About the altimeter setting

[hinhin]

Hey guys I have come across with one question about altimeter setting in my textbook:

Altimeter setting is the value to which the scale of the pressure altitude is set so the altimeter indicates:

A- true altitude at field elevation
B- pressure altitude at field elevation
C- pressure altitude at sea level

I wonder why A should be the answer.......I know that B and C should be wrong as pressure altitude refers to the altimeter setting when it is set to 29.92
However why A should be the answer???
Assume when a local altimeter setting is set, the altimeter should read 0, instead of the true altitude at field elevation, right?

Thanks in advance!:):):)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Assume when a local altimeter setting is set, the altimeter should read 0, instead of the true altitude at field elevation, right?
Your choice - you can choose to set QFE (it reads zero) or QNH (it reads true altitude of the field). If the question doesn't specify which, then it is unanswerable.

[BEagle]

It sounds like rather a daft textbook! Or perhaps American, where QFE is probably unknown, so 'altimeter', (when below 18000 ft) invariably means QNH.

If an altimeter subscale is set to the local QNH value at an aerodrome reference point, then it should indicate the true elevation of that point.

[Fly4Business]

I lately saw some current EASA course material and was surprised to find they talk about QFE and QNH in text parts, but use unspecific "altimeter setting" in questionnaires. From the answers one can see that QNH is meant unless explicitly QFE is stated in the question. I find this rather bad.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

... and today I was actually given (without having asked for it, because I never do) a regional pressure setting, which would be "none of the above".

[ShyTorque]

A confusing and obscure question but I think the answer is probably 'A' because it includes the term "True". There's supposed to be a temperature correction in there somewhere.

[phiggsbroadband]

If you keep getting QFE and QNH mixed up, just remember


QNH.... Nautical Height
QFE.... Freshold Elevation

[Russell Gulch]

Since "hinhin" has not chosen to give his location, the choice of 2992 suggests USA. Q codes don't mean nuffink to them furriners.

Russ.

[3wheels]

QFE...Field Elevation

[Andrewgr2]

Aren't people missing the point? An altimeter is a pressure instrument and depending on what is set on the subscale, will read pressure heights relative to that setting. In the UK we are supposed to fly cross country (when below the transition altitude) with a regional QNH set. This is a value which should ensure we are always no lower, and usually a bit higher than the reading on the altimeter so we don't fly into things. The altimeter is reading a pressure altitude, not a true altitude.

[fireflybob]

In the UK we are supposed to fly cross country (when below the transition altitude) with a regional QNH set.

In Class G airspace you can fly on any altimeter setting you want (unless complying with the semicircular rule). It makes a lot more sense to fly on the QNH of a nearby airfield for a number of reasons, one of them being that the base of controlled airspace (when an altitude) is with respect to the controlling aerodrome QNH. The threat of flying on regional QNH below controlled airspace is that you might infringe the airspace as by definition the regional QNH is the lowest pressure in an area.

[Andrewgr2]

fireflybob Point taken about controlled airspace although not all bases are set on airfield QNHs. I was thinking about safety issues when flying IMC, and I accept that we could probably abandon regional pressure settings without a problem. My main point is that the altimeter is a pressure instrument that measures altitudes (or height) assuming a 'standard atmosphere'. It does not, and cannot, measure true altitudes. GPS makes a reasonable attempt at doing this but has to make assumptions about the shape of the earth which will not always be right. I'm not sure whether B or C is the correct answer to the OP, but I don't think A is the right answer unless, very specifically, the altimeter is set to an airfield QNH. The altimeter should then read a true altitude when, and only when, the aircraft is on the ground at that airfield. At all other times it will give a pressure altitude which is usually going to be different from any true altitude.

[Above The Clouds]

hinhin
Hey guys I have come across with one question about altimeter setting in my textbook:

Altimeter setting is the value to which the scale of the pressure altitude is set so the altimeter indicates:

A- true altitude at field elevation
B- pressure altitude at field elevation
C- pressure altitude at sea level

I wonder why A should be the answer.......I know that B and C should be wrong as pressure altitude refers to the altimeter setting when it is set to 29.92
However why A should be the answer???
Assume when a local altimeter setting is set, the altimeter should read 0, instead of the true altitude at field elevation, right?


A- is wrong as true altitude is pressure altitude corrected for temperature.

B- is wrong as the altimeter would indicate airport elevation.

C- correct

[charliegolf]

QFE...Field Elevation

That would make the elevation of every airfield in the world zero feet wouldn't it?

CG

[cats_five]

Your choice - you can choose to set QFE (it reads zero) or QNH (it reads true altitude of the field). If the question doesn't specify which, then it is unanswerable.

Or 1013 so it reads flight levels

[cats_five]

That would make the elevation of every airfield in the world zero feet wouldn't it?

CG
No, only those at the same altitude as the field where you set it, assuming the barometer reads the same.

[Discorde]

While you're reading this there's a good chance that a few GA aircraft in the UK are flying with incorrect altimeter settings - they departed the circuit and forgot to set QNH or they rejoined and are flying the pattern height at altitude instead of height because they haven't set QFE. Every time an altimeter sub-scale setting is changed there's also the chance it'll be mis-set.

The UK altimeter setting protocol and transition altitudes were formulated many decades ago. Regional settings were intended to provide an approximate QNH when it was not so easy to get reliable updates of local QNH. The climb performance of the average airliner meant that several minutes would elapse after take-off before TA was reached. Nowadays there are plenty of en route sources offering current QNH and many airliners, especially twins, can reach TA much more quickly. As another poster has mentioned, flying on regional settings might lead to airspace infringements.

Every time a low pressure weather system crosses the UK the CAA have to issue panicky notams reminding pilots of the vital importance of altimeter resetting at TA.

The Americans have got it right - just one setting for altimeters below transition altitude. I understand that - at long last - the UK CAA (and EASA?) are consulting on raising TA to 18,000 feet. Long overdue!

More on the topic of altimeter setting here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/368781-qfe-who-needs-regional-altimeter-setting-ditto.html).

[Genghis the Engineer]

A- is wrong as true altitude is pressure altitude corrected for temperature.

B- is wrong as the altimeter would indicate airport elevation.

C- correct
Negative.

When on the ground at the airfield to which the QNH applies, the altimeter should be reading the true altitude above mean sea level.

At any point above the surface, then the altimeter will be reading a form of pressure altitude, based upon that reference.

So A is correct.

I think that BEagle is also correct - this sounds like an American textbook, where they don't use QFE, and call QNH "Aldimeeder", spelled "altimeter" and being in the dark ages, declare it in inches of mercury.

Anywhere else in the world (except possibly Canada, who have a bad habit of copying their neighbours without thinking about it properly) it would be QNH set in hPa or mb (which are the same thing).

G

[charliegolf]

3wheels said:

QFE...Field Elevation

I said:


That would make the elevation of every airfield in the world zero feet wouldn't it?

You said:

No, only those at the same altitude as the field where you set it, assuming the barometer reads the same.

Too subtle obviously...

I was making the point that setting QFE does NOT read the field elevation, it reads zero!

[Talkdownman]

Altimeter setting is the value to which the scale of the pressure altitude is set so the altimeter indicates:

A- true altitude at field elevation
B- pressure altitude at field elevation
C- pressure altitude at sea level
Aw, c'mon guys...it's American...!

Substitute 'Altimeter' with "Al Timmida" and all will become 'clear'...

:cool:

[Silvaire1]

Hinhin, your main lesson from the thread should be that if you ever fly in the UK, you will be facing entrenched irrationality, regulatory stupidity, and impractical complexity on a level that most American pilots would find inconceivable. Be glad that you don't need to remember 19th century Q-codes and good luck with your (one) written exam!

[charliegolf]

Do pilots in America have to file a flight plan to go for 'a fly around'?

CG

[Talkdownman]

Do you mean a completely un-planned Class G so-called 'bimble'...?

[charliegolf]

Yes, that kind of bimble.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Have you actually done much flying in the UK Silvaire?

G

[Tinstaafl]

Above the Clouds, 'A' is correct. Temperature correction for True Altitude only applies to the *air* column, and not any Terra Firma between the bottom of the column and sea level.

Charliegolf, you can fly across the US without submitting any form of flightplan and not talk to anyone provided you avoid D, C, B & A airspace. If within 30nm of certain designated airports then you must have a transmitting Mode C transponder (but still needn't talk to the controller if you stay outside the controlled airspace.

Most of the country is Class G or E. To a VFR pilot Class E is transparent unless you avail yourself of radar advisory services. If, while VFR in Class E, you choose to communicate with a controller then you must obey the controller's instructions, no different to other airspace.

[charliegolf]

Tinstaafl:

:ok:

CG

[kghjfg]

Interesting.......

I set QNH before taking off, as it's easiest to do it then, and I can confirm it's right as I know the field elevation above mean sea level.

QNH = Newlyn Harbour = Sea level !

On returning to an airfield, you know those pre landing checks, where you say "instruments", that reminds me to set QFE for that airfield.

All very simple really.

EXCEPT

came unstuck the other day, "cleared to transit the overhead not below height 2500' "

and I was on QNH and I selected 2800, and the airfield was >300' amsl. Oops.

[The Ancient Geek]

<Rant>

When are we finally going to consign this QFE nonsense to the dustbin of obscure aviation history where it belongs.
It serves no usefull purpose, causes confusion and incorrct altimeter settings are a major cause of accidents.
Move transition altitude to a sensible consistent standard of 19000 feet and we would have a simple and safer system of QNH for everthing below 19000 where we have plenty of time to twiddle knobs and 1013 above.

</rant>

[On Track]

What the Ancient Geek said.

[FullWings]

This might happen sooner rather than later: HETA ("http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/harmonised-european-transition-altitude-heta”).

[Above The Clouds]

The Ancient Geek
When are we finally going to consign this QFE nonsense to the dustbin of obscure aviation history where it belongs.
It serves no usefull purpose, causes confusion and incorrct altimeter settings are a major cause of accidents.
Move transition altitude to a sensible consistent standard of 19000 feet and we would have a simple and safer system of QNH for everthing below 19000 where we have plenty of time to twiddle knobs and 1013 above.

Just as well you don't fly in Russia then, or China and quite a few other countries around the world that still use QFE, its called adapting to the situation :rolleyes:

[FullWings]

Although the whole thing might be overtaken by geometric altitude - no messing around with pressure setting at all...

[Fly4Business]

Although the whole thing might be overtaken by geometric altitude - no messing around with pressure setting at all...
Exchange for the mess of defining "geometric altitude" ... ? No, that won't cure anything.

[FullWings]

Why, what’s the problem with everyone working off the same datum?

It’s a bit like magnetic vs. true navigation. I’m not the slightest bit interested in what the Earth’s magnetic field is doing in various places - I just want to get from A to B in the most expeditious manner.

Geometric altitude gets rid of many of the errors that plague pressure altimetry, like temperature, lapse rate, variability and not least, transcription. No need to know the surface pressure. What’s not to like?

[Fly4Business]

Why, what’s the problem with everyone working off the same datum?
They don't and even if, we use different reference frame over the globe.
Geometric altitude gets rid of many of the errors that plague pressure altimetry, like temperature, lapse rate, variability and not least, transcription. No need to know the surface pressure. What’s not to like?
My plane flies on pressure and air flow, not strict mathematical geometry. I prefer an altitude with a relationship to the physics of flying, not artificial rulers and dividers. If I get a QNH is does not only tell me about heights, it does tell me more on the things I have to expect when piloting - it connects to your guts feeling. I prefer an intuitional connection to the air outside.

[Discorde]

The problem is political inertia. It takes the authorities ages to respond to technical advances. In an ideal world a decree would be issued by all aviation regulators:

On and after 01 January 2018 all altimetry and navigation will be GPS based.

No more TAs and magnetic navigation! Pressure altimeters (automatically set to local sea level air pressure via data link) and compasses (with local variation data available on EFIS displays) only for back-up.

[ShyTorque]

<Rant>

When are we finally going to consign this QFE nonsense to the dustbin of obscure aviation history where it belongs.
It serves no usefull purpose, causes confusion and incorrct altimeter settings are a major cause of accidents.
Move transition altitude to a sensible consistent standard of 19000 feet and we would have a simple and safer system of QNH for everthing below 19000 where we have plenty of time to twiddle knobs and 1013 above.

</rant>

There's nothing to prevent you as an individual flying on QNH rather than QFE.

[FullWings]

My plane flies on pressure and air flow, not strict mathematical geometry. I prefer an altitude with a relationship to the physics of flying, not artificial rulers and dividers. If I get a QNH is does not only tell me about heights, it does tell me more on the things I have to expect when piloting - it connects to your guts feeling. I prefer an intuitional connection to the air outside.
I think you get to keep your ASI for a while longer... ;)

There’s nothing wrong with knowing the surface pressure as well but for vertical navigation, accuracy and commonality are important for separating aircraft from each other and from the ground. CAT III GBAS is due in a year or two which is amazing progress for aviation. Ever since GPS was invented it has been accurate enough for en-route navigation.

Better not mention FBW!

[fireflybob]

There's nothing to prevent you as an individual flying on QNH rather than QFE.

True bit it can get a bit more complex when flying through a MATZ and they give you QFE to fly on. Granted to an experienced pilot this is no big deal but I agree with the original poster than QNH only operation for all would be simpler but there again the QFE/QNH debate is as old as aviation almost so I'm not holding my breath. Trouble is in UK we don't really have any "high" elevation airfields. Try setting the QFE in Nairobi or Mexico City....

[Genghis the Engineer]

Frankly, anybody who can't handle changing from QNH to QFE and back again during a MATZ transit, or just the once when arriving at an airfield, probably lacks the mental capacity to be safe in charge of an aeroplane. Ditto in a QNH only environment mentally subtracting airfield elevation from the altimeter reading.

Frankly, I don't get the fuss. Using QFE is easy. Not using QFE is easy. Switching between systems is easy.

G

[phiggsbroadband]

Don't tell those Colonials about 'Regional Pressure Settings', lets leave that as a surprise 'Gotcha' for all them intrepid foreign airmen.

[Discorde]

it can get a bit more complex when flying through a MATZ and they give you QFE to fly on

Add field elevation to the height you're cleared at, round up or down to the nearest 100 ft, no need to reset your altimeter. Bonus: you'll eliminate the risk of forgetting to reset after MATZ transit.

[Maoraigh1]

I get Inverness QNH on taxi. I get Orkney and Portree QNH on leaving frequency. Lossie give me Lossie QFE though I'm not entering their MATZ. On return I get Inverness QFE. No problem in practice. I just set whatever the ATC I'm working tells me to.
But the OP had an exam question: What is the Altimeter Setting, and "Whatever ATC tell you to use" wasn't an option.

[2 sheds]

Orkney and Portree QNH


RPS - not QNH !

[chevvron]

I get Inverness QNH on taxi. I get Orkney and Portree QNH on leaving frequency. Lossie give me Lossie QFE though I'm not entering their MATZ. On return I get Inverness QFE. No problem in practice. I just set whatever the ATC I'm working tells me to.
But the OP had an exam question: What is the Altimeter Setting, and "Whatever ATC tell you to use" wasn't an option.
Do Inverness actually offer you the QFE or do you ask for it?
CAA policy is that the 'normal' setting to be used is actual airfield QNH with QFE available 'on request'.

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi Chevron... To be pedantic... You are a bit ambiguous with ''actual airfield QNH''.


You could have an ''actual airfield QFE''. But an airfield does not have a QNH, unless the runway is a beach at the high water mark.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I had an airprox once after flying a microlight off a beach. I filed, as it scared me, and was definitely not my fault.

I put my altitude down as xxxft QNH. The Airprox board phoned me and asked what QNH setting I was using and where I obtained it from.

I explained that I'd set it to read zero on the beach, halfway between the high and low tide marks. The airprox board inspector had clearly never had that answer before, and it confused him!

G

[2 sheds]

chevvron wrote:

CAA policy is that the 'normal' setting to be used is actual airfield QNH with QFE available 'on request'.

Not quite correct - MATS Pt 1 specifies:

when requested by the pilot, or local procedures require, the appropriate QFE shall be given.


2 s

[Above The Clouds]

Slightly off topic

I had an airprox once after flying a microlight off a beach. I filed, as it scared me, and was definitely not my fault.

I put my altitude down as xxxft QNH. The Airprox board phoned me and asked what QNH setting I was using and where I obtained it from.

I explained that I'd set it to read zero on the beach, halfway between the high and low tide marks. The airprox board inspector had clearly never had that answer before, and it confused him!

G

Had a similar incident from an airprox filed against me many years ago, in essence the inspector Group Capt such and such was trying to plant the blame firmly on me for exceeding 250 kts IAS below 10000' outside controlled airspace.

He stated that from radar recordings clearly my TAS was approaching 300 kts which is a breech of ANO.......oh really I replied !!!! that airprox was filed under B. ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

I don't think that controllers know much about aircraft performance.

Apparently a couple of years I climbed into class A at 4500ft without permission, in a near MTOW AA5 doing 140TAS crosswind at a climb rate of just below 600fpm. Oh, really, I said !

G

[FullWings]

You could have an ''actual airfield QFE''. But an airfield does not have a QNH, unless the runway is a beach at the high water mark.
Well, in some ways it does. If the airfield elevation differs significantly from sea level, the “airfield QNH” could likewise be significantly different from the sea level pressure.

The QNH given to you by an airfield will result in a pressure altimeter reading the airfield elevation when you are on it. If you use a QNH derived elsewhere and the atmosphere is non-standard, which it is pretty much all of the time, there will be an error on your altimeter, maybe significant and possibly dangerous...

[JW411]

Which raises the subject of the seldom used QFF.

QNH will give airfield elevation using a standard atmosphere.
QFF will give airfield elevation using the existing atmosphere.

[2 sheds]

Which raises the subject of the seldom used QFF.

No, it doesn't! When have you ever heard QFF passed by ATC? That's for met charts.

QNH will give aerodrome elevation (at the highest point on the landing area - plus an allowance for instrument height if you want to be picky) in the existing conditions - that's the whole point.

2 s

[fireflybob]

QNH is atmospheric pressure at aerodrome level reduced to sea level assuming an ISA temp lapse rate (1.98 deg C per 1,000ft)

QFF is atmospheric pressure at aerodrome level reduced to sea level assuming isothermal conditions (i.e. constant temp). Isobars are lines joining places of equal QFF.

[Talkdownman]

I don't think that controllers know much about aircraft performance.
Sir, with respect, I don't think that you know much about the knowledge of controllers ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Sir, with respect, I don't think that you know much about the knowledge of controllers ;)
Possibly - but I've certainly had several experiences where I had to explain in some detail the nature of an issue to controllers who did not get what to me was intuitive.

For example, that the generator failure I'd just suffered would not cause a subsequent engine failure (but that I might need a radio failure procedure to fall back on), or that nobody will do 140kts TAS crosswind whilst climbing at 600fpm at 5000ft in pretty much any standard single.

I have discussed this when being a volunteer pilot on a TRUCE course, and it re-inforced my opinions. Not that I would blame the controllers as much as I would their employers for not providing better training opportunities.

G

[JW411]

2 Sheds:

I absolutely agree that QFF is usually what is used for plotting on met charts however, on a few occasions during my flying career, I have been given the QFF "because QNH is not available". If I remember correctly, we are talking Middle East and Indian Subcontinent and certainly not "mainstream airfields". However, it was useful to know what QFF actually meant!