Interesting responses (and so many, in so short a time!). Seems to me that the arguments for using QFE are:
- to fly a circuit you don't have to add 1000ft to the aerodrome elevation
- to fly an approach you don't have to get into the mindset that the hard stuff isn't going to be where the height pointy thing says "0".
Given that I'm no mental arithmetic genius and that I can still do both of the above, I'm guessing that the guys and girls who are far brighter than I and lucky enough to be flying some of the finest flying machinery known to mankind can probably also do the same.
There is only one occasion where I can think that having QFE set is actually more sensible than having QNH, and that is when you're flying a PAR. Other than that, I see no reason why everyone shouldn't have QNH set all the time (when they're below transition).
FWIW, I'm totally with Octavian. Simplify the whole darn shebang, so that everyone in uncontrolled airspace is flying on the most accurate QNH available (RPS? WTF?). From the geezer in the microlight at a private strip, to the guy in the Typhoon transiting to the exercise areas, to airliners entering the shark infested custard between airway and (for instance) Teesside/Plymouth/Doncaster's zones. Everyone uses QNH below 10,000ft: *highly* sensible. In fact: let's have a Europe-wide altimeter policy, where everyone below the highest terrain (Mont Blanc, 15,781ft) uses QNH: round it up and let's call it 18,000ft... which, funnily enough, would bring Europe into line with the USA.
So, Octavian, I'm with you on this one. I wonder how many other folks are?