Why do the RAF still use QFE?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who used to fly very regualrly into RAF bases as a civ flight.
It really doesn't matter a toss.
QFE/QNH all RAF pilots can operate on QNH and all civi pilots can operate on QFE its not a bloody problem.
If it means that the boy's in theater can get even 1 minute extra on the phone or one of the most piddly little bits of kit which makes life more comfy don't change a bloody thing.
The very small amount of ball ache involved is worth it compared to spending a sodding fortune changing everything.
I do wonder how many of the civi pilots with very strong views on the subject have had to operate day in and day out using the system. It really doesn't matter.
It really doesn't matter a toss.
QFE/QNH all RAF pilots can operate on QNH and all civi pilots can operate on QFE its not a bloody problem.
If it means that the boy's in theater can get even 1 minute extra on the phone or one of the most piddly little bits of kit which makes life more comfy don't change a bloody thing.
The very small amount of ball ache involved is worth it compared to spending a sodding fortune changing everything.
I do wonder how many of the civi pilots with very strong views on the subject have had to operate day in and day out using the system. It really doesn't matter.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have - like many of you - used both as a military pilot.
In the UK where even the highest airfields are probably less than 600 feet above MSL, you probably won't mind winding the altimeter from 1013 to 993mb (at worst).
However, if you wanted to fly into - say - Black Rock airfield in the States, you might not enjoy the wrist and finger ache you would get changing from 1013 to 798mb.
Then just imagine going into San Rafael Airport in Peru, where you would need to set 532mb. Anybody know an altimeter that goes that low???
Horses for courses methinks.
In the UK where even the highest airfields are probably less than 600 feet above MSL, you probably won't mind winding the altimeter from 1013 to 993mb (at worst).
However, if you wanted to fly into - say - Black Rock airfield in the States, you might not enjoy the wrist and finger ache you would get changing from 1013 to 798mb.
Then just imagine going into San Rafael Airport in Peru, where you would need to set 532mb. Anybody know an altimeter that goes that low???
Horses for courses methinks.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Altimeter Settings
Quite right Wholigan.
There is another, easier option for high level airfields, request QNE. QNE is your altimeter reading with 1013.2 set. Thus ATC would give you the number of feet you would see on your altimeter on the ground at the airfield datum with 1013.2 set in your subscale. I had to use that at Entebbe when the QNH was outside the range of my altimeter.
Neppie
There is another, easier option for high level airfields, request QNE. QNE is your altimeter reading with 1013.2 set. Thus ATC would give you the number of feet you would see on your altimeter on the ground at the airfield datum with 1013.2 set in your subscale. I had to use that at Entebbe when the QNH was outside the range of my altimeter.
Neppie
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QFE or QNH both make some sort of sense - either Oft or the airfield elevation on touchdown. QNE gives you reference to neither very well and is a pointless throwback to the era of limited mechanical altimeters.
I suppose it makes sense if you are still operating really antique equipment AND operating out of Bogota. QFE makes more sense for a largely UK based operator but makes little sense to a largely worldwide operator. If the likes of BA and Virgin and the rest of the airline world use QNH it is not for a whim. Terrain awareness and IAS/TAS issues at hot and high airfields tend to push you towards QNH for safety reasons. QFE is fine for a parochial, inwards looking, UK centric operation.
I suppose it makes sense if you are still operating really antique equipment AND operating out of Bogota. QFE makes more sense for a largely UK based operator but makes little sense to a largely worldwide operator. If the likes of BA and Virgin and the rest of the airline world use QNH it is not for a whim. Terrain awareness and IAS/TAS issues at hot and high airfields tend to push you towards QNH for safety reasons. QFE is fine for a parochial, inwards looking, UK centric operation.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Trap 3
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this one of those Pprune threads that gets revisited when there's not much else to discuss? Seems to read that way.
At great risk of repeating previous posters, it really is a case of being able to use either, as is appropriate for the situation. I remember a lecture about flexibilty in air ops...................
At great risk of repeating previous posters, it really is a case of being able to use either, as is appropriate for the situation. I remember a lecture about flexibilty in air ops...................
I always thought that QNH with ApproacH and QFE with TowEr was the best compromise.
I was instructing at a UAS when we changed from QFE to QNH. Not too difficult until one (very good) student was given an EFATO. She called that she was above the turnback min height and started a turnback only to have the QFI take control and climb away. Brought up on QFE she'd reverted to habit - only the aerodrome elevation was nearly 400 ft and she was much lower than she thought.
The QNH experiment didn't last that long - but it wasn't Learning Command who insisted we went back to QFE, it was the fast-jet pointy-heads.
Why does the RAF use QFE? For the same reason mutts lick their nuts - because they can!
I was instructing at a UAS when we changed from QFE to QNH. Not too difficult until one (very good) student was given an EFATO. She called that she was above the turnback min height and started a turnback only to have the QFI take control and climb away. Brought up on QFE she'd reverted to habit - only the aerodrome elevation was nearly 400 ft and she was much lower than she thought.
The QNH experiment didn't last that long - but it wasn't Learning Command who insisted we went back to QFE, it was the fast-jet pointy-heads.
Why does the RAF use QFE? For the same reason mutts lick their nuts - because they can!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
RAD ALT.
If there is no one there to measure the pressure then you have to set your own.
If the LZ is on high terrain in a plain then again you need visual or rad alt.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontious
Well I will!
Picture flying in a helicopter into a LZ at night in the mountains of Norway to an approach aid consisting of five torches for the use of laid by the MAOT. On the approach the Rad Alt is useless as it is reading under the aircraft and wizzing up and down as you pass over the terrain. What would you like to see on your Bar Alt as you approach the T?
I like to see it winding down to zero not some height above sea level that I have to remember. It's hard enough flying the aircraft especially if the wind is up your chuff and bouncy, it's snowing and you are not allowed to use landing lights. Oh - and you are about to get whiteout in the dark!!
Airfields are a totally different ball game for people with less flying ability!
Ducking and running now.................
Walter, you didn't offer an answer and no one else has.
Picture flying in a helicopter into a LZ at night in the mountains of Norway to an approach aid consisting of five torches for the use of laid by the MAOT. On the approach the Rad Alt is useless as it is reading under the aircraft and wizzing up and down as you pass over the terrain. What would you like to see on your Bar Alt as you approach the T?
I like to see it winding down to zero not some height above sea level that I have to remember. It's hard enough flying the aircraft especially if the wind is up your chuff and bouncy, it's snowing and you are not allowed to use landing lights. Oh - and you are about to get whiteout in the dark!!
Airfields are a totally different ball game for people with less flying ability!
Ducking and running now.................
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lincs
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[B]Tankertrashnav[B]
I started flying in Phantoms in 1970. All of the aircraft that I subsequently flew in (including some of the prototypes) had altimeters calibrated in millibars.
I started flying in Phantoms in 1970. All of the aircraft that I subsequently flew in (including some of the prototypes) had altimeters calibrated in millibars.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
bast0n, fair dink, except you need a guy on the ground with an anemometer. How do the SAR crews operate?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontious
Very carefully!
They also have the ability to use their landing and floodlights and nowadays have NVG and probably FLIR for all I know. They also tend to operate in an area that they get to know very well.
In my days in SAR, Whirlwind and Wessex we were even more careful/stupid!
PS.
I think you meant altimeter?
How do the SAR crews operate?
They also have the ability to use their landing and floodlights and nowadays have NVG and probably FLIR for all I know. They also tend to operate in an area that they get to know very well.
In my days in SAR, Whirlwind and Wessex we were even more careful/stupid!
PS.
you need a guy on the ground with an anemometer
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontious
I like the idea of a barometer - sitting there in the cold with this big mahogany banjo shaped thing - tapping the glass and watching the needle jerk to Fair!!
I like the idea of a barometer - sitting there in the cold with this big mahogany banjo shaped thing - tapping the glass and watching the needle jerk to Fair!!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
and reading off the arrow pointing to inches. Actually mine say 1007.2 towards Fair.
To be fair it is cool and sunny.
I think we are on the same hill - VFR is best.
To be fair it is cool and sunny.
I think we are on the same hill - VFR is best.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 49
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P3 - there's no explanation for the use of QFE under those circumstances.
We (I'm a controller) should be expected to be able to work out the difference between RPS/SAS and QFE without being so lazy as to stick everything on one pressure. The only thing I can think of at that kind of distance was proximity to the unit's terrain safe level, which is based on QFE. Still no excuse though. Unless it's a local procedure of some kind, I can't speak for every unit of course. If anything it's easier to have non overhead transiting traffic on RPS/SAS because everything out and about would be using that pressure rather than a specific unit's QFE anyway. Circuit traffic and inbound traffic - QFE. Everything else - be flexible, from my point of view.
We (I'm a controller) should be expected to be able to work out the difference between RPS/SAS and QFE without being so lazy as to stick everything on one pressure. The only thing I can think of at that kind of distance was proximity to the unit's terrain safe level, which is based on QFE. Still no excuse though. Unless it's a local procedure of some kind, I can't speak for every unit of course. If anything it's easier to have non overhead transiting traffic on RPS/SAS because everything out and about would be using that pressure rather than a specific unit's QFE anyway. Circuit traffic and inbound traffic - QFE. Everything else - be flexible, from my point of view.