It's an interesting debate from two sides, I think.
I find all my Floridian flying is prety much height above ground and altitude above sea level, at the same time, no matter what setting I have in the window.....it's all so flat and, near as dammit, sea level.
When I wander across to Arizona, however, there are airfields at 1000', 1500' and 2000' amsl - and lumpy ground rising into the 4 or 5 thousands.
It does take some mental gymnastics when operating into the higher level airfields and, even more so when manoeuvring (stalling, I/F flying etc) over the lumpy bits, when 80% of the day to day flying is done in Florida.
Being able to GET a QFE and set it in the second altimeter as a cross check would be a comforting thing - but still operate the number one altimeter on QNH as discussed so many times in this thread.
I trained, and qualified for licence, in the world of set QFE, and did find the transition to operating QNH only, a little bit difficult at first - and fully understand the concerns of those who still favour it......however, now that I'm used to QNH only, and understand it better, it does make sense.
Bit that does scare me, to an extent, is that pilots are still talking (even in this thread) about setting QNH, adding 1,000' to airport elevation and determining circuit (or decision) HEIGHT. It's a
ALTITUDE.
Confusion in communications - especially with a controller who does not use the same national first language as the pilot, may result in exactly the same sort of problem that the QNH only pilots are worried about - aircraft on different settings being at the same level.
You have to call it something - so why not get used to calling it the right thing, ALTITUDE.