altimeter setting procedures

[Camp Freddie]

hi people,

for years I have been telling people when they depart to the local area/cross country to set QNH, and when they return from the local area/cross country to set QFE.

when they do circuits to set QFE, and to read back to ATC from the ATIS before departure whichever one they are using depending on what they are doing, and always they read back the one they have set.

the CFI has started telling students to set QFE on departure whether they intend to depart the ATZ or not, and to change to QNH when they are leaving the circuit for the local area.

personally I think this will lead to confusion as it creates an additional step i.e resetting the altimeter in the air on departure.

I asked ATC about this and they said you can set what you like if you are VFR and it is class G.

so I wondered what everyone else did ? what the logic was ? and any legal constraints that may affect this.

thanks in advance

regards

CF

[GASH !]

I'm presuming here that this is for a VFR flight below the transition altitude, in which case in the company I work for we always use QNH regardless of whether we are flying circuits or a departure to the local area.

[Arfur Feck-Sake]

I do it Camp Freddie's way for recreational PPL students and GASH's way for commercial students.

[Camp Freddie]

thanks guys so far,

I should have said all flights are VFR, below Transition altitude, Class G airspace, please keep 'em coming as I want to see if there is a vast majority one way or the other

regards

CF

[homeguard]

Spot heights and elevations on charts are given relative to msl and therefore QNH albeit that obstructions such as masts give both the height and msl elevations. When height is given with regard to obstructions it will bear little relation to the QFE datum of the point of departure - beware!
By flying away from the circuit it makes safety sense to fly on a datum that unambigously relates to the information on your map.
It should also be considered that earlier this year the UK officially gave up QFE and so the standard UK datum is QNH. Controllers are still required to give the QFE to those pilots that request it.

QNH then is a must for x/country flight but using QFE for landing i'm sure will remain for a long time.

[Contacttower]

the CFI has started telling students to set QFE on departure whether they intend to depart the ATZ or not, and to change to QNH when they are leaving the circuit for the local area.



For ages I used QFE for circuit/landing and QNH if I was leaving the ATZ, then I flew with an instructor that said the same thing as your CFI, I do it when I fly with him (not that often) but any other time I set QNH if I'm leaving. Like you said it has the potential to confuse when departing the zone, people might forget to set QNH.

[DFC]

QNH for all operations at and below the TA. Simple as that...only need to fiddle with the altimeter in class G when going more than 25nm from the field or the pressure changes.

Even the obstacles on the airfield chart are MSL!

Retaining QFE after leaving the circuit has been a reason for airspace infringements.

Regards,

DFC

[Contacttower]

Retaining QFE after leaving the circuit has been a reason for airspace infringements.



Indeed, but if people talked (or even just listened to) to en-route frequencies more they would be given (or at least here) the QNH, which hopefully would remind them. :E

[usedtofly]

If PPL's (and students) get easily confused between QFE and QNH then I would question their right to be flying in the first place! It's not exactly rocket science:rolleyes:

[Duchess_Driver]

QNH always where I work.

Much much simpler.


(I do know what QFE is really!)

[Troy McClure]

At every airfield I've visited, if you call for airfield information for a local flight, or a flight to xxx, they give you QNH. If for circuits, they give you QFE. Is that not the norm?

[The Otter's Pocket]

However PPL students like to fly in relation to the ground that they are about to hit in the circuit and as such they like flying on the QFE.

For example it you climb 20ft up a ladder it is 20ft up, not 120ft above sea level. To a PPL stude it makes more sense in the circuit.
As they progress in training the QNH should be brought in, in stages.
I have always believed that the first method is better, that is my opinion though.

Students do find it strange to be sitting on the runway and the alt reading 120ft.
Keep it simple!

I would however like to read more about infringements in the verticle. I would suggest that most infringements are people flying horizontally into controlled airspace. After all most PPL pilots are flying between 1500 and 2500 feet.
Any higher and they get scared.
If anybody has a link to infringments I would be very grateful.

[hugh flung_dung]

Homeguard: "It should also be considered that earlier this year the UK officially gave up QFE and so the standard UK datum is QNH." - I missed this, where was it published?

HFD

[hobbit1983]

HFD/Homeguard-

"Aircraft are to be given the appropriate QNH prior to commencing an approach. When requested by the pilot, or local procedures require, the appropriate QFE and aerodrome or threshold elevation shall also be given".

See - http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ATSIN103.pdf
and - http://www.flyer.co.uk/news/newsfeed.php?artnum=538

[Up & Away]

Use QNH always
Only resort to use QFE to teach approaches with students that don't grasp the 'altitude' thing :ugh:

[Camp Freddie]

interesting,

at the airfield in question, all arriving VFR traffic is given the QFE, they dont seem to have heard that the UK has dropped QFE except where requested, as discussed in earlier posts.

I wonder are GA airfields in practice now dropping QFE for arrivals since this change earlier this year (which I admit I knew nothing about) ?

I should add that in my regular job I fly QNH all the time and using QFE at all seems archaic to me !

regards

CF

[Up & Away]

Would it be best to contact the Air Traffic in question and ask for a polite explaination maybe?? Old habbits etc

[eyeinthesky]

If you are flying circuits at your 'home' airfield, then the elevation of it and therefore the circuit altitude should not take long to get used to. Once the student or whoever has left circuit altitude, then they should be flying a visual picture and not be worrying about whether they are, say 700ft AGL or 900ft AMSL when turning final or whatever. It should all be by reference to a correct visual picture and adjusting the approach as appropriate.

Therefore, my vote is for QNH all the time, and a good pre-arrival brief regarding airfield elevation and circuit altitude before going somewhere new.

This provides an easy transition to instrument flying where altitude information is always presented more obviously than height information (and of course then there is the need to cross check actual altitude with approved procedure altitude as there is no visual picture.)

[BEagle]

It was once so easy in UK - QFE with Tower and QNH with Approach....

Then came leaden-minded airlines with 'one-size-fits-all' solutions, so QNH was more normal for their simple-minded pilots who had to use the same SOPs at 500 ft agl and 5000 ft agl.

Then the 'airline mentality' infected the UK way of working as being the norm. 'Hours builders', thinking that's what real pilots did, were keen to ape their people-tube heroes.

But no-one really thought about the basics. Why use QFE in the UK? Because we can - there are NO high elevation airports, so setting QFE isn't that difficult. Whereas elsewhere, it is impossible. Try setting QFE at Kathmandu! In any case, airliners have radalts, so there's always a height reference available.

Poor old student learning to fly in the circuit is conveniently ignored. No UK airline can afford training, so they don't see this as a problem.

Military pilots, being naturally more capable than wet-behind-the-ears low hours airline co-pilots, can cope with world-wide differences in SOPs. Not a problem....

But ask a UK airline crew to fly an approach at a UK military aerodrome on QFE and they simply can't cope..... Mummy says fly QNH, so that's all they can do....

[VFE]

Did you get booted out of an airline, the military or civvie flying school BEagle?

Just trying to work out where yer chip comes from.

Or maybe it's just simple age jealousy at those young low-houred airline wannabe's? (scuse me whilst I stiffle a yawn here) C'marn, cover up with a winter syrup and smile for once will yer?! :)

This 'industry' provides fark all money to those of us not lucky enough to be living on a cushy RAF pension whilst we gripe from our brandy-splattered soapboxes, yanno! Forgive me if I am wrong here but didn't even you have to start somewhere... or were ya born with a Phantom up yer arse? Perhaps we should all roll over and die, leaving the skies free for you to fartbox about in, all day long, resplendant in your righteous indignation for those plebs hustling for a meagre existance down here beneath you!

Not content with blaming those further down the ladder for poor quality instruction in the UK we now have veterans blaming everyone for the implimentation of JAR - the real cause of all your weary woes! http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies2/icon_rolleyes.gif

There's that many soddin' chips on yer shoulder, Harry Ramsden's even showing interest now mate! Sort it out. :}

VFE.

[IRRenewal]

BEagle,

I normally quiet value your contributions here on PPruNe.............

[BEagle]

Do grow up.

It is not unreasonable for pilots to be expected to adapt to local requirements. Such as using QFE on the approach or in the circuit at UK aerodromes.

The universal dumbing down to one-size-fits-all SOPs, whilst convenient for those unable to adapt to local methods, should NOT drive national standards.

I never found it terribly difficult to remember that:

In the US, 'altimeter' was invariably QNH below 18000ft.
At UK civil aerodromes, the approach was on QNH yet the UKAIP stated 'Descent from the FAF is normally on QFE'.
At UK military aerodromes, QFE is used for approach and circuit work.

All have their reasons. But those pilots who insist on flying on 'their' SOPs without regard for the normal SOPs at that aerodrome have little real excuse.

I once heard a KC135 crew nearly kill themselves. Arriving in the Honington CMATZ, they'd been told to set 99-something. This was the QFE in Mb, they thought it was the QNH in inches. Only when they saw buildings above them, did they realise their error.

QFE, if you can set it in the region where you're flying, is more natural - and safer.

[VFE]

I agree BEagle.

See, you can put your point across without your usual pecadilloes and still get agreement from us because we respect your experience and knowledge. It is not the fault of the pawn-in-the-game career minded young pilot that altimetry procedures have been dumbed down to the detriment of flight safety though. Or the crews of UK airlines who didn't migrate from the armed forces. You may not be aware (nor care- and who would blame you?) of how you come across sometimes.

Regards,

VFE.

[BEagle]

Sometimes one sets a sprat.....

[Contacttower]

I don't actually see why QHN always is considered easier. I was doing an NDB approach into Lyneham the other day and was told when leaving the hold 'read back QFE'. It makes sense because when I'm coming into land I'm thinking MDH and just mentally the idea of the height above the runway is more straight forward.

[Islander2]

BEagle said:
QFE, if you can set it in the region where you're flying, is more natural - and safer.Six of one and half a dozen of the other, maybe? It isn't just the airlines that favour QNH for IFR approaches ... it's the regulators too. Just maybe they've been influenced by history's take on missed approach accidents!

[TheOddOne]

CF,

I recently completed my FI course at an aerodrome which is embedded within Heathrow's Class 'A' airspace. The circuit height is 750', altitude 1,000'. Any higher than that, and you're inside the class 'A'. It's a darn sight easier to fly there on QNH in the circuit at 1,000' than on QFE at 750' - the long needle is straight up. The school I did the course at has all their students and hirers use QNH at all times and advocate its widespread use in the UK.

Now, I've just crossed the airfield to work for the other lot. They teach QNH for departure and QFE for arrivals and circuits. I adapt to whatever organisation I'm with at the time. The FISOs at this aerodrome know the requirements of the different schools and pass the appropriate infornmation to he relevant aircraft.

So there you are, one aerodrome, two different ways of doing things; for and against both arguments.

What I WON'T go along with and would object to having to teach, is setting QFE to DEPART from an aerodrome. That just doesn't make any sense to me at all and could lead to all kinds of issues, already discussed above.

Don't forget, when British Airways and other UK carriers changed to all-QNH operations a number of years ago, the RAF changed with them, then CHANGED BACK. How bizarrre is that? My main issue with RAF 'dromes, however, isn't the use of QFE but their frankly dodgy RTF phraseology which for low-houred pilots who have been taught proper ICAO/CAP 413 stuff is very confusing and illogical. But that's another story!

Cheers,
TOO

[BEagle]

I couldn't agree more about the need to standardise RTF phraseology!

The military may have additional requirements, such as the VRIAB for tactical formation rejoins, but where calls could be standardised, they should!

Having submitted a CHIRP after a mil ATCO cleared an a/c to line up when we were at 1-200 ft having been given landing clearance, the Purple People who run what used to be IFS were more interested in crucifying the controller than explaining why the aircraft cleared to line up couldn't be given a conditional clearance such as "After landig traffic, line up and wait" or words to that effect.....

The truth is that the military doesn't have enough people left to conduct a full review and standardisation of their RTF procedures.

The military is a minority airspace user these days and should move into line wherever possible

Incidentally, the move back to QFE in recent years was driven not by training or ME opinions.........

The biggest hazard faced when flying an instrument approach on QFE is the risk of a level bust on the go-around where that is defined on QNH. I used to take RAF VC10 pilots on IRTs to Lulsgate (before theym Brizzle folk got fed up with the noise!) - the difficulty of controlling the aircraft on the go-around whilst trying to reset the main altimter subscale showed up the hazards of mixed QFE/QNH instrument procedures.

At the Covert Oxonian Aerodrome, light aircraft are required to fly on QFE on departure/arrival via the VRPs. Yet the CTR limit is defined as 3500 ft amsl.... Frequently, 'zone crossers' are called to all traffic in the CTR - but whether 'height' or 'altitude' is being used is often unclear. So you may have up to 300 ft less separation than you thought you had! Not one military aircraft operating in a QNH-defined CTR will actually be using QNH - how logical is that? On departure they use QFE, changing to SPS when cleared to a FL or on passing 3000 ft QFE, whichever sooner and upon arrival they change from SPS to QFE when cleared for the Instrument Approach Procedure.

There is also an RAF aerodrome whose MATZ is beneath the London TMA. Yet still they insist on a Transition Altitude of 3000 ft "Because that's standard"....... Top of the MATZ is 3203 ft amsl, base of the TMA in one part of the MATZ is 3500 ft amsl.

To highlight to US-trained PPLs the lunacy of UK altimeter setting procs, I take them from Brize via the Faringdon VRP to White Waltham, then back via the Oxford/Kidlington overhead to the Burford VRP. This requires Brize QFE, then the Cotswold RPS (another utter anachronism), then Benson QFE, then London QNH, then White Waltham QFE, then London QNH, then Benson QFE, then Cotswold RPS, then Oxford/Kidlington QNH, then Cotswold RPS, then Brize QFE. That's 5 different altimeter settings on the way to White Waltham and 7 different settings coming back - madness!

[rightbank]

If you set QFE in an airliner, you will quite likely get the GPWS shouting "Terrain Pull-Up" at you. Although the position reference is from the FMS (usually derived from GPS these days), the altitude reference is barometric and if you set QFE the system thinks you are lower than you actually are. So if you 'adapt to local requirements' you will get the aforementioned aural warning. Had it happen once in Russia, (where the locals prefer you to fly on QFE), at an airfield with a 600ft elevation and in cloud!

[BEagle]

Yes - that used to happen when the RAF first flew the TriStar in the 1300 ft QFE visual circuit at Brize. So they raised the circuit to 1500 ft QFE....:hmm:

[Camp Freddie]

very good responses from everyone thanks, special thanks to TheOddOne and BEagle for comprehensive posts.

how to summarise all that, I will try

1) QNH all the time is becoming more standard
2) QFE has its uses for circuits and arrivals sometimes
3) QFE for departures is easier for students but can lead to level busts elsewhere
4) Flying QFE departures or circuits when you have QNH defined controlled airspace nearby is maybe not so good.

hmmn, my personal opinion is for a balance of logic and ease of use is:

1)IFR - QNH all the time
2)VFR - QNH for departure
QFE for arrivals
QNH or QFE for circuits

once again thanks to all

regards

CF

[The Otter's Pocket]

VFE
Less of the "poor" quality instruction in the UK. Me-lado.

I happen to think that I am rather good. Incidently so does Mrs Otter's Pocket.

At a local airfield QFE does work very well and I have never heard of anybody confusing QFE with QNH.
However at a regional like Bournemouth where there are CPL and PPL then the case is probably better for using the QNH. However as the difference is about 20ft then it is more for the CPL / IR chaps.

[TurboJ]

I attended a CAA safety evening earlier this year - one 'instructor' said he always taught his students to depart an airfield using regional QNH.

The guy running the show, sorry can't remember his name - was amazed - he basically said it was a CAS infringement waiting - if not already - waiting to happen.

The upshot of it all was that if you are flying under a TMA then you should be using QNH - so departing Biggin Hill or a private strip under the London TMA, then the London QNH should be used in order to avoid busting CAS.

Departing using QFE, then changing to QNH appears a lot of work for nothing - how do you fly the VFR departure and remain below 2500ft if you are then fiddling with the altimeter. What makes it worse is the fact that some PPLs won't fly regularly enough to remember to change to QNH.

BEagle - when you have finished ranting over airline pilots - the fact is, that descending from a FL what is going to be gained by changing to QNH and then changing yet again to QFE ? Again, more work for what?

Personally, when teaching IMC ratings, I don't bother with QFE - students have more than enough to do than start fiddling with the altimeter setting, single pilot, in IMC.

[BelArgUSA]

Knowledge of QNH, QFE, QNE, transition altitudes, transition heights, transition levels and transition layers, should be fully known and practiced by the many of us pilots that consider theirselves as "professional aviators" - and the very few of us who really are...
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[The Otter's Pocket]

That may be so, however this is not the Wanabees forum, it is the Instructor and Examiners forum.
We do know the difference, it is the ability to gauge the competance of the student.
Now the telephone has just rang and I have lost my train of thought.

Anyway I didn't think that they used QFE in the States so your arguement is of no base.
Not unless you do long distance nav via Canada, Iceland, and sweaty sock land.

[BelArgUSA]

Dear OP...
xxx
First of all I am not in the States...
And yessss... I know about the QFE despite having had a long career in USA.
My airline then, PanAm, trained pilots to use QFE for flights to USSR and China, as well as metric units of height/altitude.
QFE procedure was the procedure with Eastern Airlines... and American Airlines used QFE as well, even within the USA, until some 10 years ago.
xxx
Here in Argentina, I continue to teach QFE/metric for occasional charter operations into these countries using it. As far as I know, all USA airlines operating in Russia and China have QFE in their classroom programs.
xxx
Please be aware that airlines also have flight instructors and examiners, which is my basic activity with my airline. Line flying is only occasional for me. I also volunteer flight instruction "for free" at a local aero-club, teaching QFE for local touch and go practice... this with old airplanes such as Piper Cubs, DH-82s or Chipmunks... (= real airplanes, not modern junk) -
xxx
I have a flight instructor licence...
So, can I get some hospitality in this forum.... ¿?¿?¿?
No harm... just my 2 centavos... cheers!
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[Gipsy Queen]

As has been suggested, a PPL student would be somewhat confused by the clock reading 120ft at the end of the runway when he has yet to leave the ground. At this point of the game he needs everything to be as simple as possible and "zero" would be an obvious logic but having acquired VFR height perception from circuit training, surely he has no further need for the QFE which he should be weaned off as soon as possible, in my view.

What I don't understand is why the transport people (and China) would use QFE. Has to be irrelevant - doesn't it? Descending to altitude from FL will put you on QNH and from there you might just as well use your inside leg or any other arbitrary unit of measurement providing the ILS is operating with the same units. "Descend and maintain 2,500ft to intercept localiser for 21 left blah blah blah" is never accompanied by "QNH" or "QFE". Why would it need to be? So where does the QFE come in?

GQ

BelArgUSA - not sure what I can do about hospitality but I do like your aircraft; particularly the DHC1. I flew a Pitts S2 recently and whilst it is of much higher performance, I would readily have traded it for the sheer flying satisfaction of the wonderful Chipmunk. I envy you.

[The Otter's Pocket]

Hospitality
Well you are more than welcome in my place,

http://www.theotterspocket.co.uk/

I will buy you a beer and you can tell me how great the US was, and I will tell you how great the UK was and we will all be happy.

PS I do like QFE for circuits with PPL students.

[BelArgUSA]

Hola GQ -
xxx
I agree with you about your opinion of QNH vs QFE - yet both have to be known. Here in the Pampas, with our superior airmanship, we teach QFE for primary teaching, circuits, downwinds at 800' QFE... then we introduce the concept of QNH...
xxx
Many places we land in the Pampas are grassy fields shared by the cows, with just a vague idea of field elevation, and no ATC to broadcast a QNH. So we depart with an altimeter set to "O" if nothing else available...
xxx
And we have to be somewhat "educated" in physics too... At a petrol station along a country road (where you get some for your plane), they might have a barometer indicating 755mm/Hg... that is about 1006 hPa = QNH... and the attendant is willing to loan you a funnel to fill the petrol into your tank...
xxx
Lots of old airplanes here that you would love, DH-82, SV-4, a Proctor is still active in Argentina, an old Auster AOP6 as well... seen a Fieseler Storch with Paraguay registry... plenty of subjects to talk about at the Club House in front of a lager... I used to own an ex-US Army L-21c (1952) of Korean War vintage, which had service in Bolivia, where I bought it, but forced to sell it when the 2002 banking/financial crisis hit Argentina... but I still get to fly it as the new owner is a friend, he does QNH procedures well...
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[fireflybob]

Ah the QFE/QNH debate - almost as old as aviation itself!

My observation is that those who have been brought up on one system cannot see the merits in the opposing system until they have actually operated same.

But what is really important is that altimeters and their settings are managed correctly with a clear understanding about what the instrument is telling you etc.

To highlight to US-trained PPLs the lunacy of UK altimeter setting procs, I take them from Brize via the Faringdon VRP to White Waltham, then back via the Oxford/Kidlington overhead to the Burford VRP. This requires Brize QFE, then the Cotswold RPS (another utter anachronism), then Benson QFE, then London QNH, then White Waltham QFE, then London QNH, then Benson QFE, then Cotswold RPS, then Oxford/Kidlington QNH, then Cotswold RPS, then Brize QFE. That's 5 different altimeter settings on the way to White Waltham and 7 different settings coming back - madness!

Is this not a case for having one simplified altimeter setting, ie Aerodrome QNH?

[timzsta]

Is it not horses for courses?
Departing North Weald it would seem silly to have QFE set - that is bound to lead to a CAS infringement.
Departing Headcorn if you infringe CAS vertically setting QFE instead of QNH is hardly likely to be the cause.
And in any case correct use of the altimeter forms part of the skill test. So any PPL skill test candidate should be perfectly capable of talking to a military airfield - setting the QFE, reporting their height, and then crossing the MATZ at that height, and once clear setting the appropriate QNH/RPS and flying that altitude etc.
Altimeter setting procedures aint rocket science. If people aren't capable of taking one hand of the control column and twiddling the pressure setting dial without it leading to loss of control or mental overload they shouldn't be flying anyways.

[In bed dead CB]

Ha Ha, such a fun thread.
For me I am like many others and like to use QNH for everything. It makes you look at the elevation of the airfield you are at for one thing. You get in and set the elevation in the altimeter and the QNH will be set without waiting for an atis, so when you listen to the atis you have already done an instrument check. (Good habit for me)

QFE has its use if training in the circuit and thats it really! this only so you can see EASILY if someone is flying the 1000' acurately or not. However if the airfield happens to be 230' it is not to difficult to work out what the circuit height should be !!

However as we progress into deeper waters you dont want to take off from a near sea level airfield and pop off with your IMC and go and land at somewhere like leeds (660' give or take) and get it wrong going looking for the cloud base at 500 feet as you will find the ground first like one or two ex military commercial pilots have found to there fate in the past.

QNH should be used and used well with thought and clear understanding of what it means this should be taught from the start. QFE can be forgiven for training in order for ease of sight for accurate flying training. Only my opinion. However there are a lot of non consistancies from ATC where they will sometimes ask whether you fly a QNH or QFE approach, sometimes give the QNH only, sometimes give the QFE only sometimes give both. I think a good start would be to standardise what ATC give (hopefully QNH) and QFE on request from the pilot. This could stop the confusion a little.

Hope my opinion helps! good discussion though as level busts and infringements and descents below MDA have all been because of this very subject!! :ugh: