anyone has a lesser understanding of using either QFE or QNH however.

[thunderbird7]

Having had 12 years of QFE and now 12 years of QNH, I have to say that Qnh makes more sense to me now! Like everyone else, I hated the changeover in the early 90s and was glad when we went back to QFE but now, flying round the world, qnh makes perfect sense. I think I'd much rather know how high I am relative to ALL the ground around me - what about circuits at machrispanish & Kinloss with high/rising ground on the downwind legs? When I hit the runway, I don't need to know I'm at zero feet cos I can friggin feel it! ( The radalt tells me as well, if I was in any doubt! )

All IMHO of course!

[High_Expect]

Mad Jock has it not occurred to you that the reason Lossie ATC want to give you avoiding action is to keep YOU safe, as well as the fast jet mates hurtling around. I will goes as far as to say that I think your entire attitude is floored and that if you treat the rest of your aeronautical antics with the same slapdash uneducated manner you are an accident statistic waiting to happen. Lets just hope I’m not the unfortunate fast jet mate that you happen to stray in front of. Or even worse one of your passengers. Do you not think your duty of care to your passengers is more important than saving a few pennies by going direct and not talking to those “idiots at Lossie”?

Found your ATPL in a box of cornflakes did we?

You strike me as the same sort of pilot that only gives MATZ’s a 3nm berth as that all you have to under your rules.


High-Expect - we don't do personal abuse in here so that sentence has gone!

[mad_jock]

If you then decline that offer due to such technicalities of actually having a chance in hell of pulling off a forced landing, busting rule 5, generally getting the poo kicked out of you with the turbulence with the highish ground that they want you to fly over or of course remaining VFR.

Its was never refused without a reason.

But over the course of a year instructing I had students vectored into cloud, held high with not below instructions or level instructions so they busted VFR mins. Forced into flying at 400ft agl over hills. Which is a real no no in that area, that bit of airspace is all yours and it was drilled into them that sub 1000ft agl you were in the danger zone of meeting one one of the tonka's. And we all know that there is a huge whole in the radar coverage over the back side of easterton at the levels you lot fly at. One was told to standby when she called a pan due unsure of position because of glare off snow after being transfered by scottish info. It was such a contrast working with Tain range who I presume still are a cracking bunch of lads. It was a highlight for many a trial flight watching you boys/girls dropping bombs.

Actually if your in CAT you get a completely different level of service from them with no silly stuff thrown in. The few time's I have done VFR transits using them they haven't given any grief at all. It could be things have changed as my main experence with them was over 4 years ago now in GA. I had hope things had changed for the better, but a couple of the posts on this thread seem to indicate that they are not helping themselves again and GA traffic is avoiding talking to them. And if I had pax onboard I certainly wouldn't be at a level which would cause them to want to shift us; FL70. I think last time we went straight to INV radar from ABZ but I can't remember if that was the weekend or not.

To be honest your the first Mil person I have heard stick up for them.

[R SCANDAL]

I was flying JPs at Linton during the great QFE/QNH debate and was very pleased to have QFE whilst doing circuitathons and PFLs at Topcliffe, Dishforth, Leeming, Fenton, Finningley etc. However, I have since learned to "embrace" QNH and find that it provides much greater awareness of terrain. But what makes me titter is that we get a lot of chamfing from the FJ community about the vital nature of QFE but I have never heard it raised as a point at RED FLAG or COPE THUNDER etc. Just a thought.....

[mad_jock]

And as a note High expect under the rules I have to conform to the only thing I have to avoid is the ATZ. But to be honest I always do the airmanship things to do with MATZ although its very rare I go near the things these days.

And I have absolutely no problem at all with "for inbound instrument traffic could you please turn left 30 degrees and report if you require level change"

To which my reply would be "left 30 wilco"

Compared to the norm at the time.

After getting multiple civi things going whizzing by me with out a chirp of traffic information to suddenly get "left heading 210, maintain level 2000ft, readback" so you can see why Grabbers solution to the issue becomes the flavour of the day.

Which is quite strange as my experence in the vale of york would indicate that the first solution to dealing with GA is in the RAF ATC rule book. And everything was happy and people talked to them.

[Fareastdriver]

All those who insist on flying approaches on QFE showing them how many feet they are above the threshold are going to love flying approaches on QNH with charts and altimeters calibrated in metres.
The numbers are not so big and the instruments move a lot slower.

[WX Man]

I can understand the ease of QNH for AT on scheduled ops but spare a thought for the other users who perhaps have to fly more circuits at different airfields than perhaps your average GA user. Having different altitudes to remember for each element of a circuit can be a nightmare and lead to eyes in the cockpit at the wrong time IMHO whilst looking up the altitudes to be flown.

No, sorry, I don't buy this one. I actually fly lots of circuits at lots of different airfields when I'm working. I'm not exactly ETPS standard (far from it), yet I still manage to keep up with lots of different circuit altitudes.

And as for flying in close proximity to lots of different airfields, all with different threshold elevations, I'd say it's even more important to fly with QNH set. Makes coordination and traffic awareness just so much easier when everyone's flying with the same altimeter setting.

Flying with QNH set, as R Scandal points out, does make you much more terrain-aware.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

The simple answer to WX man's question is - because they can. It's been taught that way for a long time and why the hell change. If you pilots Mil or civil cannot cope with QFE, QNH etc how the hell do you cope with mph, knots, or kmph, or feet, metres and flight levels, or lbs per min, galls per hour, or litres per week? In my day it was called airmanship and it was done mainly in the head. If you can't do it then stay on the ground where you belong.
I feel better now.... the Springbank helps.

[R SCANDAL]

Classic reinforcement of this point for me was when recovering to Lossie from the south, at low level and in "average" weather. In accordance with the BINA I made contact at 20 NM and was told by ATC "set Lossiemouth QFE of xxx". Whilst still sneebling through the hills, had I conducted a low level weather abort on QFE my altimeter would have been useless and given me no reference to safety altitude. A quick scribble of the airfield elevation on a kneepad (or read if off the LFC) and a cross check with the navigational consultant/co-pilot is all you need. (Single seat guys should inherently have the capacity ).

[airborne_artist]

If you pilots Mil or civil cannot cope with QFE, QNH etc how the hell do you cope with mph, knots, or kmph, or feet, metres and flight levels, or lbs per min, galls per hour, or litres per week?

Of course, no aircraft has ever taken on too little fuel because they muddled their units, and no aircraft has ever been overloaded with freight for the same reason....

Might it be better to keep things simple?

[R SCANDAL]

1. Now IMC after aborting, how do ATC deconflict me from other non-circuit traffic?
2. I have a contract with my formation to maintain contract sanctuary altitudes with reference to the granite, not my planned arrival airfield, (especially if we end up getting avoiding action.)

I know Lossie is only just above sea level but the principal remains and it is, in my opinion, a bad habit to start setting QFE without thinking of the ramifications. As for your first comment/question - fair point for discussion in the crewrooom but I wouldn't want to start the debate whilst aborting from low level. I am not saying that I am correct in my opinion, I am just adding my thoughts

[Capt Pit Bull]

Having been born and raised on QFE and then converted to QNH operations, I have to say its a no brainer.

You don't want to be using different altimeter settings at different airfields. That's just asking for trouble. It's the final hole in the lined up swiss cheeses. You want to be using the same procedures wherever you go.

QFE has some pluses, but the inability to use it at high altitude fields is a show stopper. (not just awkward / lots of twisting but total inability because the darn thing can not be set low enough!)

I do find it mildy amusing that elements within the RAF find the concept of correcting for elevation in the circuit or approach as being so daunting, given their usual penchant for pointing out the superiority of military pilots and training methods. Its only addition after all! Perhaps ask the MOD for a couple of plastic altimeter bugs. They probably won't cost more then £50,000 each

[Pontius Navigator]

So the question remains why?

I recall the altimeter we had in the back in the Varsity. You could set it to zero on the ground or to the airfield elevation - there was no subscale. Once above transition we could set it to SPS.

It would have been possible to reset to QFE or QNH either by winding the height needles by a given amount (fraught with danger) or setting to the same as the pilot's altimeter. In fact neither method was taught. In those days navigation finished at the initial approach fix or overhead.

Now a good reason for using QFE could have been the approach aids of the day - an ACR7 approach with a 300 foot per mile descent. Or a Eureka homing. They were complicated enough at the time so the attraction of a 300 foot per mile system was clear.

With modern systems with precision height systems then QNH has advantages with deconfliction with the ground or other aircraft below transition.

[Fareastdriver]

You could set it to zero on the ground or to the airfield elevation - there was no subscale. Once above transition we could set it to SPS.

How do you do that without a subscale?

so the attraction of a 300 foot per mile system was clear.

It doesn't matter whether you use QNH, QFE or bouncing pingpong balls, the glideslope is still the same.

I received my Green Card on Vampires in 1961. I flew my first precision approach (ILS) in 1962. I flew my last as a commander of a public transport aircraft in December 2008 so I have been around a bit.

In the RAF the rules were simple, you flew QFE to the ground. Early on in civil life the situation was much the same until the ninties when you had a choice between of ploughing through the murk on either QFE or QNH. Then it stopped. The civil world was on QNH.

Apart from my company. A major helicopter operator in Aberdeen. Their ops manual said QFE, their simulator demanded QFE and in sympathy with their policy of using pounds instead of kilos like the rest of the world we had to request the QFE before initiating an ILS. Fortunately the operation was fairly parochial so you did not get into trouble elsewhere.

Move forward a few years and then come to Australia, China and the South Pacific. Same company, same ops manual. QFE was binned in Oz and Guadalcanal as being typical Pommie rubbish but not in China.

Step forward British captains and Chinese co-pilots in a country where ther are two settings. 1013.2 in a promulmgated airway or airfield QNH entering or leaving an airfield. We were different. We had a QFE setting in a clutch of airfields including Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Macao. The new Chinese pilots were somewhat mystified about this, with good reason. BUT IT SAYS SO IN THE OPS MANUAL. You had to hand it to the Shenzhen controllers, though. They would get you QFE for you, come what may, normally just after you had passed the MAP. Eventually, but it took a change of managing pilot, the QFE requiremnt was binned and we entered the world of internationally accepted flying procedures.

So it is with some surprise that I discovered this thread. I am even more surprised that people are defending the status quo. I can understand where countries retain heights and flight levels in metres because they ALL do it in that country. Standardisation is the name of the game so all airfields in the UK should use the same common pressure setting, airfield QNH.

Those dreamers going on about radar and GPS altimeters, forget it. Should you make a 100% reliable radar or GPS altimeter that first time that there is a prang there will be lorryloads of litigation lawyers hammering at your door.

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by Fareastdriver

How do you do that without a subscale?

The altimeter had a lubber line which we were told was the SPS setting. It was probably calibrated to ICAN.

It doesn't matter whether you use QNH, QFE or bouncing pingpong balls, the glideslope is still the same. . . I flew my first precision approach (ILS) in 1962.

Who mentioned precision approach? ACR7, Eureaka or whatever were azimuth only approaches. Watching blips on CRTs was dificult enough without having to add the range/height value to airfield elevation and then check with the altimeter.

Just a thought and it fits with the philosophy that 'we DO QFE' having forgotten WHY we do QFE.

I am not suggesting my proposal is the correct reason just that it is a possible reason.

[WX Man]

Fareastdriver- very interesting post. Many thanks for sharing your experience.

I've yet to be pursuaded that QFE is an appropriate thing to have set on an altimeter. R Scandal puts it very nicely:

A quick scribble of the airfield elevation on a kneepad (or read if off the LFC) and a cross check with the navigational consultant/co-pilot is all you need. (Single seat guys should inherently have the capacity)

I just hope that it doesn't take a serious incident to make the DAP recommend to the MOD that they start using QNH. The case for using QFE is tiny: the case for using QNH is huge. There is also a significant case for dispensing with RPS. Why would you want to set RPS and QFE when you're flying in the uncontrolled airspace around East Mids/Birmingham/Manchester... Surely, it makes sense for everyone in one area to be using an accurate QNH, to facilitate vertical separation and airspace avoidance.