Regional Pressure Setting (RPS) or Regional QNH - do we need it? Do you use it?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out in the uninhabited areas of Scotland we only have the RPS or 1013.
I'd rather have the safe Orkney RPS over high ground than an optimistic one from an AD over 100 miles away.
The whole idea of the thing is that everyone is flying on the same setting outside controlled airspace in a given setting area.
DO.
I'd rather have the safe Orkney RPS over high ground than an optimistic one from an AD over 100 miles away.
The whole idea of the thing is that everyone is flying on the same setting outside controlled airspace in a given setting area.
DO.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're flying from a private site, that is one without ATC, which QNH value would you use to fly cross-country?
One derived from the aircraft altimeter 'adjusted' from the airfield elevation setting, one published on the 'web' before flight or the Regional QNH obtained from ATC?
How would you determine the base of controlled airspace defined as an altitude? Maybe some don't care enough to bother? I remember having my Silver height attempt disallowed years ago because the instructor worked out, with the prevailing Regional QNH, I would technically have JUST been in controlled airspace - not so if I based the climb on the pressure setting for the airfield at the time (a bit tight that I always thought?!).
I might have expected this conversation on a private flying forum from an inexperienced pilot asking a genuine question due to lack of understanding, but on a forum inhabited by 'professional' pilots I find the subject surprising.
SITW
PS: Not to mention 'collision avoidance' issues!
One derived from the aircraft altimeter 'adjusted' from the airfield elevation setting, one published on the 'web' before flight or the Regional QNH obtained from ATC?
How would you determine the base of controlled airspace defined as an altitude? Maybe some don't care enough to bother? I remember having my Silver height attempt disallowed years ago because the instructor worked out, with the prevailing Regional QNH, I would technically have JUST been in controlled airspace - not so if I based the climb on the pressure setting for the airfield at the time (a bit tight that I always thought?!).
I might have expected this conversation on a private flying forum from an inexperienced pilot asking a genuine question due to lack of understanding, but on a forum inhabited by 'professional' pilots I find the subject surprising.
SITW
PS: Not to mention 'collision avoidance' issues!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My question was - and still is - not how we should use RPS but whether we still use and need it.
... or perhaps I have misunderstood your post ... ?
JD
As a regular flier from a private site, I am perfectly happy, knowing the elevation of the strip, to wind that altitude on the altimeter, thus providing my own "derived" local QNH. I don't think there is any doubt on this forum that, for any foray under CAS where the base is expressed as an altitude, an appropriate aerodrome QNH should be used.
Another reason against QFE is potential bust of the bottom of controlled airspace if you depart on QFE and then omit to set QNH on/after departure especially where the departure elevation is relatively high. An example is Biggin Hill below the London TMA which is circa 600 ft amsl and there has been at least one documented case of this happening.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD, I agree there is absolutely no doubt at all. The doubt is when people make factually incorrect statements. My point was that the military do not use RPS to calculate the TL. Like everyone else, they use the airfield QNH. 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Setting a QNH from the known elevation of the strip is fine for a bimble round the field but does nobody on here actually go anywhere?
Surely even full time flying instructors must go further than 50 miles from their home field.
DO.
Surely even full time flying instructors must go further than 50 miles from their home field.
DO.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would you determine the base of controlled airspace defined as an altitude? Maybe some don't care enough to bother? I remember having my Silver height attempt disallowed years ago because the instructor worked out, with the prevailing Regional QNH, I would technically have JUST been in controlled airspace - not so if I based the climb on the pressure setting for the airfield at the time (a bit tight that I always thought?!).
I might have expected this conversation on a private flying forum from an inexperienced pilot asking a genuine question due to lack of understanding, but on a forum inhabited by 'professional' pilots I find the subject surprising.
I might have expected this conversation on a private flying forum from an inexperienced pilot asking a genuine question due to lack of understanding, but on a forum inhabited by 'professional' pilots I find the subject surprising.
Or perhaps you do, and I too have misunderstood your post. Perhaps you'd care to clarify the answer you had in mind for your own question:
If you're flying from a private site, that is one without ATC, which QNH value would you use to fly cross-country?
One derived from the aircraft altimeter 'adjusted' from the airfield elevation setting, one published on the 'web' before flight or the Regional QNH obtained from ATC?
One derived from the aircraft altimeter 'adjusted' from the airfield elevation setting, one published on the 'web' before flight or the Regional QNH obtained from ATC?
PS: Not to mention 'collision avoidance' issues!
Last edited by Islander2; 24th Feb 2009 at 18:14.
