I am not suggesting it is "Unsafe" per se.
What I am suggesting is that QFE has some built in issues as it pertains to the runway elevation at the approach end. (Unless my memory fails me.) and as in the photo I posted we can see that might not apply to the entire runway as there could be quite some difference in some locales.
Determining a Circuit Height at an airfield would be easier using QFE but then I am used to doing all that higher math(s) required to do the exact same thing using QNH.
The advantage i see is in determining safe Altitudes in the surrounds of the airfield as there are MSA posted on Maps and Approach Plates which are in MSL rather than absolute heights.
If you guys want too use QFE and are happy doing so.....have at it.
I just happen to see it as being less utilitarian than using a QNH setting.
If the RAF were to suddenly have a change of heart I am sure it would tip some Worlds upside down and require lots of changes to Approach Charts, Maps, and SOP's which itself could present a Safety Issue as any major change does.
That very few places in the entire World use QFE should be some hint but then it would defy the Wellington Rule mandate. Other than the UK or RAF Bases....are there any that use QFE as standard procedure?
In the United States, it is impossible to use QFE in a great part of the country as our terrain is just way too high.
By our standards the UK is all flat land with just a few hills. Some are rather steep but none are really very high.
In Death Valley while setting at a Below Sea Level elevation one can look up at a 13,000 plus foot high Mountain which demonstrates the kind of terrain differences we have.
I guess a question is begged. What changes to procedures does the RAF make when using a QFE altimeter setting is impossible?
Last edited by Boudreaux Bob; 9th Jul 2014 at 23:57.