Harrier 46
Rather than the mil changing why not the civilians? Having experienced using both, QFE is (as said previously) much simpler. And sat at the runway threshold showing no altitude is (at least to me) logical.
Shows how much flying you do outside the UK then. Say QFE to any non-UK European, or US pilot, and they'll look at you with a very quizzical expression.
The earth orbits the sun - not the other way round
Whowhenwhy
Unfortunately, mil controllers tend to apply everything as per the book, whereas civil controllers sometimes tend to do otherwise. Specifically, ATSOCAS! (But lets not get into that again)
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones
(though I'm intrigued by the word 'unfortunately'). We do things by our book, you do it by yours - but who's book is right? And what is this attraction to to military of holding onto traffic until it's almost in someone else's overhead? I'm noticing that more and more these days. (sorry - off topic I know)
As far as QFE/QNH is concerned, surely it's better to fly on a pressure setting that gives you a zero reading when you're on the runway?
See my comment above. In the world of instrument flying you really don't care what the altimeter reads on landing. All you want to to know is:
a) MSA - Last time I looked spot heights were based on amsl, not some arbitrary airfield elevation. QNH is therefore more relevant than QFE when I'm working that out on a route
b) DA/MDA - after that you can see where you're going so you don't actually look at the altimeter. What it reads is therefore of no consequence. As an instrument go around will, in most cases, be based on QNH why would you want to complicate matters by transitioning from QFE to QNH
in addition to the rest of the tasks that need to be carried out in a very short space of time in that scenario.
Still think the military is right and the rest of the world is wrong? I've not flown a QFE approach in the last 5-6 years - it's no hardship, believe me.