altimeter setting procedures
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.
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.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle said:
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!
QFE, if you can set it in the region where you're flying, is more natural - and safer.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Actually answering Camp Freddie's question...
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
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
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!
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!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qnh - Qfe
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
xxx
Happy contrails
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Gipsy Queen; 20th Sep 2007 at 04:11. Reason: spelling bust
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
Is this not a case for having one simplified altimeter setting, ie Aerodrome QNH?
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!