Lowest Regional QNH?
BP....oh please don't bring up the QFE thing.....that really is a bucket of worms.
There are a few Dino's here that just cannot fathom life without a QFE setting for an approach never minding it might not be for the runway being used as not all airfields are like billiard tables....flat and level.
Top that by reminding them there is no difference between an Altimeter reading "0" at landing compared to one that is indicating the field elevation in Feet MSL....and so forth and so on. Never mind the finger dance when one has to do a Missed approach...swapping from QFE to QNH, setting the third Altimeter to Regional QNH....and keeping it squared away as to which Altimeter is showing which setting all the while in the USA....we do the go around and do not have to touch the Altimeters at all.
But the old Denizens that lurk here will roll out and swear by all that is Holy that the UK system is the only way to do it for a host of reasons that do not hold water....other than it was good enough for Wellington.
There are a few Dino's here that just cannot fathom life without a QFE setting for an approach never minding it might not be for the runway being used as not all airfields are like billiard tables....flat and level.
Top that by reminding them there is no difference between an Altimeter reading "0" at landing compared to one that is indicating the field elevation in Feet MSL....and so forth and so on. Never mind the finger dance when one has to do a Missed approach...swapping from QFE to QNH, setting the third Altimeter to Regional QNH....and keeping it squared away as to which Altimeter is showing which setting all the while in the USA....we do the go around and do not have to touch the Altimeters at all.
But the old Denizens that lurk here will roll out and swear by all that is Holy that the UK system is the only way to do it for a host of reasons that do not hold water....other than it was good enough for Wellington.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
But the old Denizens that lurk here will roll out and swear by all that is Holy that the UK system is the only way to do it for a host of reasons that do not hold water
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cubits and spans Pontius?
GBZ - how did you know?
It was someone from there who was, shall we say, rather unhelpful to me one day. I don't normally bother speaking to them (unlike EGOS to whom I will always talk) but on this occasion I was asked to contact them by the person sitting next to me. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my call (you will realise why in a moment) but the response was unwarranted. Unfortunately for the ATCO on the other end the person sitting next to me was the CFI who almost made a CFI-shaped dent in the top of the 152 but simply said to me "Carry on". I believe there was an interesting telephone conversation shortly after we landed.
Cheers Shawbury staff! You have always been very helpful and a pleasure to talk to .
GBZ - how did you know?
It was someone from there who was, shall we say, rather unhelpful to me one day. I don't normally bother speaking to them (unlike EGOS to whom I will always talk) but on this occasion I was asked to contact them by the person sitting next to me. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my call (you will realise why in a moment) but the response was unwarranted. Unfortunately for the ATCO on the other end the person sitting next to me was the CFI who almost made a CFI-shaped dent in the top of the 152 but simply said to me "Carry on". I believe there was an interesting telephone conversation shortly after we landed. Cheers Shawbury staff! You have always been very helpful and a pleasure to talk to .
Last edited by DX Wombat; 21st Jan 2013 at 12:44.
Regrettably the RAF is represented at these kind of policy meetings by a community that has rarely operated outside the Barnsley ASR, and has even more rarely set 1013.2 mb because they spend all their time doing visual manoevering above TA with RPS set (a practice which inevitably leads to confusion and confliction with those pootling around at a FL). I speak of the crusty old Tutor / Tucano / JP / Jetstream QFI. They think us incapable of touching down at any altimeter reading other than 'zero'. I find it quite odd really, because in most areas CFS try to make things as difficult as possible (see "Tutor spin recovery technique"), so why we should all be mollycoddled when calculating our gate heights in the circuit, I have no idea. Hell, even UK civilian airfields offer QFE approaches to military aircraft in case the pilot's maths isn't up to much.
Meanwhile vast swathes of the front-line RAF have been operating for over 10 years into airfields at elevations such as 3300' (KAF), 2800' (Bastion), 1100' (Gioia), yada yada yada, not to mention all the North America experience gained at places like Nellis. Guess what, we use QNH and cope just fine, although I would rather that junior pilots had experienced QNH operations during their pilot training rather than on their first operational detachment. (Yes, we could demonstrate QNH operations at civilian or USAF airfields during pre-deployment training. No, that is not sensible use of expensive flying hours when it should have been done in a 22 Gp trainer). Time to come into line, I think.
Reform of the ASRs must address the issue of flight beneath CAS. I am puzzled that we teach people to fly around beneath CAS, the base altitude of which is defined (safely) using the QNH of the master airfield, whilst having a different (and usually lower) RPS on their altimeter. I know that avoidance of the ground takes precedence of avoidance of CAS, but setting the applicable airfield QNH would reduce airspace busts and would also mean that aircraft at the local SALT would be physically lower than if using RPS (and hence more likely to get VMC below). Win-win.
Finally. Whilst the UK might be able adopt a nationwide TA of 7000ft, I think we should go 'standard' on 18000ft. Whilst a lot of people operating in the 7000-18000ft bracket could not care less about their true height above ground, many operators do (notably FJ conducting ACT, strafe practice or aerobatics, all of which would typically be conducted using QNH despite being at 10-15000ft). An 18000ft TA can accommodate these operations without seriously affecting the safety of aircraft conducting long-distance cruise, the majority of which are above 18000ft. Those cruising below 18000ft are presumably flying aircraft with little enough performance that a few seconds to change QNH every hundred miles or so is hardly going to shatter the earth...
Meanwhile vast swathes of the front-line RAF have been operating for over 10 years into airfields at elevations such as 3300' (KAF), 2800' (Bastion), 1100' (Gioia), yada yada yada, not to mention all the North America experience gained at places like Nellis. Guess what, we use QNH and cope just fine, although I would rather that junior pilots had experienced QNH operations during their pilot training rather than on their first operational detachment. (Yes, we could demonstrate QNH operations at civilian or USAF airfields during pre-deployment training. No, that is not sensible use of expensive flying hours when it should have been done in a 22 Gp trainer). Time to come into line, I think.
Reform of the ASRs must address the issue of flight beneath CAS. I am puzzled that we teach people to fly around beneath CAS, the base altitude of which is defined (safely) using the QNH of the master airfield, whilst having a different (and usually lower) RPS on their altimeter. I know that avoidance of the ground takes precedence of avoidance of CAS, but setting the applicable airfield QNH would reduce airspace busts and would also mean that aircraft at the local SALT would be physically lower than if using RPS (and hence more likely to get VMC below). Win-win.
Finally. Whilst the UK might be able adopt a nationwide TA of 7000ft, I think we should go 'standard' on 18000ft. Whilst a lot of people operating in the 7000-18000ft bracket could not care less about their true height above ground, many operators do (notably FJ conducting ACT, strafe practice or aerobatics, all of which would typically be conducted using QNH despite being at 10-15000ft). An 18000ft TA can accommodate these operations without seriously affecting the safety of aircraft conducting long-distance cruise, the majority of which are above 18000ft. Those cruising below 18000ft are presumably flying aircraft with little enough performance that a few seconds to change QNH every hundred miles or so is hardly going to shatter the earth...
Last edited by Easy Street; 22nd Jan 2013 at 00:41.
I speak of the crusty old Tutor / Tucano / JP / Jetstream QFI.
18000 ft is not the preferred TA as it would introduce a Transition Layer whch would lose cruising levels which are attractive to short range airline flights. In fact there is less enthusiasm for an 18000 ft TA across Europe than there is for maintaining the status quo.
10000 ft would similarly lose useful cruising levels for non-oxygen GA IFR operations.
6000 ft would both impinge upon the major London Airpoert holds and fail to offer the improvement sought by airlines for continuous climb profiles on the same altimter setting.
NATS has a preferred TA which seems a good compromise fro all concerned, requiring the use of 'area' altimeter settings in fewer, but larger altimeter setting areas. One hopes their valued research will not be subjected to spurious political eco-greenwash....
How does the USA make it work then Beags.....the East Coast is every bit as congested as Europe and the UK?
Well, we were reliably informed that the US's 18000 ft TA is an historical legacy of the perceived need to have a single TA across the whole of the USA, including mountainous regions, from the days when Ernie Gann was flying the mails. This enabled safe terrain avoidance with due allowance for the altimetry and navigational errors of the day; but, given the opportunity to start again, they might prefer to use different TAs.
Last edited by BEagle; 22nd Jan 2013 at 16:35.
Don't forget the CCA...Continental Control Area....that has been done away with. Thus, perhaps, the FAA keeps the 18,000 foot level for a reason.
As Ernie Gann did his flying in the early days before O2 and pressurized cabins...the 18,000 foot level did not mean much to his flying. By the way Beags....Gann never flew the "Mails"....except that which was cargo on his Airline flights which in those days was a way of the government subsidizing the Airlines and getting Air Service into small cities and towns all across the country.
The advent of the DC2/3 series and its ability to transit the Rocky Mountains on one engine if need be....is what revolutionized the Airline industry.
Hell you should known Beags...you were there in the late 30's were you not?
As Ernie Gann did his flying in the early days before O2 and pressurized cabins...the 18,000 foot level did not mean much to his flying. By the way Beags....Gann never flew the "Mails"....except that which was cargo on his Airline flights which in those days was a way of the government subsidizing the Airlines and getting Air Service into small cities and towns all across the country.
The advent of the DC2/3 series and its ability to transit the Rocky Mountains on one engine if need be....is what revolutionized the Airline industry.
Hell you should known Beags...you were there in the late 30's were you not?
Last edited by SASless; 22nd Jan 2013 at 17:07.
Hell you should known Beags...you were there in the late 30's were you not?
But I'm sure EKG flew DC4s later in his career? The wonderful story of the one which had a nigh-on triple engine failure on take-off makes great reading - as does the rest of his book. My 1961 original copy is a treasured item!
In order to be an Aviator....One must know Gann!
His books should be leather bound and passed down to new generations.
I also liked his story about the C-87 and the Taj Mahal and its near demise at his hands. The Taj and the C-87.
His account of flying over the Appalachian Mountains during a Cold Front passage in a DC-2 is so real....it gives me Goose Bumps. (Been there....done that too many times in comparable performing airplanes!).
As Beags so very rightly states....if you have not read Gann....DO!
His books should be leather bound and passed down to new generations.
I also liked his story about the C-87 and the Taj Mahal and its near demise at his hands. The Taj and the C-87.
His account of flying over the Appalachian Mountains during a Cold Front passage in a DC-2 is so real....it gives me Goose Bumps. (Been there....done that too many times in comparable performing airplanes!).
As Beags so very rightly states....if you have not read Gann....DO!
Last edited by SASless; 22nd Jan 2013 at 20:10.
In the scheme of the World's aviation operations....where would the UK rank?
You don't have a proper mountain in the realm (height wise) and yet you have the most complex Altimeter Setting procedures in the entire world....and you really think the rest of the World from Katmandu to Death Valley from just shy of the North Pole to the South Pole might just be doing it wrong?
Aw.....go on....pull the other one will you?
You don't have a proper mountain in the realm (height wise) and yet you have the most complex Altimeter Setting procedures in the entire world....and you really think the rest of the World from Katmandu to Death Valley from just shy of the North Pole to the South Pole might just be doing it wrong?
Aw.....go on....pull the other one will you?
SASless,
Whilst I agree with your point, I wouldn't have picked Kathmandu as an example given the regularity with which metal meets mountainside around Nepal!
Whilst I agree with your point, I wouldn't have picked Kathmandu as an example given the regularity with which metal meets mountainside around Nepal!
