QFE / QNH

[SparkyBoy]

I am still very new to aviation so this may be a silly question...
:uhoh:
I'm being instructed to use QNH on take off and QFE on landing, this makes sense to me because it's handy to know where 0ft is when your approaching a r/w.
A video on these forums shows a pilot landing with 300ft still on the AI, which suggests he is still using regional QNH. Is this normal practise, is it a UK specific thing to use QFE?

<EDIT 1> I understand I should have said QNH and not Regional QNH
<EDIT 2> This thread could now also be titled, how to fly with QFE and not die! ;)

Cheers

Sparky

[Deano777]

Sparky

I guess this will be pilot specific, the more experienced pilot may wish to use Airfield QNH (as opposed Regional as you stated), it could have been a case where he had forgot to set QFE, in the grand scheme of things as long as you are comfortable with whichever you use then I see no problems, however, student pilots & inexperienced pilots alike would be well advised to use the system they were taught by their instructors

Dean

[DeeCee]

It depends on the airfield in question. For example, one airfield that I know always uses QNH and the circuit altitude is published as 1200'. As the airfield elevation is approx 200' this represents a circuit height of 1000' above ground level. Another I know uses QFE, but it is only around 50' above sea level. I suppose that that must be the reason for the choice between the two.

Your man with 300' on the clock should have been using the local i.e. airfield's QNH, not the regional setting.

[IO540]

QFE is a silly thing which is used only (as far as I know) in the UK. It is really confusing and should be abolished.

If a pilot can't work out how high he should be if required to be say 1000ft above the airfield elevation then it's amazing he ever got through the PPL exams. If the elevation is say 1200ft then he needs to be there at 2200ft. This is no rocket science, and avoids the mistakes caused by flying with QFE instead of QNH.

The other benefit of flying on QNH is that the altimeter always reads the altitude, which then relates to obstacle heights shown on the charts. So you have, right in front of you, a constant readout which gives you information on obstacle clearance. QFE is completely useless for anything en-route.

It gets much worse if instrument flying. Easy to make a fatal error then, if getting the two mixed up. So instrument pilots usually use QNH only.

Does anyone know why the UK hangs onto QFE?

[vintage ATCO]

We hang onto the QFE as it HAS to be used for precision approaches.

Oh, don't they do precision approaches in the rest of the world, then . . . :confused: ;)

[chevvron]

Under JAR regs, companies normally use QNH when flying precision approaches ie PAR/ILS, however QFE is available on request to ATC.
I believe QFE is only used in the UK and somewhere in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius?), the rest of the world uses QNH below TL. And the UK only uses QFE because the RAF insist on it (that'll stir it up!)

[A and C]

I had some years back asked on the military forum why the RAFuse QFE and don't want to change, I did not get a conclusive answer but the jist of it seems to be that it keeps the cockpit workload down for the fast jet pilots when doing PAR recoverys in bad weather ( no ILS fitted to some fast jets).

I can see the reasoning as these guys sometimes have to fly in very bad weather and using fuel reserves that would make a civilian pilots eye water.

From a civilian point of veiw I agree with IO-540 that the QFE/QNH switch during single pilot I.F. is an accident going somewhere to happen.

[IO540]

I still don't see the need for QFE, especially on a PAR approach where you get guidance in both planes.

Actually I do wonder what real-world capability the RAF has these days. Any dirty work of any significance has to be contracted out to the Americans.

Recently (1-2 yrs ago) I read a press release from Skyforce (now owned by Honeywell) saying the RAF have just bought a couple of hundred of their Skymap II GPSs. Well, I have one of those from my PPL self-fly-hire-a-piece-of-junk days and it now lives in my emergency bag. If the RAF are using that sort of technology, they are doing well to navigate to Odiham at 500kt :O

Unfortunately, so many people have retired from the RAF only to join..... guess who? .... the CAA!

[Pudnucker]

SparkyBoy,

Easy way to remember it:

QFE - Field Elevation
QNH - Nautical Height (eg above sea level)

[S-Works]

I never use QFE. Waste of time and confusing for a lot of people. Instrument approaches I always fly in QNH and visual the same. I live inside a MATZ and that is the only time I use QFE and at that point it only really becomes another number for the crossing as I revert to QNH on exit and when approaching the runway.

QFE should be abolished.

[SAR Bloke]

I haven't got a clue why the RAF still use QFE either but it works. QNH also works. IMO it does not really matter what system you are using as long as you understand it.

I use QFE for take off and landing. I can understand the reasons for using QNH for take off but switching like that would confuse the hell out of me. What if you are doing circuits? Do you change the setting downwind? Do you change back again during the touch and go?

If you don't like QFE then don't use it. Simple. It has it's advantages but it's not for everyone. I frequently fly to civilian airfields where QNH is used but it is not a problem. Simply ask for the QFE.

IO540

I am pretty sure I know which units used the Skyforce GPS and if you do then you'd know they are extremely highly respected. If yours is no good then maybe there is a problem with the operator. True, it is not the best kit in the world but it does do what it says on the tin.

Why so Anti RAF anyway? Did they turn you down?

[IO540]

SAR bloke

You make a good argument for abolishing QFE.

The other problem is that some mil airfields won't give QNH even if you ask, EGOS (Shawbury) being one of them, not long ago.

The RAF didn't turn me down, no.

The other bit of stupidity is the regional pressure setting.

[SAR Bloke]

I could give you reasons for the RAF keeping QFE but the ones I can come up with are mainly used for Fast Jet traffic in the circuit when the workload is very high. It is not as applicable for slower moving aircraft.

As for RPS. I would not give that up for anything. It may keep me alive one day.

[ShyTorque]

We hang onto the QFE as it HAS to be used for precision approaches. Having said that if your aircraft has a radio altimeter then you would use this instead. I guess then it would only be used as a backup.

:confused: Not so. It certainly doesn't have to be used for precision approaches.

We fly IFR whenever necessary and I can't think of one occasion where we have used QFE; all the IFR approaches at UK major airports are QNH based.

[chevvron]

I'm not sure if it still happens but when the RAF reverted to using QFE many years ago after using QNH for a couple of years, they also abandoned use of local QNH, and their met forecasters probably don't even bother to calculate it now, so this would explain why IO540 couldn't get it from Shawbury.
System used was (and may still be) you departed on QFE, and changed to 1013 at TA; inbound at TL you changed back to QFE. If you ever went anywhere below TA, you set RPS.

[Chilli Monster]

QNH can either be a regional pressure setting or a areodrome pressure setting.

Actually Regional Pressure Setting isn't a QNH. It's the lowest forecast QNH for a time in the future in a specified area

If it is an aerodrome setting it will be at the highest elevation of the field.

It has nothing to do with what point it is on the airfield, as it is a calculation of seal level pressure, mean sea level being a constant.

QFE is QNH adjusted so that at the highest point the altimeter reads zero when on the ground.

No - QFE is a pressure derived from QFF (pressure at sensing point) and is then calculated to give a barometric pressure in the touchdown zone of a particular runway.

Now, Not all airfields use QFE and those that do, normally have more precise landing proceedures like ILS etc where you will need an accurate height above the airfield elevation.

So why do AERAD's give Decision ALTITUDE, which is derived from QNH, for an ILS, which is a precision approach. You 'll find more Commercial / Private operators fly instrument approaches on QNH rather than QFE, as it saves a safety critical change in the event of a missed approach. I never give QFE to an aircraft on the approach unless specifically asked.

However you need to make sure that if the field is using QFE then you set your altimeter to QFE when entering the circuit otherwise you may find there could be 20mb difference between QFE and QNH and if your flying the wrong one you could be 500 ft lower or higher than you should be!


More b*ll*cks. If you fly at circuit height you set QFE, if you want to fly at Circuit altitude you set QNH. Both vertical positions, relevant to the ground, are of course identical, because altitude is just height added to aerodrome elevation.

Littco - I think this demonstrates the farce that is the British ATPL system. You've obviously studied the exam matter by rote, without actually understanding the subject.

That, to me, is frightening!

[JW411]

This is one of those arguments that could go around for years and years.

The only time that I ever used QFE was when I was a guest of Her Majesty. Otherwise I agree with IO540 that QFE is a distraction and about as much use as a chocolate kettle.

Try setting QFE at Nairobi, Addis Ababa or Asmara!

I have done thousands and thousands of precision let downs all over the world using QNH.

My only regret is that it is difficult to find an airfield in UK that is prepared to give the QFF. Now that is much more accurate!

[littco]

Chilli Monster!

I've deleted my posts.... Thanks for your input... :)

[High Wing Drifter]

Chilli Monster,
No - QFE is a pressure derived from QFF (pressure at sensing point) and is then calculated to give a barometric pressure in the touchdown zone of a particular runway.
Interesting Chilli. I was taught that QFF is a mean sea level pressure calculated using the actual temprature at the sensing point (as opposed to ISA for QNH). Apparently it is the pressure shown on met charts.

JW441,
Try setting QFE at Nairobi, Addis Ababa or Asmara!
To your knowledge is there anywhere, such as them there places, where QNE is actually used rather than just inhabiting a CAA examiner's head?

[PPRuNeUser0172]

What is your problem with QFE? particularly you mr IO540 does it matter what you have set, as long as you know where you are in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter me feels.

Having flown both QFE/QNH mil ops I don't really care which I use and when operating at a civvy field and they ask me if I want a QFE approach as opposed to a QNH then again, dont really care. Just means I have to read a different number on the approach plate. If you are that easily confused then you probably shouldn't be a professional pilot, which is after all what this forum is about, the clue is in the title.

Variety is the spice of life chaps...............

If you don't like flying in MATZ's where they work on QFE, then don't.........do us all a favour:ugh:


IO540 must know what he is talking about though as he flies aeroplanes where the wheels come up, wow how do you cope?

[Chilli Monster]

Interesting Chilli. I was taught that QFF is a mean sea level pressure calculated using the actual temprature at the sensing point (as opposed to ISA for QNH). Apparently it is the pressure shown on met charts.

You could be right - it's been years since I did the Met observers course. There's no mention of QFF on the register these days, it just says "Barometer as read". Probably a case of being slightly "Q"less :)

[microlight AV8R]

Oh hell !! I thought I had it sussed :confused:

I just use QFE when flying circuits and local. Seems to work for me, although I'd happily work out what it should be on QNH. Now let's see.... Conington is elev 26 ft, circuit height is 1000ft = 1026ft on QFE. So round out at circa 41ft QNH instead of 15ft QFE :hmm: Yeah, gottit :ok:

I'm not reading any more threads about QNH/QFE as this old codger gets confused :rolleyes:

[Whirlybird]

Right, I think I just possibly begin to see....

If you use QFE you have to remember whether you've got the QNH set or the QFE. Now that's just hellishly confusing, innit? :confused:

But wait! If you DON'T use QFE, you have to remember how high the airfield is, and take that into account when landing. Awwwww, now I don't think I could cope with that. :confused:

Isn't it just awful! You've either got to cope with TWO (a HUGE number) different altimeter settings, or you've got to add and subtract a few hundred feet at every airfield. Those are really, really complicated things to do. And to make it even more confusing, you have a CHOICE of which to do, since no-one has ever held a gun to a pilot's head and demanded he do one or the other. So you have to decide for yourself!!!

I feel quite exhausted with working all this out, and comparing the strong views for and against each method. I just can't imagine how I've flown in both the UK and other countries for all these years and managed to cope. I would have thought it would give any poor pilot a nervous breakdown, just thinking about it.

Come to think of it, I need a drink.......

[microlight AV8R]

[quote=Come to think of it, I need a drink.......[/quote]

Yup, me too. :ok:

[eharding]

So instrument pilots usually use QNH only.

Aerobatic pilots will generally faithfully repeat the QNH/QFE as supplied over the wireless, and then set the thing to zero when lining up....but then, we have more fun than instrument pilots... :8

[benhurr]

As an instructor I taught to land on QFE - zero=ground which is good for students and kind of makes sense.

Flying commercially I always land QNH - a very simple reason, the missed approach is always a climb to an altitude and not a height and therefore saves changing the pressure setting at a particularly stressful time.

RAD ALT is not used for CAT 1 approaches (hmmm...) as decision altitude or height is from the altimeters.

So for private flying depart on QNH, as all airspace surrounding a Class D airfield will be based on QNH so you arent going to bust airspace - land on QFE cos the altimeter will read zero so you know when you have hit the ground.

[BEagle]

The RAF has been going from QNH to QFE and back again for years....

RPS is a pretty useless concept these days, I agree.

It used to amuse me that the Brize CTR has a top level of 3500 ft QNH - yet the RAF flies on QFE and changes to 1013 at 3000ft - even when TA is different. Pointed the error of this out to the Benson ATC folk, whose airspace is under the LTMA and who should therefore obesrve the associated TA and London QNH - not sure if they've changed anything though.

[smith]

Always thought that the radio altimeter should be called a radio heightimeter as it always measures height. Suppose the barometric altimeter could be classed as a "heightimeter" when set to QFE. Just my brain working in a bizarre way again.:8

[SparkyBoy]

Ooooh, thanks all for the input - looks like a hot subject :mad:

I understand that QFE is the airodrome pressure, which gives you a 0 on your Altimeter, but in fact you may actually be several hundred feet above mean sea level.
The QNH being the regional pressure in your current area based on your current height above mean sea level.

The pros for using QFE is that when you land it reads 0 on your altimeter.

The pros for using QNH are that you are given a height which allows you to corrolate with the height obstacles marked on a map and it's the only thing used outside.

Hopefully I got it!

I think at this point I'll stick to QFE while I'm learning so I know I got my 1000 ft over the a/d for the circuit. :=

ps. I didn't know QFE was related to Military ATZ's. Hope that question comes up in one of my exams. :D

[ShyTorque]

"The QNH being the regional pressure in your current area based on your current height above mean sea level."

No, you got this wrong. The term height and QNH shouldn't be used together. Altitude is the correct term.

Height is read using QFE.

What you describe is the Regional QNH, not the local /airfield QNH.
Regional QNH is forecast and published in advance and is used for en-route terrain clearance, whilst local/airfield QNH is measured at the time and is set prior to making an approach.

No-one should try to make an instrument approach on regional QNH.

[benhurr]

Sparky,

When referring to QNH or sea level etc. then we use the word altitude.

When referring to QFE or distance above a fixed datum then we use the word height.

Controlled airspace surrounding a civilian airfield is always defined by flight level or QNH.

For example, if you flew under East Midlands controlled airspace on the Barnsley regional pressure setting you could potentially bust controlled airspace because you should be flying on the East Midlands QNH and there will usually be a difference between the two.

Regional pressure settings are useful in areas where there is little controlled airspace, for terrain avoidance. Flying cross country in England usually means setting an airfield QNH along the length of the route.

edited to add that I agree with shytorque, but you cannot legally make any sort of instrument approach on regional QNH

[SparkyBoy]

I can see I'm going to have to watch saying height instead of altitude then. :ugh:

Thanks

[FullyFlapped]

I think the CAA should be tasked to sort this one out.

Hmmm ... let's see, what would they do ? Go for QNH or QFE ?

I know ...

"Reuters, London, 2006.

The CAA has today announced the results of it's 14 year study into the use of Q codes to stipulate vertical aircraft positioning. As a result of this intensive work, all airfields are to be relocated to coastal towns and sited on the beach. Once complete, the terms QNH and QFE will be replaced by the common reference WGAT (note 1).
In order to manage these changes, the CAA will recruit 1400 new staff. As only the RAF and GA use the term "QFE", they will bear all associated project costs. In order to apportion the charges fairly, all RAF officer clubs will close 5 minutes earlier, and £4.63 will be added to a litre of AVGAS."

(1) : WGAT = Who Gives A Toss

FF :ok:

[JW411]

High Wing Drifter:

I have personally never come across an example of using QNE for a letdown although I have heard of this practice somewhere in the back of my dim and distant memory. At Nairobi, Addis and Asmara for example, we always used QNH.

I seem to remember that trying to use QFE at Nairobi was the cause of the two BOAC aircraft (a Comet and a 747) which both managed to do a touch and go in the game park well short of the runway and, amazingly, survive the experience.

QFE would have come out to something like 837 mbs but the altimeter was set to 937 mbs - an error of some 3,000 ft!

[rodthesod]

I'm being instructed to use QNH on take off and QFE on landing, this makes sense to me because it's handy to know where 0ft is when your approaching a r/w.
Sparky

Hi SparkyBoy,

Now you've seen most of the QFE/QNH debate. I've used several systems.

RAF Strike & Training Commands. Take-off and land on QFE. Worked fine but rarely (Instrument Rating Tests only in 12 years) had to make ILS approach (where, as someone pointed out earlier, a missed approach almost invariably involves a climb to an altitude (QNH)). We normally stayed with a radar contoller who 'talked' us down and nursed us through a missed approach so we never had to worry about forgetting alimeter setting.
Civil Airline. Take-off and land on QFE. I was happy using system but saw many alt-busts on sim checks when pilots (myself included) forgot to reset to QNH on missed approach.
Civil Airline. Take-off QNH and land QFE (the way your instructor suggests). I don't like this system at all. Landing on QFE 'conditions' pilots to see 0ft indicated. These same pilots, with heavy workload after take-off (one-eng inop or windshear encounter for example), tend to 'forget' the elevation of the airfield they've just departed and I've witnessed several (LOFT Sim) controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) events, probably for that reason.
Civil Airline. Take-off and land on QNH. Worked ok for me and never heard any complaints from other pilots. Still confusion occasionally after take-off but less than in last system. Approaches down to CAT I precision use QNH Decision Altitudes. CAT II or lower use RAD ALT Decision Heights but the pressure altimeters remain on airfield QNH (ready for the missed approach).Obviously you must use the system you're taught and later the one you prefer, or the one your Company SOP dictates. Just be aware that there are pitfalls as well as advantages to the various methods. Happy flying.

rts

[PPRuNe Radar]

What you describe is the Regional QNH, not the local /airfield QNH.
Regional QNH is forecast and published in advance and is used for en-route terrain clearance, whilst local/airfield QNH is measured at the time and is set prior to making an approach.

No-one should try to make an instrument approach on regional QNH.

Even if they could find someone to pass them one ;)

They shouldn't be made on the Regional Pressure Setting either, which is much easier to get hold of :ok: :p

[High Wing Drifter]

JW411,

Thanks for getting back to me. I thought as much, although it is mentioned in CAP 413; I suppose when Ben Nevis London International opens QNE might be a possibility :\

QFE would have come out to something like 837 mbs but the altimeter was set to 937 mbs - an error of some 3,000 ft!
Does seem incredible that they lived. At least the RoD would be slow, just as they captured the glideslope and then "What's that rumbling noise?" :uhoh:

[bookworm]

But wait! If you DON'T use QFE, you have to remember how high the airfield is, and take that into account when landing.

It's usual to "take it into account" simply by landing on the runway. The numbers you have to remember are the ones for levels above the airport. For VFR, you need traffic pattern (circuit) altitude or height. For IFR, you need decision (or minimum descent) altitude or height.

You still need to check and remember the numbers when using QFE. The difference is that they are often, but not always, the same when using heights (1000 ft pattern height, 200 ft decision height etc.). The "but not always" part makes me think that using QNH is less likely to catch you out!

[WestWind1950]

I will never understand why you guys have this problem. Both in Germany and the USA you NEVER get QFE... the only time I even heard of it was in ground school. QNH is used everywhere! Only the glider fliers use QFE but only for traffic patterns...they set the altimeter to 0 while still on the ground... most don't even know it's called QFE! :bored:
And who needs the needle on 0 when landing....I see the elevation of the field in my chart, the traffic pattern is noted in altitude MSL, as is every obstacle and landscape, so I need QNH... and when I land, I look OUT and not at my altimeter anyway!
Maybe the UK uses QFE because your country is so flat! :E
Westy

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Maybe the UK uses QFE because your country is so flat! :E
I think you might have hit the nail on the head there.

On going flying in less flat areas - a joyride from Brnik comes to mind - I've said things like: "I can't see how QFE would be much use to you here, you must do everything on QNH" to get the puzzled reply "yes of course".

Where I usually fly, ATC will give you QFE if you've booked out for circuits, QNH if you've booked out for anything else. But with airfield elevation of 49' it doesn't make a vast deal of difference.

[PPRuNeUser0172]

:ugh: Westwind

I don't think that you will find that the UK is that flat actually, try teling to that to the pair of F15's who crashed into terra firma whilst confused about their altitude operating QNH/RPS under a RIS. Bottom line is safety altitide is the law when IMC. The only time you get terrain clearance from ATC is when under Radar control. (which they weren't)

I refer you to my original comment, if you don't have the mental flexibility to operate under QFE/QNH and then read out the elevation of the airfield then you don't have the right to be classed as a "professional pilot", considering most of you barely get above 120 kts where things happen painfully slowly..........get a grip.

All of your arguments for abolishing QFE are brittle at best. You all have the audacity to have a go at the RAF for using QFE, yet expect the impeccable service you should/will get in a MATZ, again, if you don't like it go elsewhere and do us all a favour.

[WestWind1950]

no need to be insulting.... it was a joke after all. :uhoh:

But how can you navigate on QFE if the countryside changes elevation constantly? that's what I don't understand! If you have QFE set at your home field, well, get into those mountains and the ground will no longer be 0! I don't see where that could be safe!

Westy

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Westone

no one here is advocating the use of QFE away from the airfield, where I will concur it is as much use as tits on fish, however, I will defend it on pain of death whilst flying circuits/inst app at an airfield.

I maintain my point, flexibilty is the key to air power............. if individuals are that easily confused by moving the subscale on their altimeters, then they should hang their heads...............

Bottom line is QFE is not evil, or wrong, it is merely another string to your bow and if you can't cope with it, stay on the ground.

Some of the replies here are pathetic and I hate to generalise but mostly by those who fly puddle jumpers with less performance than a mini metro who do seem to create a storm in a teacup over absolutley nothing.:}

get a grip guys

[London Mil]

DS, I don't know how you can say:


...try teling to that to the pair of F15's who crashed into terra firma whilst confused about their altitude operating QNH/RPS under a RIS


If they had been on Ben MCDui QNH (bearing in mind there isn't normally a met stn there) or the RPS (which would have provided enhanced terrain clearance) the outcome would have been the same. They hit the hill because they were flying at least 2000ft below SA (one presumes under IMC at the point of impact), regardless of QNH/RPS.

That said, I agree with the thrust of your argument.

[Whirlybird]

I simply don't understand how anyone can get so excited about all of this. :confused:

ATC give you QNH and QFE. You set whichever you prefer.

Away from the airfield of course you usually use QNH; though if I'm teaching half an hour trial lessons close to the airfield, staying on QFE gives me my approx height above the ground, and therefore the height above the villages which might put in noise complaints, so it's very convenient.

Close to the airfield you decide if you prefer to read off your height when in the circuit, or subtract airfield elevation in order to get it. One involves setting the sub-scale; the other some very simple arithmetic.

How can you get so het up over all of this? :confused:

Though if you're enjoying the pointless discussion, don't let me stop you (I'm sure you won't anyway)

I need another drink....

[IO540]

How can you get so het up over all of this?

Perhaps because people get killed fairly regularly (I mean to say a number of them get killed, not that a particular person gets killed more than once :) ) through the loss of separation between the ground and the aircraft.

A lot of the argument comes down to VFR v. IFR. There is a heavy VFR bias in this forum; even more so in most other pilot forums.

One could be pedantic and say that in VFR one must maintain VMC, so end of debate. Unfortunately, nobody (unless they have just got to the bottom of their last bottle of Prozac) is going to fly into the ground knowingly, and clouds are a common thing in most of the world, so it must be assumed that a lot of people do end up not seeing where they are going. Accidentally or intentionally; I think it's fair to say that most pilots that "go places" do from time to time fly in IMC under VFR. It's illegal but surely it's reasonable to discuss ways to avoid getting killed while doing it.

And getting QFE and QNH getting mixed up is a great way to get killed.

If IFR then confusion (and loss of obstacle clearance) is almost certain to happen unless one avoids using QFE and sticks to QNH. It's not a case of everybody doing what they are used to; it's a case of "this way is safer because there is less chance of an error".

[fireflybob]

I think the QFE/QNH debate is as old as aviation itself.

That said, having operated both in a variety of scenarios, I would say everything favours QNH (indeed in the USA they dont call it the QNH but "THE altimeter setting"!).

Those brought up on the QFE within the general aviation sector (and I say this with all respect) are rarely taught how to conduct an altimeter tolerance check prior to take off - many is the time that I have seen pilots get the QFE from ATC/FISO/AG when they call for taxi, never to set it on the altimeter and then just set "zero". During local flying the altimeter is never reset for the rest of the flight!

Teach QNH operation from the start and there tends to be a better awareness of field/terrain elevation.

Teaching correct altimetry is rather like bringing up a child to the age of 7 years - inculcate the correct habits and you never forget. It's simple stuff but Hey Guys! get this stuff wrong in IMC and it can kill you!

[QDMQDMQDM]

To add my two penn'orth: I never use QFE. Don't see the point, but each to their own.

QDM

[London Mil]

Whilst we're at it - different Transition Altitudes. What's that all about? Equally (if not more) likely to bust CAS because your tootling along on the SAS when you should be on a QNH.

PS. We must remember that the QNH is derived from the QFE ;)

[chevvron]

Haven't used QFE since I flew from Denham: circuit height 750 agl, elevation about 250ft, add those two together and what's easier than flying a circuit at 1000ft rather than 750ft? OK so I'm lazy, but it's not easy being this lazy, it takes a lot of practice!

[3FallinFlyer]

For years I've used QFE for visual app's & QNH for instrument app's. If landing at a field when there's no radio, I use QNH (but sometimes calculate QFE from a nearby airfield QNH if I am bored).

This makes no sense at all and must be the most confusing to learn, but as all my VFR training taught QFE and IFR training taught QNH, I just kinda fell into it. Maybe it's time to change to QNH all round (Nah - old dogs - new tricks :hmm: )

[arem]

JW411 - yes the comet did do a touch and goi n the game park but the 747 only did a 'low approach and go around' - broke out of the cloud early enough to do a deleted expletive pull-up

Back in the late '60's early '70's we (BOAC) landed on QFE ( a pain in the ass winding off the settings going into Teheran, especially as we were dodging around the mountains at the time!) NBO and JNB were even worse!

Fortunately the Flight manager of the 'new' 747 fleet - Douggie Redrup - insisted that everything was done the 'Boeing' way which included using QNH for all arrivals and departures - it made assessing altitude in relation to surrounding terrain much easier even if it did involve more mental arithmetic in relation to MDA's and DH's, but we soon got used to it!

BEA used QFE for much longer - dont know when they switched.

Now I only fly light 'stuff' QFEi s used for all arrivals and departures - regional QNH for enroute!! which is strictly VFR