Why do the RAF still use QFE?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My God! - and I have to fly with/be carried by, you lot into my twilight years. Whilst you're all arguing about altimeter settings which we all seemed to be comfortable with decades ago, I trust that you're all perfectably capable of flying the jet, hands on, in conditions that you're used to outside the simulator. I wonder? Old fart, I know --
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Another reason could be the lack of good mapping and consequently an inaccurate calculation of surface pressure. Set the altimeter to zero and at least you know it will read the same when you get back - slow moving weather systems.
Or how about air-to-ground weaponry? Again you needed to know your height above the target.
jindabyne
You're not taking this thread seriously, are you?
Personally, I do not care whether the RAF uses QFE or QNH because:
i. I have not flown in the UK for a few years nor will in the future.
ii. In a military zone it is their train set so they can do what they like.
The pages of this thread seem to have been taken up with complaints about a military radar advisory service demanding that a civil aircraft in civil class G airspace set an altimeter setting that is only valid in their Zone. He has a point. Landing at that military airfield he would have to follow their rules;--but he isn't, so why should he change from his normal altimeter setting procedures. He would expect that a civil airfield giving him the same service would advise him to fly on their QNH, This QNH is used in the circuit and, more importantly, for instrument let down and landings. Because the airfield will stipulate a minimum height within a certain sector then terrain avoidance is guaranteed. The recipient can elect to fly however he wants in VMC but it is up to him to stay legal. The military service that this pilot was complaining about did not fit into that criteria.
The point is standardisation. The vast majority of flying in the UK is civil in the same way as the vast majority of road traffic is civil. They all obey the same rules on the road, so they should in the air.
You're not taking this thread seriously, are you?
Personally, I do not care whether the RAF uses QFE or QNH because:
i. I have not flown in the UK for a few years nor will in the future.
ii. In a military zone it is their train set so they can do what they like.
The pages of this thread seem to have been taken up with complaints about a military radar advisory service demanding that a civil aircraft in civil class G airspace set an altimeter setting that is only valid in their Zone. He has a point. Landing at that military airfield he would have to follow their rules;--but he isn't, so why should he change from his normal altimeter setting procedures. He would expect that a civil airfield giving him the same service would advise him to fly on their QNH, This QNH is used in the circuit and, more importantly, for instrument let down and landings. Because the airfield will stipulate a minimum height within a certain sector then terrain avoidance is guaranteed. The recipient can elect to fly however he wants in VMC but it is up to him to stay legal. The military service that this pilot was complaining about did not fit into that criteria.
The point is standardisation. The vast majority of flying in the UK is civil in the same way as the vast majority of road traffic is civil. They all obey the same rules on the road, so they should in the air.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 11th Sep 2009 at 11:57.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact a professional organisation such as the RAF are still using QFE is beyond me. The claim that "remembering circuit heights" or "I want it to read zero when I touch down" are ludicrous. I, for one, don't look at my altimeter when I'm in the landing flare. I don't base my flare on altimeter readings, nor even much of my finals turn - I fly the plane.
Even if the circuit height argument was valid - what's the difference between the highest field elevation and the lowest here in the UK? A couple hundred feet? Make your standard circuit height 1500' and use pilotage in the finals turn to compensate...
What do you do when you go to the states and fly into places like Albuquerque or even Las Vegas? Let's not even talk about Leadville, Colorado at 9,927' field elevation!
QNH for fields in close proximity is far safer than QFE as all would be on the same setting.
I cannot get my head around the fascination with QFE...
Even if the circuit height argument was valid - what's the difference between the highest field elevation and the lowest here in the UK? A couple hundred feet? Make your standard circuit height 1500' and use pilotage in the finals turn to compensate...
What do you do when you go to the states and fly into places like Albuquerque or even Las Vegas? Let's not even talk about Leadville, Colorado at 9,927' field elevation!
QNH for fields in close proximity is far safer than QFE as all would be on the same setting.
I cannot get my head around the fascination with QFE...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 80
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the modern answer, and it was mentioned early on, is because we can. It was retained, or reverted, in a fit of pique.
The then CAS< Sir Peter Harding drve the change to QNH from the very top. Now that was a rare thing with not just a top man but THE top man driving a change through against all opposition. Had he not blotted his copy book it is more than likely that we would still be on QNH. As it was, even before the revolving door had stopped, but th epresses were running reprinting all the old TAPS.
Now, having gone through the whole exercise twice we probably can't afford to do it for a third time. When we have one sqn and one airfield it will become economic to change then.
The then CAS< Sir Peter Harding drve the change to QNH from the very top. Now that was a rare thing with not just a top man but THE top man driving a change through against all opposition. Had he not blotted his copy book it is more than likely that we would still be on QNH. As it was, even before the revolving door had stopped, but th epresses were running reprinting all the old TAPS.
Now, having gone through the whole exercise twice we probably can't afford to do it for a third time. When we have one sqn and one airfield it will become economic to change then.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Right hand seat
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other places use QFE for approach as standard - Russia and other 'eastern bloc' countries for example. Now flying as a 'strawberry mivvie' all over the world and I admit it gets confusing toward Moscow when you are working in meters and QFE having become used to QNH and told to 'descent to FL9800 Metres' and then 'alt 900 metres QFE 1001'. It involves using a separate check list to get up the pressurisation system and another crib to convert the metres to feet for the Altimeter Alerting Device.
Mind you I don't find it as difficult a concept as some of my colleagues who have never flown in the military and get all upset about QFE!
MO
Mind you I don't find it as difficult a concept as some of my colleagues who have never flown in the military and get all upset about QFE!
MO
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clarification maybe needed for some, as I get the impression some poeple think that all the RAF use is QFE below TL.
IIRC for CCTs and App the RAF use QFE but once leaving the airfield set QNH, RPS or 1013 to go enroute as QNH/RPS will give you better terrain awareness. QFE may be set when transiting passed an airfield for coordination with cct traffic.
So does it really matter what the RAF use if you are not interacting with them?
For airdrop a local QNH, RPS or altimeter set using the radalt over terrain of know height was used.
I used QFE in the civvy world the other day when I had a double engine failure climbing out of Chambery and for the subsequent turnback, because of the very high workload it was the easiest way to know my height above touchdown for the PFL. Yes it was in the sim.
IIRC for CCTs and App the RAF use QFE but once leaving the airfield set QNH, RPS or 1013 to go enroute as QNH/RPS will give you better terrain awareness. QFE may be set when transiting passed an airfield for coordination with cct traffic.
So does it really matter what the RAF use if you are not interacting with them?
For airdrop a local QNH, RPS or altimeter set using the radalt over terrain of know height was used.
I used QFE in the civvy world the other day when I had a double engine failure climbing out of Chambery and for the subsequent turnback, because of the very high workload it was the easiest way to know my height above touchdown for the PFL. Yes it was in the sim.
Elsewhere mind you.....
.....it was fun watching the brand new copilot trying to "zero" the altimeter at Embakasi prior to departure (his first overseas det).
The Ancient Mariner
The Ancient Mariner
QHH, QFE, millibars, hectopascals, inches, feet, metres - professionals adapt to the local requirement.
Although:
I'd posted this before but a good, and potentially lethal, example of mixed units and shortcuts:
Years ago whilst flying AEF Chipmunks at Cambridge on day off, US multi-piston appears on horizon considerably below nominal 3deg slope.
USMP: Cambridge, say again the altimeter.
C: 992
USMP: 29.92in?
C: Negative, 992mb
USMP:
Although:
I'd posted this before but a good, and potentially lethal, example of mixed units and shortcuts:
Years ago whilst flying AEF Chipmunks at Cambridge on day off, US multi-piston appears on horizon considerably below nominal 3deg slope.
USMP: Cambridge, say again the altimeter.
C: 992
USMP: 29.92in?
C: Negative, 992mb
USMP:
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oxon
Age: 92
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Years ago (late seventies/early eighties) we made an approach to Cologne behind a Lufthansa in marginal conditions. He landed, we didn't, so went round for another go. He reported cloud base figure well above our DH and we still saw nothing so diverted to Dusseldorf. It wasn't until we were safely on the ground that we realised his cloudbase report was based on QNH, whereas we at that time used QFE.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
All RAF ATC units can offer you whatever you want, QFE, QNH, RPS, and you can have it it inches, millibars (don't like hectopascals..)
However, if you are going to join the circuit with Military traffic, you are going to get the QFE like everyone else!
As An Ex RAF AATC, I can still convert millibars to inches by memory of the old Yellow Flight Information Handbook! Ie.1016 mb converts to 30.00 inches, 1015mb to 29.97 inches.. etc etc. And I left the RAF in 1991.
And for the civvies asking about charsts jepp etc, The RAF have their own versions. And very nice they are too. Google AIDU and you will find even civvies can purchase a wide range of flight planning docs and charts from the RAF.
However, if you are going to join the circuit with Military traffic, you are going to get the QFE like everyone else!
As An Ex RAF AATC, I can still convert millibars to inches by memory of the old Yellow Flight Information Handbook! Ie.1016 mb converts to 30.00 inches, 1015mb to 29.97 inches.. etc etc. And I left the RAF in 1991.
And for the civvies asking about charsts jepp etc, The RAF have their own versions. And very nice they are too. Google AIDU and you will find even civvies can purchase a wide range of flight planning docs and charts from the RAF.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bloody 'ell !
In days of old, when knights were bold, and we had wooden aeroplanes and iron men, the RAF used QFE all the time for circuit work and general local flying (and you used the word "height". If you were going further afield, you changed to "Regional QNH". This was IIRC: "The lowest forecast QNH for two hours ahead for the Flight Information Region in which you were flying" (and you spoke about "altitude").
Then there was a "Transition Altitude" (can't remember, but I think it was set by the FIR), at which you set 1013.2 (I believe it is 1014 now - btw, what is the Q## for that ?) and we started talking about "Flight Levels". I am not sure when we began doing this, certainly I was flying Meteors and Vampires up to '54 and we weren't using the term (or did we only do it in Controlled Airspace ?) I was instructing at the ATC School (Shawbury) from '64-'67, and to the best of my recollection, that was what we were teaching then.
In US and UK '41-'42, India and Burma '42-'46, I never used anything other than QFE (ie, I zeroed the altimeter when I got in, and never touched it again).
Of course, the Altimeter Setting Accident was, sadly, fairly common in those days. Our older members may recall the Near Miss of the Century - the Nairobi Comet - in which thirty-odd BOAC trusting pax were (inadvertently) taxied, at some 200 mph, in total darkness, somewhere on the E. African scrub, for about 100 yards or so before the horrified crew got back in the air
(and landed safely in Nairobi !)
The incident (in the '50s) is well documented: if you ferret around in Google/Wiki, I'm sure something will turn up.
D.
Then there was a "Transition Altitude" (can't remember, but I think it was set by the FIR), at which you set 1013.2 (I believe it is 1014 now - btw, what is the Q## for that ?) and we started talking about "Flight Levels". I am not sure when we began doing this, certainly I was flying Meteors and Vampires up to '54 and we weren't using the term (or did we only do it in Controlled Airspace ?) I was instructing at the ATC School (Shawbury) from '64-'67, and to the best of my recollection, that was what we were teaching then.
In US and UK '41-'42, India and Burma '42-'46, I never used anything other than QFE (ie, I zeroed the altimeter when I got in, and never touched it again).
Of course, the Altimeter Setting Accident was, sadly, fairly common in those days. Our older members may recall the Near Miss of the Century - the Nairobi Comet - in which thirty-odd BOAC trusting pax were (inadvertently) taxied, at some 200 mph, in total darkness, somewhere on the E. African scrub, for about 100 yards or so before the horrified crew got back in the air
(and landed safely in Nairobi !)The incident (in the '50s) is well documented: if you ferret around in Google/Wiki, I'm sure something will turn up.
D.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's still 1013.2 Danny. I've no idea why the RAF still use QFE either.
Don't know how transition levels et al were defined in your day but these days transition altitude is the altitude at or below which the vertical position of an aircraft is controlled by reference to altitudes. Transition level is the lowest flight level available for use above the transition altitude and the transition layer is the airspace between the transition altitude and the transition level.
The other thing we need in the UK is a common transition level, one that is preferably above our highest mountains...
Don't know how transition levels et al were defined in your day but these days transition altitude is the altitude at or below which the vertical position of an aircraft is controlled by reference to altitudes. Transition level is the lowest flight level available for use above the transition altitude and the transition layer is the airspace between the transition altitude and the transition level.
The other thing we need in the UK is a common transition level, one that is preferably above our highest mountains...