QFE / QNH
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WestwindI don't think that you will find that the UK is that flat actually, try teling to that to the pair of F15's who crashed into terra firma whilst confused about their altitude operating QNH/RPS under a RIS. Bottom line is safety altitide is the law when IMC. The only time you get terrain clearance from ATC is when under Radar control. (which they weren't)
I refer you to my original comment, if you don't have the mental flexibility to operate under QFE/QNH and then read out the elevation of the airfield then you don't have the right to be classed as a "professional pilot", considering most of you barely get above 120 kts where things happen painfully slowly..........get a grip.
All of your arguments for abolishing QFE are brittle at best. You all have the audacity to have a go at the RAF for using QFE, yet expect the impeccable service you should/will get in a MATZ, again, if you don't like it go elsewhere and do us all a favour.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no need to be insulting.... it was a joke after all. 
But how can you navigate on QFE if the countryside changes elevation constantly? that's what I don't understand! If you have QFE set at your home field, well, get into those mountains and the ground will no longer be 0! I don't see where that could be safe!
Westy
But how can you navigate on QFE if the countryside changes elevation constantly? that's what I don't understand! If you have QFE set at your home field, well, get into those mountains and the ground will no longer be 0! I don't see where that could be safe!
Westy
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westone
no one here is advocating the use of QFE away from the airfield, where I will concur it is as much use as tits on fish, however, I will defend it on pain of death whilst flying circuits/inst app at an airfield.
I maintain my point, flexibilty is the key to air power............. if individuals are that easily confused by moving the subscale on their altimeters, then they should hang their heads...............
Bottom line is QFE is not evil, or wrong, it is merely another string to your bow and if you can't cope with it, stay on the ground.
Some of the replies here are pathetic and I hate to generalise but mostly by those who fly puddle jumpers with less performance than a mini metro who do seem to create a storm in a teacup over absolutley nothing.
get a grip guys
no one here is advocating the use of QFE away from the airfield, where I will concur it is as much use as tits on fish, however, I will defend it on pain of death whilst flying circuits/inst app at an airfield.
I maintain my point, flexibilty is the key to air power............. if individuals are that easily confused by moving the subscale on their altimeters, then they should hang their heads...............
Bottom line is QFE is not evil, or wrong, it is merely another string to your bow and if you can't cope with it, stay on the ground.
Some of the replies here are pathetic and I hate to generalise but mostly by those who fly puddle jumpers with less performance than a mini metro who do seem to create a storm in a teacup over absolutley nothing.
get a grip guys
Guest
Posts: n/a
DS, I don't know how you can say:
If they had been on Ben MCDui QNH (bearing in mind there isn't normally a met stn there) or the RPS (which would have provided enhanced terrain clearance) the outcome would have been the same. They hit the hill because they were flying at least 2000ft below SA (one presumes under IMC at the point of impact), regardless of QNH/RPS.
That said, I agree with the thrust of your argument.
...try teling to that to the pair of F15's who crashed into terra firma whilst confused about their altitude operating QNH/RPS under a RIS
If they had been on Ben MCDui QNH (bearing in mind there isn't normally a met stn there) or the RPS (which would have provided enhanced terrain clearance) the outcome would have been the same. They hit the hill because they were flying at least 2000ft below SA (one presumes under IMC at the point of impact), regardless of QNH/RPS.
That said, I agree with the thrust of your argument.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I simply don't understand how anyone can get so excited about all of this. 
ATC give you QNH and QFE. You set whichever you prefer.
Away from the airfield of course you usually use QNH; though if I'm teaching half an hour trial lessons close to the airfield, staying on QFE gives me my approx height above the ground, and therefore the height above the villages which might put in noise complaints, so it's very convenient.
Close to the airfield you decide if you prefer to read off your height when in the circuit, or subtract airfield elevation in order to get it. One involves setting the sub-scale; the other some very simple arithmetic.
How can you get so het up over all of this?
Though if you're enjoying the pointless discussion, don't let me stop you (I'm sure you won't anyway)
I need another drink....
ATC give you QNH and QFE. You set whichever you prefer.
Away from the airfield of course you usually use QNH; though if I'm teaching half an hour trial lessons close to the airfield, staying on QFE gives me my approx height above the ground, and therefore the height above the villages which might put in noise complaints, so it's very convenient.
Close to the airfield you decide if you prefer to read off your height when in the circuit, or subtract airfield elevation in order to get it. One involves setting the sub-scale; the other some very simple arithmetic.
How can you get so het up over all of this?
Though if you're enjoying the pointless discussion, don't let me stop you (I'm sure you won't anyway)
I need another drink....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can you get so het up over all of this?
Perhaps because people get killed fairly regularly (I mean to say a number of them get killed, not that a particular person gets killed more than once
) through the loss of separation between the ground and the aircraft.
A lot of the argument comes down to VFR v. IFR. There is a heavy VFR bias in this forum; even more so in most other pilot forums.
One could be pedantic and say that in VFR one must maintain VMC, so end of debate. Unfortunately, nobody (unless they have just got to the bottom of their last bottle of Prozac) is going to fly into the ground knowingly, and clouds are a common thing in most of the world, so it must be assumed that a lot of people do end up not seeing where they are going. Accidentally or intentionally; I think it's fair to say that most pilots that "go places" do from time to time fly in IMC under VFR. It's illegal but surely it's reasonable to discuss ways to avoid getting killed while doing it.
And getting QFE and QNH getting mixed up is a great way to get killed.
If IFR then confusion (and loss of obstacle clearance) is almost certain to happen unless one avoids using QFE and sticks to QNH. It's not a case of everybody doing what they are used to; it's a case of "this way is safer because there is less chance of an error".
Perhaps because people get killed fairly regularly (I mean to say a number of them get killed, not that a particular person gets killed more than once
) through the loss of separation between the ground and the aircraft.A lot of the argument comes down to VFR v. IFR. There is a heavy VFR bias in this forum; even more so in most other pilot forums.
One could be pedantic and say that in VFR one must maintain VMC, so end of debate. Unfortunately, nobody (unless they have just got to the bottom of their last bottle of Prozac) is going to fly into the ground knowingly, and clouds are a common thing in most of the world, so it must be assumed that a lot of people do end up not seeing where they are going. Accidentally or intentionally; I think it's fair to say that most pilots that "go places" do from time to time fly in IMC under VFR. It's illegal but surely it's reasonable to discuss ways to avoid getting killed while doing it.
And getting QFE and QNH getting mixed up is a great way to get killed.
If IFR then confusion (and loss of obstacle clearance) is almost certain to happen unless one avoids using QFE and sticks to QNH. It's not a case of everybody doing what they are used to; it's a case of "this way is safer because there is less chance of an error".
Last edited by IO540; 5th Jul 2006 at 12:11.
I think the QFE/QNH debate is as old as aviation itself.
That said, having operated both in a variety of scenarios, I would say everything favours QNH (indeed in the USA they dont call it the QNH but "THE altimeter setting"!).
Those brought up on the QFE within the general aviation sector (and I say this with all respect) are rarely taught how to conduct an altimeter tolerance check prior to take off - many is the time that I have seen pilots get the QFE from ATC/FISO/AG when they call for taxi, never to set it on the altimeter and then just set "zero". During local flying the altimeter is never reset for the rest of the flight!
Teach QNH operation from the start and there tends to be a better awareness of field/terrain elevation.
Teaching correct altimetry is rather like bringing up a child to the age of 7 years - inculcate the correct habits and you never forget. It's simple stuff but Hey Guys! get this stuff wrong in IMC and it can kill you!
That said, having operated both in a variety of scenarios, I would say everything favours QNH (indeed in the USA they dont call it the QNH but "THE altimeter setting"!).
Those brought up on the QFE within the general aviation sector (and I say this with all respect) are rarely taught how to conduct an altimeter tolerance check prior to take off - many is the time that I have seen pilots get the QFE from ATC/FISO/AG when they call for taxi, never to set it on the altimeter and then just set "zero". During local flying the altimeter is never reset for the rest of the flight!
Teach QNH operation from the start and there tends to be a better awareness of field/terrain elevation.
Teaching correct altimetry is rather like bringing up a child to the age of 7 years - inculcate the correct habits and you never forget. It's simple stuff but Hey Guys! get this stuff wrong in IMC and it can kill you!
Haven't used QFE since I flew from Denham: circuit height 750 agl, elevation about 250ft, add those two together and what's easier than flying a circuit at 1000ft rather than 750ft? OK so I'm lazy, but it's not easy being this lazy, it takes a lot of practice!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For years I've used QFE for visual app's & QNH for instrument app's. If landing at a field when there's no radio, I use QNH (but sometimes calculate QFE from a nearby airfield QNH if I am bored).
This makes no sense at all and must be the most confusing to learn, but as all my VFR training taught QFE and IFR training taught QNH, I just kinda fell into it. Maybe it's time to change to QNH all round (Nah - old dogs - new tricks
)
This makes no sense at all and must be the most confusing to learn, but as all my VFR training taught QFE and IFR training taught QNH, I just kinda fell into it. Maybe it's time to change to QNH all round (Nah - old dogs - new tricks
)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411 - yes the comet did do a touch and goi n the game park but the 747 only did a 'low approach and go around' - broke out of the cloud early enough to do a deleted expletive pull-up
Back in the late '60's early '70's we (BOAC) landed on QFE ( a pain in the ass winding off the settings going into Teheran, especially as we were dodging around the mountains at the time!) NBO and JNB were even worse!
Fortunately the Flight manager of the 'new' 747 fleet - Douggie Redrup - insisted that everything was done the 'Boeing' way which included using QNH for all arrivals and departures - it made assessing altitude in relation to surrounding terrain much easier even if it did involve more mental arithmetic in relation to MDA's and DH's, but we soon got used to it!
BEA used QFE for much longer - dont know when they switched.
Now I only fly light 'stuff' QFEi s used for all arrivals and departures - regional QNH for enroute!! which is strictly VFR
Back in the late '60's early '70's we (BOAC) landed on QFE ( a pain in the ass winding off the settings going into Teheran, especially as we were dodging around the mountains at the time!) NBO and JNB were even worse!
Fortunately the Flight manager of the 'new' 747 fleet - Douggie Redrup - insisted that everything was done the 'Boeing' way which included using QNH for all arrivals and departures - it made assessing altitude in relation to surrounding terrain much easier even if it did involve more mental arithmetic in relation to MDA's and DH's, but we soon got used to it!
BEA used QFE for much longer - dont know when they switched.
Now I only fly light 'stuff' QFEi s used for all arrivals and departures - regional QNH for enroute!! which is strictly VFR
