Regional Pressure Setting (RPS) or Regional QNH - do we need it? Do you use it?
 

I have long wondered about the continued usefulness of what some may now regard as the somewhat outdated concept of the Regional Pressure Setting (RPS) or Regional QNH. Its use is outlined in AIP ENR 1.7 para.3.7 et seq., and CAP410 (qv) also provides a helpful definition:

Regional Pressure Setting

The Regional Pressure Setting is a forecast of the lowest QNH value within an altimeter setting region. The values which are made available hourly for the period H + 1 to H + 2, are given in whole millibars.

However nowadays, many pilots seem to be unaware of the way the RPS is calculated and even its possible implications for their flight. There is just a tendency to set it anyway on departure. It will, of course, provide an over-safe (but therefore inaccurate) indication of terrain clearance within a given area for a period of up to 2 hours ahead; however there are traps for the unwary, who perhaps do not understand the problems of using it near, or especially under Controlled Airspace. The far better alternative, surely, is to use an appropriate aerodrome QNH for the flight? Since a locally obtained aerodrome QNH is not only relatively easy to obtain but undoubtedly more accurate in terms of correctly indicating height over terrain, perhaps we should question the point of continuing to routinely set and use the RPS?

While it is used in the theoretical calculation of the lowest usable FL in an airway which has a base near the TA, the setting itself is not actually used in the aircraft in that process. Regional Pressure Settings do have some use in the specialised areas of maritime reconnaissance operations and also in vertical separation of North Sea helicopter off-shore operations in the Anglia OSA (ENR 1.15 para.1.5.5). However, in normal civilian use, with the possible exceptions of an extended non-radio flight remote from any airfield, over significant terrain and in a rapidly changing synoptic situation (when arguably one shouldn't be flying anyway!), or a flight when the pilot is so totally lost and could be anywhere in a large area (AIC 21/2006), I really can't see the point in using the RPS.

What do you think ... ?


JD
:)

I'm just wondering how many pilots would seek out the 'real' QNH and how they would get it. Some would be pragmatic and use the QNH they got airborne with, whilst others would fastidiously call every single ATC unit on their route to confirm the QNH.

I don't particularly have a view on RPS, I'm more bothered about the variable Transition Altitudes the UK appears to be developing.

It was designed for RAF Shackletons so that they could operate IFR safely below 3000 feet. I'm sure they find it very useful!

If we are the only country in the World to have it, we must be way ahead of the rest!

Lurking 1213.....ATIS?

RPS? Horrible thing. "Safe" but inaccurate. Round here the RPS (Barnsley) is almost always the same as our QFE, with a 280' amsl aerodrome. Unfortunately the local LARS unit really prefers us to use the RPS for altitude reports, but they're also pretty good at advising the actual difference between these altitudes and the bases of controlled airspace around.

They may be appropriate in isolated areas like Northern Scotland, but otherwise fairly pointless when ATIS reports or FIS etc are available.

The conversation goes something like.....


" G-XX, Cotswold QNH 1000'

Request Brize Norton QNH

G-XX, Brize Norton QNH 999

999 G-XX "

Simples!:ok::ok::ok:

So the Brize QNH was lower than the lowest forecast QNH? :cool:

Touché mate!

Reminder to self...engage brain before fingers!

I fly in the North of Scotland where the pressure can change by up to 20 mb in one flight over 200 miles. So depending on which way the pressure change is, the regional QNH is VITAL

:eek:

Just jumping on bandwaggon - remember, if the pressure drops below one thousand then you must add the word "Millibars" (despite the hectopascal world).

So, from DD's post above,

"Cotswold QNH 1000, Brize Norton 999 millibars"

<edit: typo>

Exciting stuff ... by my reckoning, that pressure gradient would correspond to a geostrophic wind of around 80kts ... do you often fly in that ... ?


JD
:\

We did when I flew Islanders in Shetland although ground ops were limited to 50kts due to a door opening limit. Could manage more but we needed the fire truck to park a couple of feet in front of the nose to act as a windbreak. I've had a 240kt GS (125-130kt TAS) more than once at only a few thousand feet. Would hate to see what my holding patterns over Sumburgh would have looked like while waiting for ATC or FISO to arrive so I could do an approach.

So, are these exceptional situations any justification for retaining what many now regard as an anachronism?


JD
:)

Sometimes its over 100 kts! We are limited to 60 kts on the ground tho'.

As for 'often'.....well we have no choice, the operation is 24/7

It IS fun tho' :E:E:E

One needs some sort of altimeter setting, and not everywhere has a convenient H24 ATIS broadcast.

Rather than the UK's RQNH, I prefer Oz's Area QNH. The difference is that AQNH in Oz isn't the *lowest* for an area but is more like a QNH expanded to cover a large area accurate to within a few mb. If the difference becomes greater than 5mb then the area is subdivided to make sure there is never more than a 5mb step from one boundary to the next.

Jumbo Driver - am with you on this one - I would vote to get rid of the RPS. Trouble is the military seem to like using it to use to compute such things as Minimum Height to Commence Recovery (from Spinning, for example) although, if my memory serves me correctly this is based on the Transition Level which, at most UK military aerodromes, is based on (you've guessed it!) the RPS.

Mind you whilst we are about it we could bin the QFE too - how much simpler life would be if it was just an aerodrome QNH!

(Pith helmet suitably donned)

Fireflybob.

In my company we ONLY use QNH due to company ops, however I do sometimes think that at least QFE does make you think just how much (little!) space there is between the a/c and the ground when flying down to minima on an ILS :eek:

fireflybob, you're talking bolleaux. The TL is based on the TA which in the UK is predominantly 3000ft (or some other figure depending upon whether you're below various bits of CAS). The TA is based on aerodrome QNH which, spookily, is derived by formula (ie it isn't necessarily an accurate figure) from the QFE. Despite best efforts, most airfields don't dig a bleedin' deep hole down to msl to drop a barometer down :p)

Good reason for QFE

LiveLeak.com - Thunderbirds Ejection, how it happened.

Lurking123, thankyou for the compliment but I did state:-

I am grateful for your correction because that's how we learn, just no need to use such colourful language.

We're in a democracy and are entitled to different opinions.:)