No more QFE

[Dannyboyblue]

Hey Guys,

Am i being the most dumb PPL or was i the last to know that QFE is never to be used at a CAA Aerodrome as of May 10th.

Did i miss something here, i dont remember anything coming up on Pprune or any details from the CAA being sent out apart from atsins.

I do realise that it is relatively easy to do QNH/ Elevation but diverting to an aerodrome, joining a busy circuit looking for 5 other aircraft doing all your checks, i could quite easily see how you could screw up all your circuit and approach heights. Especially an inexperienced PPL

If im just being simple, just shout it out

DBB

[India Four Two]

DEB,

I hadn't heard about the change, but I would just like to say that using QNH is no big deal. Thousands of students in the US and Canada learn this method and never give it a second thought. They would however be mystified by the term QNH since Altimeter Setting is used across the pond.

[Chilli Monster]

It's amazing how this has been blown out of all proportion.

All that is happening is current practice has been made "official". Previously the documents said that QFE was to be given to all aircraft on final approach - but the big operators don't want it, so it wasn't done.

So - expect service as before. QFE is still there, and is available if requested. I can only speak for where I work, but it looks like our unit policy will be QNH to IFR aircraft (QFE if requested) and QFE to VFR aircraft (as our based flying schools use it).

[Another_CFI]

I agree with CM that it is no big deal. The change was published both in an ATSIN and in the most recent AIP amendment.

Where I work we will pass QHN to everyone, with QFE available on request and also airfield elevation available on request. Previously we had a mixture of QHN and QFE in the circuit depending upon who was flying the aircraft.

When the ATSIN first came out I checked with the CFI at the flying school and the instructors had already discussed the change and were all in favour of using QNH only.

Give it a few weeks and no one will bat an eyelid.

DBB, When did they last use QFE at the big airfield with the shiny new control tower where you work?

[Kyprianos Biris]

but diverting to an aerodrome, joining a busy circuit looking for 5 other aircraft doing all your checks, i could quite easily see how you could screw up all your circuit and approach heights.

That's what millions of non UK pilots (IFR & VFR) around the world have been doing for ages and it hasn't been that hard; trust me.

[Dannyboyblue]

Another CFI has me there, would like to attempt to ask for circuits in a 747 though :}

I realise that the use of QNH is not a massive problem, the thing which i was trying to get across (not very well) was the lack of communication to pilots about things like this especially PPLs who may own their own aircraft and not come into contact with flying clubs.

Im probably clutching at straws more than anything but this is the place to say it!!!

DBB

[Slopey]

Up in Aberdeen the nice controllers usually give us little GA planes both if we've been out and about for a bimble on the way back in - nice and handy since egpd is at 213ft and the circuit is higher on one side due to a big hill, but not the end of the world. On a bimble I have a habit of setting the 2nd Alt to the QFE before take off anyway (but I do check on the way back that the QNH hasn't changed), but you hardly ever get into the circuit at Aberdeen anyway, just end up orbiting before a downwind or base join :)

The handy thing about Florida at least is that the airport elevations are pretty much at sea level anyway ;)

[Dave Gittins]

Try flying in mid America. Where I was at Meadowlake, near Colorado Springs in Feb/March, threshold elvation is 6,700 and circuits are flown at 7,700 ft. To get QFE, you'd need to set the altimeter to 1236.5 on an ISA day.

DGG

[Another_CFI]

DGG, The QFE in your example would be 789, but your point is well made.

[M609]

I once tried (in vain) to explain to a UK reg Piper that using QFE was not much help when he asked for it prior to departure at my airfield last summer.
With AD elevation of 250 odd feet and terrain peaks at 5000 feet 5 miles from the field kinda makes QNH the sensible option.

I have seen a good reason to use QFE, ever. Not as a controller or pilot :rolleyes:

[tangovictor]

QFE will still be needed & taught, otherwise MATZ or zone transit would become a mystery to a low hours pilot

[High Wing Drifter]

QFE will still be needed & taught, otherwise MATZ or zone transit would become a mystery to a low hours pilotEither I've misunderstood the point of this thread or the ATSIN (? I think that is what it was called).

Nothing has changed, QFE is still standard practice now where it was standard practice prior to the ATSIN. The ATSIN just reflects current practice for those ATS units that, until this point, unofficially dropped QFE unless requested (mostly IFR arrivals I presume) .

[Sleeve Wing]

Nail on the head, tangovictor.

quote :QFE will still be needed & taught, otherwise MATZ or zone transit would become a mystery to a low hours pilot :unquote.

MATZ/Zone Transit is of course RAF territory and separation with local traffic is still achieved with altitude clearances on QFE.

Seems the RAF is the only agency to insist on use of QFE in UK.



btw, wrt high altitude airfields, is the use of QNE still current ? eg Nairobi etc( Reason being normal altimeter scales cannot be adjusted to cover.) :ok:

[BackPacker]

Sleeve, If you fly on QFE, you get a height clearance, not an altitude clearance. Or so I was taught. It sounds very picky but if you get it wrong the consequences can be severe.

QFE -> height
QNH -> altitude
QNE -> flight level

I've never done a MATZ transition because I don't fly in the UK (often). Does theory here indeed match practice? In other words, do the MATZ controllers use "height" consistently when talking QFE? And do pilots get this correct too?

[tmmorris]

BackPacker,

Mostly yes, though I have heard occasionally 'not above altitude 1500 B***e QFE 1005'...

The RAF insistence on QFE does make some sense. It makes all approaches the same - particularly talkdowns - with the same heights at the same distances, ILS markers in the same places, &c. Jolly handy when it's your first (night IMC, naturally) approach to Baghdada, or Basra. One less thing to worry about.

Kyprianos,

You may be right - but in the USA I have also regularly heard controllers pass the pattern altitude over the radio to inbound and even outbound traffic, so there are clearly enough confused pilots to need that information...

Tim

[Chilli Monster]

QFE -> height
QNH -> altitude
QNE -> flight level

No it's not, yet we see this written so many times. This may sound pedantic but:

QNE is NOT 1013.2mb / 29.92 inches. That pressure setting is, has been, and always will be, the STANDARD ALTIMETER SETTING

QNE is the level, indicated on an altimeter, when 1013.2 / 29.92 is set on the altimeter. Normally used at high altitude strips where there are no means of obtaining an accurate QNH, and where the altitude of the strip is unknown.

[Hugh Spencer]

The mention of QFE sends be back to WW2 - was it asking for altitude or barometric pressure? I remember asking for a QDM - course to base but I have forgotten the rest.

[BackPacker]

Chilli, so if I ask for the QNE at a high-altitude strip, what would the proper response be? Clearly, with what you're saying "1013.2 hectopascal" is incorrect. "Flight Level such and such" would be correct but too inaccurate (rounded to 100 feet). Or do they respond with "pressure altitude such and such feet"?

[matspart3]

QFE makes perfect sense to my simple little brain and I use it all the time when bimbling around in the local area.

When you're on the ground, your altimeter says zero. What could be simpler than that?

My only problem with the ATSIN was the original wording, which initially implied that it would be mandatory for ATCOs to pass QFE AND Elevation if the setting was requested by the pilot, thereby increasing RT load and the potential for confusion. Pedantic, I know, but symptomatic of how the relevance of our National guidelines has been gradually eroded in respect of GA and operations outside CAS. A few emails later, the wording was changed.

Before I get flamed by the members of Bogota Flying Club and everyone else who thinks QFE is the work of satan, I do think it remains useful in some parts of UK airspace and its use is still prevalent amongst a fair chunk of the industry. Maybe I should join the Flat Earth Society, I bet they use QFE:)

[Chilli Monster]

Backpacker - response would be "QNE is such and such feet" (given as if you were reading it off an altimeter).

[tmmorris]

I once had the altimeter setting knob fall off the only altimeter in flight, and Oxford Approach kindly calculated the altitude which I should fly the circuit at, and the altimeter reading on the ground when I landed, for me. Actually I'd beaten them to it by about 10 seconds, but it's good to know controllers can do it for you.

Tim

[BlueRobin]

AIP entries and flight guides will be out of synch too with the change. My worry is that many may end up flying 1000ft on the QNH. It's a change and safety concern that should be widely advertised. What would it cost the CAA to mail shot every valid PPL licence holder?

[JW411]

tmmorris: The use of QFE for the RAF makes sense.

I only managed 18 years as a pilot in the Royal Air Force and I would have to say that once I got my training out of the way, QFE was irrelevant.

Mind you, once I got out of Training Command I wasn't really in the Royal Air Force. I was in Transport Command.

I have used QNH for over 40 years and still do even my litle spamcan.

[2 sheds]

What would it cost every PPL holder to request the information (s)he needs if it is not forthcoming? You will invariably find that the ATS unit will pass QFE anyway if it is known that specific operators require it - and, for a start, that will invariably include UK-registered light aircraft.

Not that it should be necessary, of course, QNH, elevation/obstacle clearance awareness etc etc...

[2 sheds]

The use of QFE for the RAF makes sense.

Not when they try to hand over traffic to another unit at a height based their aerodrome QFE, it doesn't!

[JW411]

Having thought about my last post and bearing in mind that we are on the Private Flying forum I feel that I need to expand my view.

QFE is only ever of any value for pilots who are doing nothing else but flying locally.

QFE gives you absolutely no idea of your height is in relation to obstacles on your map which are measured in QNH (put simply) or in QFF (if you really want to get complicated).

Let us put it simply; all of the obstacles marked on your charts are measured in feet above mean sea level. All airfield heights are given in feet above mean sea level. QNH (or QFF) will give you such a height on touch down.

So what are the perils of using QFE?

Imagine a simple "bimble" down to Compton Abbas for lunch. As most of us know, Compton Abbas is 811ft amsl. So you set the QFE for touchdown, land and have a nice lunch.

After take-off we head east towards Goodwood via Stoney Cross and forget to reset the altimeter. The base of the Solent area is 2000ft amsl (QNH) but you are now at 2811ft amsl and the man on the ground is not very happy about that.

QFE is great if you NEVER want to leave the circuit but otherwise learn to use QNH and stay out of trouble AND stay alive!
P.S. Can you imagine how impossible it would be to set QFE at Nairobi, Addis Ababa or Asmara?

[Final 3 Greens]

JW411

QFE is only ever of any value for pilots who are doing nothing else but flying locally

I disagree.

QFE is good for less experienced or low currency PPLs in the circuit, as it eliminates them having to do mental arithmetic (i.e. QNH less aerodrome elevation) to decide what altitude they are at.

To experienced pilots this is second nature, but to low hour PPLs to know that 300 ft is 300 ft and its time to take land flap and set carb heat cold just makes the world a tiny little bit safer.

So, IMHO, they need to be trained to set the right pressure settings for the right context.

And I speak as a PPL with a few hundred hours (so little experience compared to you) who is quite happy to fly on the QNH.

[Whirlybird]

I'll never understand how this topic can generate so much discussion. Whether you use QFE close to an airfield or in the circuit, or QNH all the time, makes precisily no difference. In the first case you need to remember to reset your altimeter now and then; in the second you need to do a little mental arithmetic. Neither is a big deal, and it comes down to personal preference.

But if something like this is changing in any way, it would be nice to be told, particularly for instructors who are passing on this kind of stuff to the next generation of pilots. And this is the first I've heard of it!

[JW411]

Final 3 Geens:

I said:

"QFE is only of any value for pilots who are doing nothing else but flying locally".

You said:

I disagree.

QFE is good for less experienced or low currency PPLs "In the Circuit".

Now then, you have lost me completely. I had always imagined that being "in the circuit" was "flying locally". So why are you disagreeing? Perhaps you have less control over your students than I do over mine.

The advantage of teaching QNH from the outset means that you don't have to worry when they set off to the Continent (where they might not know what QFE is) and I would further humbly suggest that anyone who is incapable of adding 300 to 1000 and arriving at 1300 should not ever be considered for solo flight.

[False Capture]

Sleeve Wing,
btw, wrt high altitude airfields, is the use of QNE still current ? eg Nairobi etc( Reason being normal altimeter scales cannot be adjusted to cover.)Not any longer sir, they use QNH nowadays. At the end of the day we set QNH at Nairobi, Harare and Jo'burg in exactly the same way as we do for most other places around the world. Some parts of the former Soviet Union use QFE.

[Piltdown Man]

What's the difference between QFE and a lawyer? None, both are better for the World if they are DEAD!
:D PM

[M609]

The use of QFE for the RAF makes sense.

They still find it bearable to fly on QNH only when abroad, come to think of it, as far as I know all their tactical flying is done on QNH. Why use QFE for recovery?

I know "...fighter pilot - pea brain..." but still :p :p


I trained and worked as an ATCO in Sweden, and their air force used QFE. It was a real pain in the @rse, the problem growing with the AD Elev. A fighter at 2000ft could be 1200 above a B737 at 3000ft......QNH.
(Because no sane airline accepted to fly on QFE)

Big dark hole ready for ATCOs to fall into? You bet.

Student pilots that are arithmetically challenged should IMHO not be let outside the circuit, or lack of understanding of the altimeter would see them meet Mr. Cumulus Graniutus fairly soon.

[tmmorris]

Lots of people have said that it doesn't take much intelligence to remember the aerodrome elevation and work out the altitudes for the circuit.

But I would counter that it doesn't take that much intelligence to remember to set QNH when leaving the circuit and QFE when recovering - especially if the controller gives you the QFE when you call for recovery. Now, if he doesn't give it, surely that is increasing the risk that a pilot who expects to be 'reminded' to set the QFE will now forget, join the circuit on QNH when he should be on QFE, and fly too low?

Tim

[Chilli Monster]

But I would counter that it doesn't take that much intelligence to remember to set QNH when leaving the circuit and QFE when recovering - especially if the controller gives you the QFE when you call for recovery. Now, if he doesn't give it, surely that is increasing the risk that a pilot who expects to be 'reminded' to set the QFE will now forget, join the circuit on QNH when he should be on QFE, and fly too low
Who cares? :rolleyes:

If you want to fly on an anachronistic left over, from the days when people flew from unsurveyed fields for which the elevation was unknown - so be it. Ask and you wil be given.

If you want to fly using the method that the rest of the world has adopted - fine, you'll be happy too.

I would suggest that if you have to fly a visual circuit with constant reference to the altimeter, no matter what it reads on touchdown, then you've got bigger problems in your overall flying than what you're setting on the subscale.

How the hell do some of you people cope flying into unmanned places with nobody to tell you what to set!

[Airbus38]

I would suggest that if you have to fly a visual circuit with constant reference to the altimeter, no matter what it reads on touchdown, then you've got bigger problems in your overall flying than what you're setting on the subscale.

How the hell do some of you people cope flying into unmanned places with nobody to tell you what to set!

Well, kind of....

If it's unmanned then you have to eyeball it/use some common sense based on terrain heights/RPS etc I suppose, and I agree this should be something that should be well within pilots' capabilities.

However, if it is manned then that's probably because you're not the only one around. A/C flying within the cct without reference to an altimeter set to allow them to maintain the correct height will always put them in the blindspot of aircraft at the correct circuit height. Some days they'll pop up and take you aback, other days you might not be so lucky.

As for QFE and QNH....well, in the circuit as long as you use them both correctly they're fine.

Elsewhere clearly QFE has its limitations.

[Crash one]

If QFE had never been "invented" in the first place this "problem" would not exist & we would all be flying circuits at altitude xxxxft touching down at a/d elevations & thinking nothing of it. One big advantage is, at a non radio field you would not "need" airfield information to join, & if you did you could get it from FIS.
As for flying circuits with ref to altimeter, I do not recall ever reading less than 300ft on final, I'm more concerned with what is outside the window.
I believe the "problem" is prising the QFE mentality out of the brain & replacing it with logic. "This airfield is at 399ft elevation so we add 1000 to that so as not to upset the sheep"!

[London Mil]

QFE is abut as much of a problem as is having a ridiculously low Transition Altitude (which is variable across the UK!!). All of this only becomes a problem if the pilots and controllers concerned forget what they are using. As a professional, I was taught how to juggle pressure settings, including the integration of Swedish aircraft that flew at Metres rather than Feet.:cool:

[Whirlybird]

Is any of this a problem? Are you sure you're not just making it into one?

Recently, when flying in France, the friend I was with asked me if I wanted the QFE (she was doing the radio calls as she lives there and her French is better than mine). I said I didn't care, so long as I knew which way I was doing it. She seemed to think this was a perfectly normal way of thinking.

Either ask for the QFE, or do a quick bit of mental arithmetic. Neither is a big deal, for pilots or students or anyone with a half a brain. Why does this even get discussed?

[Chilli Monster]

As a Professional in the same profession - so was I. (Though handing over traffic on the QFE of an airfield 30 miles away is taking the pi$$ somewhat! You want to use it in the MATZ - fine. Just remember it's cock all use outside and change the aircraft accordingly).

As a Pilot - its retention makes less and less sense.

Crash one, I think, sums it up perfectly.

[Crash one]

London Mil
The point I am trying to make is that the more variables there are the easier it is for someone to get it wrong.
I am quite sure that professionals like yourself don't consider it a problem. This is fine. But as you have said "juggling with pressure settings".
Why should "juggling" be necessary? If all a/c in a particular ASR are on the same setting (QNH) whether in transit or circuit, everyone knows where everyone else is.
In a situation :- a/f elevation 500ft a/c approaching circuit on QFE at 2000ft, a/c in transit reports alt 2500 QNH, a conflict exists but may not be realised. Why make life difficult? Transition alts & levels are a different issue & based on QNH or 1013.2 anyway, & QFE if high enough could bust them.
What I am saying is, we can all do the sums, we know metres are bigger than feet so we don't need so many of them, but why should we sit there doing sums desperately in order to stay alive?
In fact 1013.2 is a prime example of standardising pressure settings over a large area, terrain not being such a problem.

[bookworm]

Lots of people have said that it doesn't take much intelligence to remember the aerodrome elevation and work out the altitudes for the circuit.

I think the point that's often missed is that if you fly using QFE you still have to check and/or remember as many levels as someone flying on QNH. If you're flying IFR, you need the intermediate levels and (M)DA/H for the IAP. If you're flying VFR you need the circuit level.

The fact that most but not all ILS DHs are 200 ft and most but not all circuit heights are 1000 ft always seems to me to be a good reason for using altitudes rather than heights, as using heights tends to encourage unwarranted assumptions.