altimeter settings in USSR
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standby...call you back..
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree with Jetopa,
this should have been the first remark to be posted...
About the primary object of the post...fly QFE..with a conversion table on your yoke..(jepp approach and/or jepp low/high level charts)..keep it simple..you'll never get a intermediate altitude or level not charted..
About the egpws..the main reason for activation is the non wgs standard used by russian and others in that world area..but nothing to be affraid for as long as your basic flying skills are present on the flight deck..
After a 20 years experience around this part of the world..I have just to mention that theyr have done a huge progress...and no more ak47 while opening the doors since a long time ago..
Happy trails...
this should have been the first remark to be posted...
About the primary object of the post...fly QFE..with a conversion table on your yoke..(jepp approach and/or jepp low/high level charts)..keep it simple..you'll never get a intermediate altitude or level not charted..
About the egpws..the main reason for activation is the non wgs standard used by russian and others in that world area..but nothing to be affraid for as long as your basic flying skills are present on the flight deck..
After a 20 years experience around this part of the world..I have just to mention that theyr have done a huge progress...and no more ak47 while opening the doors since a long time ago..
Happy trails...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Doylestown, Pennsylvania
Age: 85
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russia PE-90.02 Datum versus WGS-84
The Russians are gradually making their reference datum of PE-90.02 coincide exactly to WGS-84. Today, April 1, 2010 the maximum difference is half of a meter at worst and at best only six inches difference. Another adjustment to the PE-90.02 datum is to be made next year bringing it even closer to the exact same datum as WGS-84.
I believe with the two datums so close to one another, today I would leave my GPS sensors enabled while flying in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States. A maximum error of 18 inches will probably be not noticeable to the flight crew.
Thanks!
Dick Siano
Pilot Instructor FlightSafety International Teterboro, NJ
I believe with the two datums so close to one another, today I would leave my GPS sensors enabled while flying in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States. A maximum error of 18 inches will probably be not noticeable to the flight crew.
Thanks!
Dick Siano
Pilot Instructor FlightSafety International Teterboro, NJ
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: no more moscow
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
still we don't know which airplane gave the warning...
maybe with the a/c type and the installed (E)GPWS and the manufacturer and maybe the software version we can find out more...?
happy easter
MJ
maybe with the a/c type and the installed (E)GPWS and the manufacturer and maybe the software version we can find out more...?
happy easter
MJ
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In the center of the map
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do not use QFE if your aircraft is not pin-programmed for it. Do not switch of EGPWS, it is your life-saver in IMC.
Use QNH below TL: PF will set cleared ALT according to JEPP (or other) Approach plate table (on JEPP the NON-bracketed Altitudes) and your PNF will crosscheck for correctness.
Not rocket science.
Use QNH below TL: PF will set cleared ALT according to JEPP (or other) Approach plate table (on JEPP the NON-bracketed Altitudes) and your PNF will crosscheck for correctness.
Not rocket science.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do not use QFE if your aircraft is not pin-programmed for it. Do not switch of EGPWS, it is your life-saver in IMC.
Use QNH below TL: PF will set cleared ALT according to JEPP (or other) Approach plate table (on JEPP the NON-bracketed Altitudes) and your PNF will crosscheck for correctness.
Use QNH below TL: PF will set cleared ALT according to JEPP (or other) Approach plate table (on JEPP the NON-bracketed Altitudes) and your PNF will crosscheck for correctness.
Last time I went to UUWW, the imperial equivalents of 400 M QFE - both QFE and QNH - WERE shown on the ILS 02, 06 and 20 approach plates... in the little box in the bottom right hand corner of the horizontal profile.
Apache for HEMS - Strafe those Survivors!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We operate on QFE on main alts, with standby set to QNH, below transition. We also have the advantage that our Pro-line 21 displays metres alongside feet when selected.
As an aside, the AIP for Russia requires you to operate QFE below transition, within I think about 25 miles of the field. Our company policy is to comply with this, the only exception being in the event of very low QFE.
Our EGPWS does not have any problems with this. Daylight, VMC, absolutely sure that there is no hazard, we may continue with a "terrain" call - a "whoop, whoop, pull up" is mandatory response for us.
Enjoy
As an aside, the AIP for Russia requires you to operate QFE below transition, within I think about 25 miles of the field. Our company policy is to comply with this, the only exception being in the event of very low QFE.
Our EGPWS does not have any problems with this. Daylight, VMC, absolutely sure that there is no hazard, we may continue with a "terrain" call - a "whoop, whoop, pull up" is mandatory response for us.
Enjoy
The Ego
Has Landed
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Somewhere not too far from the airplane...
Age: 66
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me, too!
We operate on QFE on main alts, with standby set to QNH, below transition. We also have the advantage that our Pro-line 21 displays metres alongside feet when selected.
As an aside, the AIP for Russia requires you to operate QFE below transition, within I think about 25 miles of the field. Our company policy is to comply with this, the only exception being in the event of very low QFE.
Our EGPWS does not have any problems with this. Daylight, VMC, absolutely sure that there is no hazard, we may continue with a "terrain" call - a "whoop, whoop, pull up" is mandatory response for us.
As an aside, the AIP for Russia requires you to operate QFE below transition, within I think about 25 miles of the field. Our company policy is to comply with this, the only exception being in the event of very low QFE.
Our EGPWS does not have any problems with this. Daylight, VMC, absolutely sure that there is no hazard, we may continue with a "terrain" call - a "whoop, whoop, pull up" is mandatory response for us.
Keith
pulluphard
The EGPWS database and GPS both work on WGS-84, so as long as the GPS navigation is enabled in your FMSs, the EGPWS won't be affected by operating in PE-90. However, disable the GPS, so the FMS is working on DME/DME positioning, all bets are off.
Us clever running dogs of capitalism, mapped the world's surface without regard to local authority, but couldn't do the same for things like navaids.
GF
The EGPWS database and GPS both work on WGS-84, so as long as the GPS navigation is enabled in your FMSs, the EGPWS won't be affected by operating in PE-90. However, disable the GPS, so the FMS is working on DME/DME positioning, all bets are off.
Us clever running dogs of capitalism, mapped the world's surface without regard to local authority, but couldn't do the same for things like navaids.
GF
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@notanastronaut
Without consulting the restrictions of your airplane, AOC etc?
For example the 737s we fly and used to fly to Russia can not be operated I. QFE, that is a very strict restriction by Boeing ("prohibited"). Operating in QNH is not a problem at all though as the Lido eRoutemanual has all the information needed (back when we used jepp they had it too, only the EAG material was insufficient and aditionally plagued with a very bad chart representation). Not to mention that you actually get a QNH if you ask for it, at least at the aiports we operate to including the Moscow area.
Without consulting the restrictions of your airplane, AOC etc?
For example the 737s we fly and used to fly to Russia can not be operated I. QFE, that is a very strict restriction by Boeing ("prohibited"). Operating in QNH is not a problem at all though as the Lido eRoutemanual has all the information needed (back when we used jepp they had it too, only the EAG material was insufficient and aditionally plagued with a very bad chart representation). Not to mention that you actually get a QNH if you ask for it, at least at the aiports we operate to including the Moscow area.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: England
Age: 61
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the aircraft is set up to work off QNH, including the GPWS then you will need to operate to QNH; otherwise you may get in the habit of ignoring GPWS warnings.
I have had a bit of experience operating an Airbus into CIS airfields and that would only work if QNH was selected (it is possible to have the aircraft operate to QFE, but that is an engineer function and is not selectable by the pilot). We also used AERAD approach plates which gave the height and altitude on the same chart.
The principle is straightforward, when given QFE by ATC you apply the correction given on the approach plates to convert it to QNH. When cleared to a height by ATC you then look at the chart and next to that height will be an altitude; you then simply fly to the altitude. ATC give you a small number and you fly to the big number - simple and no problem of crews having to convert and making a mistake.
As mentioned earlier, you will not get cleared to intermediate heights. If you go to an airfield frequently, as we did, then your company may wish to prepare conversion charts for that airfield that has all the information on one page which makes life a little easier.
Ideally, your operator should have procedures laid down in the operations manual detailing how you fly the aircraft in these areas. They normally appear in the Part C, if they don't then file an ASR and get them to put procedures in place.
I have had a bit of experience operating an Airbus into CIS airfields and that would only work if QNH was selected (it is possible to have the aircraft operate to QFE, but that is an engineer function and is not selectable by the pilot). We also used AERAD approach plates which gave the height and altitude on the same chart.
The principle is straightforward, when given QFE by ATC you apply the correction given on the approach plates to convert it to QNH. When cleared to a height by ATC you then look at the chart and next to that height will be an altitude; you then simply fly to the altitude. ATC give you a small number and you fly to the big number - simple and no problem of crews having to convert and making a mistake.
As mentioned earlier, you will not get cleared to intermediate heights. If you go to an airfield frequently, as we did, then your company may wish to prepare conversion charts for that airfield that has all the information on one page which makes life a little easier.
Ideally, your operator should have procedures laid down in the operations manual detailing how you fly the aircraft in these areas. They normally appear in the Part C, if they don't then file an ASR and get them to put procedures in place.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: somewhere between confused and emotional
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..what's wrong fastjet45 .....not enough razor blades for breakfast. It is regrettable that the debate has continued after your definitive statement on the subject....
....and by the way your mate Don Coyote is not correct - operating on QFE as per the Russian AIP does not necessarily mean you'll grow to be immune to GPWS warnings. Depends on the equipment - many EGPWS use geometric data from GPS and work perfectly well regardless of what is set on the Altimeter.
Still you don't strike me as the sort to appreciate the subtleties of......well anything really...
....and by the way your mate Don Coyote is not correct - operating on QFE as per the Russian AIP does not necessarily mean you'll grow to be immune to GPWS warnings. Depends on the equipment - many EGPWS use geometric data from GPS and work perfectly well regardless of what is set on the Altimeter.
Still you don't strike me as the sort to appreciate the subtleties of......well anything really...
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your SOP is to fly approches QNH then why not fly approaches in CIS on QNH too?
If you put QFE on the altimeters the EGPWS thinks you are lower by exactly the TDZE.
The GPWS will give terrain warnings for AP elev above 300', if I remember rightly if you do the approach on QFE. (VKO elev is 700' and Almaty 2200?) Riga volmet gives the QNH for some of the airports also for a double check. QNH can sometimes be obtained from approach control.
QNH = QFE + TDZE/27.
Converting metric Height to imperial altitude is no more difficult than converting metric height to imperial height. The conversions are on the approach chart.
Keeping SOP's unchanged as far as possible by flying QNH to compare with altitude with MSA, and by keeping the EGPWS working correctly is surely safer all round by reducing risk of CFIT.
D
If you put QFE on the altimeters the EGPWS thinks you are lower by exactly the TDZE.
The GPWS will give terrain warnings for AP elev above 300', if I remember rightly if you do the approach on QFE. (VKO elev is 700' and Almaty 2200?) Riga volmet gives the QNH for some of the airports also for a double check. QNH can sometimes be obtained from approach control.
QNH = QFE + TDZE/27.
Converting metric Height to imperial altitude is no more difficult than converting metric height to imperial height. The conversions are on the approach chart.
Keeping SOP's unchanged as far as possible by flying QNH to compare with altitude with MSA, and by keeping the EGPWS working correctly is surely safer all round by reducing risk of CFIT.
D
Last edited by Dumbledor; 7th Apr 2010 at 12:19.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: England
Age: 61
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FalconFlyr,
With regard to ignoring the GPWS warnings I was referring to aircraft that are designed to be flown on QNH, and where the GPWS datums are taken from the QNH (i.e. Altitude) this causes false GPWS warnings if the aircraft is flown with QFE set; if this happens every time you are flying a QNH designed aircraft in CIS airspace then the human factors element would naturally lead to assuming that GPWS warnings in CIS airspace are spurious.
The important point is that instead of arguing about it here, Chief Pilots/Training Departments should be addressing these issues and setting out operating procedures to be put into operations manuals. Line training/recurrent training should then ensure that crews are aware of the appropriate procedures.
As has been mentioned already, it is not difficult and it is even easier if it has been thought about beforehand.
With regard to ignoring the GPWS warnings I was referring to aircraft that are designed to be flown on QNH, and where the GPWS datums are taken from the QNH (i.e. Altitude) this causes false GPWS warnings if the aircraft is flown with QFE set; if this happens every time you are flying a QNH designed aircraft in CIS airspace then the human factors element would naturally lead to assuming that GPWS warnings in CIS airspace are spurious.
The important point is that instead of arguing about it here, Chief Pilots/Training Departments should be addressing these issues and setting out operating procedures to be put into operations manuals. Line training/recurrent training should then ensure that crews are aware of the appropriate procedures.
As has been mentioned already, it is not difficult and it is even easier if it has been thought about beforehand.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dallas
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Denti
Thanks for the post.
Indeed, in some of the larger airports you can request and be given a QNH value, HOWEVER all the altitude clearances provided by ATC, including krug are always given with reference to QFE, never QNH.
Many thanks.
NAA
Thanks for the post.
Indeed, in some of the larger airports you can request and be given a QNH value, HOWEVER all the altitude clearances provided by ATC, including krug are always given with reference to QFE, never QNH.
Many thanks.
NAA
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
notanastronaut,
You're right 'Krug' ('director' to us I think?) will always clear you down to a heights by QFE for the approach. It's just a bit of simple but careful cockpit work to turn the metric height into an imperial altitude with QNH set (or metric altidude if your a/c has a metric option) via the jepp approach chart. The heights that you will be cleared to and their conversions are all on the chart so you can make a note of them in the approach briefiing. The PNF could write down the actual clearance and the imperial altitude next to eachother.
As said before at least the EGPWS is still valid with QNH on the altimeters and you can compare your altitude with MSA / vectoring minima. It's safer all round.
I find it useful to keep climb and descent rates down a bit as the sectors seem to be seperated vertically, for example you often need to change freq to get a further climb/ desc. If you call approaching the level/alt around 1000' (a trick I learned from a Russian navigator!) before you may have time to change freq, check in, get a further climb/desc, convert & set it.
D
You're right 'Krug' ('director' to us I think?) will always clear you down to a heights by QFE for the approach. It's just a bit of simple but careful cockpit work to turn the metric height into an imperial altitude with QNH set (or metric altidude if your a/c has a metric option) via the jepp approach chart. The heights that you will be cleared to and their conversions are all on the chart so you can make a note of them in the approach briefiing. The PNF could write down the actual clearance and the imperial altitude next to eachother.
As said before at least the EGPWS is still valid with QNH on the altimeters and you can compare your altitude with MSA / vectoring minima. It's safer all round.
I find it useful to keep climb and descent rates down a bit as the sectors seem to be seperated vertically, for example you often need to change freq to get a further climb/ desc. If you call approaching the level/alt around 1000' (a trick I learned from a Russian navigator!) before you may have time to change freq, check in, get a further climb/desc, convert & set it.
D
