E3D ZH101 Altimeter in Inches
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere only we know
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Confucius
I have seen E-3 crews accept an incorrect a/t figure rather than trust the conversion out of the FIH. W@nkers.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confucius
Further to your post quoted by F3K:
The conversion table in the FIH would never, of course, be wrong would it? Err ..... Oh dear, yes it was, just last year. A replacement table had to be published in the Amendment Bulletin, I recall.
W@nker.
Regards
Ginseng
The conversion table in the FIH would never, of course, be wrong would it? Err ..... Oh dear, yes it was, just last year. A replacement table had to be published in the Amendment Bulletin, I recall.
W@nker.
Regards
Ginseng
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Or - You could memorise them!
from memory 1016mb - 30.00 inches / 1015mb - 29.97 inches etc,etc.
from memory 1016mb - 30.00 inches / 1015mb - 29.97 inches etc,etc.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fife
Age: 87
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QNH at high airfieldsAnd even at some not really high ones during severe depressions (met, that is, not crew). I remember a few occasions at Perth in the 70s & 80s when MSL pressure was so low that the millibar sub scale wouldn't wind down enough for us to set QFE. We used QNH although I believe there was an extremely involved alternative involving 1013 (QNE?) and performing advanced mental arithmetic.
Last edited by NutherA2; 12th Mar 2006 at 09:37.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Too far North - hardly a RAF base that isn't these days...
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ginseng
Further to your post quoted by F3K:
The conversion table in the FIH would never, of course, be wrong would it? Err ..... Oh dear, yes it was, just last year. A replacement table had to be published in the Amendment Bulletin, I recall.
W@nker.
Regards
Ginseng
The conversion table in the FIH would never, of course, be wrong would it? Err ..... Oh dear, yes it was, just last year. A replacement table had to be published in the Amendment Bulletin, I recall.
W@nker.
Regards
Ginseng
There are other conversion tables too, didn't teacher tell you?
Retire whilst the going is good old man.
Last edited by Confucius; 12th Mar 2006 at 23:17.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Too far North - hardly a RAF base that isn't these days...
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Foxthreekill
Ginseng.
My thanks.
F3K
My thanks.
F3K
Last edited by Confucius; 12th Mar 2006 at 23:21.
As their airships appetite is for all things expeditionary we ought to simply adopt the practice employed by the vast majority of the avation world- QNH. Surely now that everybody has had more exposure to deployed ops we could ditch this parochial QFE nonsense? Train like we fight etc.. I heard that the main resistance to coming into line with everyone else is from PTC/CFS. Tail wagging dog again?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latearmlive says (of using QFE)
...'ish; give or take 20ft!!! (thinks maybe that explains some of those heavy landings I've seen recently)
Because when the little hand reads zero it means you've landed?
Originally Posted by Brain Potter
As their airships appetite is for all things expeditionary we ought to simply adopt the practice employed by the vast majority of the avation world- QNH. Surely now that everybody has had more exposure to deployed ops we could ditch this parochial QFE nonsense? Train like we fight etc.. I heard that the main resistance to coming into line with everyone else is from PTC/CFS. Tail wagging dog again?
Having been through the QFE/QNH fiasco in the 90s, I think it is far more sensible to train student pilots on QFE. Much less maths involved. Used to enjoy watching baby pilots from low lying airfields trying to do PFLs etc at relatively high airfields (nothing as high as Nairobbery) and waiting for the thinks bubble that 2500 ft QNH is a bit different from 2500 ft QFE and they are now too low for a successful PFL. IIRC we almost lost a Tucano(?) following the QFE/QNH fiasco, he overshot at 20 ft IMC due to the difference. 0 for touchdown in the UK where the highest airfield is Leeds(?), much easier.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere only we know
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confucius
Actually in 19 years I've done allright, spent 3 years on exchange with the RAF and traveled the world from Korea to Germany, and various sandy places in between... and all without a Nav. Also I've managed to do without feeling the need to sling sh1t people I've never met, for no reason, and end up looking like a bitter and twisted Fcukwit.
F3K
Ah, a fast jet w@nker. At least in a '16 you'll be the only one dead when you crash with an incorrect altimeter setting (if you ever make it out of the 'States, that is.)
F3K
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confucius
Whoa! Is that "old man" in an ever-so-polite Upper-Middle-Class British kind of way, or "old man" in a derogatory way?
Seriously for a moment, what was really the point of your first post? The person who started this thread asked a simple question about why an E3D crew had asked for the altimeter setting in inches of mercury, to which there was a simple answer. You, however, seemed to see it as a heaven sent opportunity to sling mud (unjustifiably, I would presume) at a fleet which, for some reason best known to yourself, you obviously hold in low esteem. You quite unnecessarily signed off with a derogatory comment, which, when handed back to you, you clearly didn't like. Has there been a spate of E3 crews throwing themselves into the ground with the wrong QFE/QNH set, that I haven't heard about? No, I thought not.
Among the benefits of a forum like this is the opportunity to say what you really think; without fear or favour, without the need to be deferrent to rank, without fear of falling out with people you know and respect. I believe that benefits us all. It is rather like having an anonymous version of the good old crewroom discussion, except that you can reach far more people here than you will find in the average crewroom these days. Old fogies like me can blether on without subjecting sharp young blades like yourself to the smell of wee, which is much more pleasant for you and much less embarrassing for us.
For that privilege, I think it best not to hand out insults if you can't take them back. Moreover, I don't think insulting our transatlantic guests here is fair game. It quite spoils the aura of the British stiff upper lip, don't y'know!
Oh, and I'm not quite ready to retire just yet thanks.
Now, shall we call it an honourable draw?
Regards
Ginseng
Seriously for a moment, what was really the point of your first post? The person who started this thread asked a simple question about why an E3D crew had asked for the altimeter setting in inches of mercury, to which there was a simple answer. You, however, seemed to see it as a heaven sent opportunity to sling mud (unjustifiably, I would presume) at a fleet which, for some reason best known to yourself, you obviously hold in low esteem. You quite unnecessarily signed off with a derogatory comment, which, when handed back to you, you clearly didn't like. Has there been a spate of E3 crews throwing themselves into the ground with the wrong QFE/QNH set, that I haven't heard about? No, I thought not.
Among the benefits of a forum like this is the opportunity to say what you really think; without fear or favour, without the need to be deferrent to rank, without fear of falling out with people you know and respect. I believe that benefits us all. It is rather like having an anonymous version of the good old crewroom discussion, except that you can reach far more people here than you will find in the average crewroom these days. Old fogies like me can blether on without subjecting sharp young blades like yourself to the smell of wee, which is much more pleasant for you and much less embarrassing for us.
For that privilege, I think it best not to hand out insults if you can't take them back. Moreover, I don't think insulting our transatlantic guests here is fair game. It quite spoils the aura of the British stiff upper lip, don't y'know!
Oh, and I'm not quite ready to retire just yet thanks.
Now, shall we call it an honourable draw?
Regards
Ginseng
RP,
At the time of the last QFE/QNH debate I was firmly on the side of the QFE advocates as I had never operated outside the UK. However we now operate all our front line ac types all round the world (often at high elev). Would it not be wise to bite the bullet and change to the system that everyone else uses? A brand new student who has never seen QFE would just accept that the airfield is 200ft amsl and that the circuit is flown at 1200' QNH. How do other air forces cope? It may be easier to use QFE to teach aerodrome procedures in the flatlands of Lincs but that comes at the expense of terrain and altitude awareness. I accept your example, but the same student has to be capable of PFL'ing into a field on the Regional QNH. Would he not be more terrain aware if the false principle that altimeter always reads zero on the ground had not been introduced from trip 1?
At multi-engine OCU level I have seen poor SA from students who are not used to operating on QNH. Nearly every training approach they make will be on QFE at an RAF airfield and most of their for-real approaches will be on QNH at a civil airport or foreign military base. Additionally as more civil charter aircaft use our bases we are faced with mixed QFE/QNH ops - which is not ideal.
I believe that we should be making it as easy as possible to operate safely when everything else is strange and consequently we are doing ourselves a disservice by persisting with this eccentric and anachronistic practice.
I think that most ME types woyuld prefer to have one procedure (which would have to be QNH) and I would be interested to hear if the views of FJ/RW folks have swung towards QNH now that they are operating in "stranger" areas more regularly?
Interesting debate though
At the time of the last QFE/QNH debate I was firmly on the side of the QFE advocates as I had never operated outside the UK. However we now operate all our front line ac types all round the world (often at high elev). Would it not be wise to bite the bullet and change to the system that everyone else uses? A brand new student who has never seen QFE would just accept that the airfield is 200ft amsl and that the circuit is flown at 1200' QNH. How do other air forces cope? It may be easier to use QFE to teach aerodrome procedures in the flatlands of Lincs but that comes at the expense of terrain and altitude awareness. I accept your example, but the same student has to be capable of PFL'ing into a field on the Regional QNH. Would he not be more terrain aware if the false principle that altimeter always reads zero on the ground had not been introduced from trip 1?
At multi-engine OCU level I have seen poor SA from students who are not used to operating on QNH. Nearly every training approach they make will be on QFE at an RAF airfield and most of their for-real approaches will be on QNH at a civil airport or foreign military base. Additionally as more civil charter aircaft use our bases we are faced with mixed QFE/QNH ops - which is not ideal.
I believe that we should be making it as easy as possible to operate safely when everything else is strange and consequently we are doing ourselves a disservice by persisting with this eccentric and anachronistic practice.
I think that most ME types woyuld prefer to have one procedure (which would have to be QNH) and I would be interested to hear if the views of FJ/RW folks have swung towards QNH now that they are operating in "stranger" areas more regularly?
Interesting debate though
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For us slightly hard of seeing, the QNH values on the TAPs (The ones in BOLD) are more easy to see than the not-so-highlighted HAT/HAA figures.
You want more reasons??
Vigilant Spacey, When you operate from your GA airfield with QFE, how far above you is the 'local' airway, and at what point approaching the airfield does your buddy who is arriving set the QFE in order to determine how much separation he/she has with you while you are going around from the base turn point?.
If you really want to know how high off the ground you are in the flare - get a Rad-Alt!
You want more reasons??
Vigilant Spacey, When you operate from your GA airfield with QFE, how far above you is the 'local' airway, and at what point approaching the airfield does your buddy who is arriving set the QFE in order to determine how much separation he/she has with you while you are going around from the base turn point?.
If you really want to know how high off the ground you are in the flare - get a Rad-Alt!
BP,
It is a British thing you know old bean, and if it was good enough for Wellington then by gosh....who are we to change something just because the entire rest of the world is doing it?
It is a British thing you know old bean, and if it was good enough for Wellington then by gosh....who are we to change something just because the entire rest of the world is doing it?