Regional QNH or 1013
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you probably mean is "you don't have to fly at a rounded FL according to the quadrantal/semi-circular rule" if VFR.
However it is wise to. I heard some chap on the radio on his way to the Channel Islands the other day at 4000' QNH. The controller advised him that he may infringe Q41 which has a base of FL35 to which he replied that on that altimeter setting he should be below FL35...."shouldn't he?". Then the controller responded that she'd get back to him after she had calculated it. Would have been a lot easier for him to just set 1013 on the altimeter and remain below FL35.
Of course around the LTMA the airspace is delimited by altitude (London QNH), elsewhere it might be flight level. It does get horribly complicated especially when you get say an airway which is defined as "FL65 (Minimum altitude 5500')".
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of points (and ridges) above 4,000' in Scotland, and the highest of the Alps is almost 5,000m so a common TA looks rather unlikely to me.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quadrantal FL's for light aircraft
This is horribly complicated and potentially dangerous too.
It's rubbish that being at the appropriate quadrantal gives any kind of protection from a collision with other aircraft in class G airspace. What it does do, is make being terrain safe and staying out of airframe icing conditions unnecessarily tricky other than in summer.
For example;
MSA of 4,600'
Freezing level of 6,000'
TRK(M) of 300*
to keep it simple, let's say the QNH is 1013mb, assuming we are IFR in cloud, we are obliged to be at an even+500 FL, FL45 is below MSA so can't be used, FL65 will put us in known icing, so that's no good either. If we didn't have to use a low TA and FL's, we could simply pick any convenient altitude between 4,600' and 6,000'
This is horribly complicated and potentially dangerous too.
There needs to be a common TA.
There needs to be a common TA.
It would solve so many problems
bb
I hear that inside CAS it will be 6,000' in the Uk and that several airports are working to have the change in place for early next year, but, still 3,000' outside. I hope we see 18,000' in UK very soon both inside and outside CAS
bb
bb
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A higher TA certainly sounds sensible to me. I've always thought that it should be set at a safe height so that if you're flying above the TA, you know you won't hit anything (even in very low pressure areas). I guess the question is whether this works for you chaps flying in Nepal?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18000ft has no meaning in the UK or Europe.
The USA has picked it because above 17999ft is a uniform layer of Class A (to 59999ft I believe, above which it is Class E).
VFR cannot go into Class A, and they have mountains reaching about 16000ft, so it was logical for them to do it this way.
In the UK, 18k would mean nothing. There is Class C at FL195 I think but that's about it.
France is closer to the US model, with Class D at FL115 and Class A at FL195. But the UK is just a mess.
Equally, the 3000ft TA is meaningless. It should be a lot higher, because "flight levels" that low down cannot be flown while respecting MSA, in many places.
The USA has picked it because above 17999ft is a uniform layer of Class A (to 59999ft I believe, above which it is Class E).
VFR cannot go into Class A, and they have mountains reaching about 16000ft, so it was logical for them to do it this way.
In the UK, 18k would mean nothing. There is Class C at FL195 I think but that's about it.
France is closer to the US model, with Class D at FL115 and Class A at FL195. But the UK is just a mess.
Equally, the 3000ft TA is meaningless. It should be a lot higher, because "flight levels" that low down cannot be flown while respecting MSA, in many places.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS the US could conversely benefit from adopting millibars for altimeters - easier to remember.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your flying VFR, you use Regional QNH, and you dont use the Quadrant rule. Even if your above the TL.
Altimeter subscales are just numbers. It doesn't matter whether it is 2992 or 1013 you just twist the relevant number in. Same as if your ASI is marked in knots, MPH or KMH, you just fly the numbers and don't even bother trying to convert them, so no big deal.
I think a TA of 18k would be good because it would bring Europe in line with the USA and it would ensure clearance of all of Europe's highest mountain peaks. I'd then suggest that the UK drops the Class C from FL195 to FL180, just so we know where we stand with regards to upper airspace.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: leeds
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal, i can't belive if your flying at say 4000ft (TL 3000ft) you would use FL's or the quadrant rule for VFR flying!!. Also, changing to IFR flight rules if you happen to meet cloud is ok if your qualified, best way is if your VFR, stay VFR, or dont fly.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you all keep banging on about regional pressure settings? Regional pressure settings are primarily intended for non-radio traffic, either because you don't have a radio, or are flying out of radio contact of a nearby facility. They are intended as a last resort - if you lose contact with an ACTUAL source of pressure setting information (a nearby ATIS, an airfield, whatever), you can resort to the RPS. Converserly however you should NEVER set the RPS if you have access to better and more current actual pressure information. Which, in the UK anywhere South of Dundee, and North of the Channel, is pretty much all the time. (Except for those of you who do actually fly NORDO).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal, i can't belive if your flying at say 4000ft (TL 3000ft) you would use FL's or the quadrant rule for VFR flying!!. Also, changing to IFR flight rules if you happen to meet cloud is ok if your qualified, best way is if your VFR, stay VFR, or dont fly.
FL will ensure you don't bust airspace as they will be marked in FL. How do you know, for example that 6500' Regional will keep you clear of the airway North of exeter which is FL65?
PS If you fly to France or go to the USA you HAVE to fly semi-circular rules when VFR (odd+500, even+500), no choice. So may as well get into the habit. It might also seperate you from IFR traffic.
"Why do you all keep banging on about regional pressure settings? Regional pressure settings are primarily intended for non-radio traffic, either because you don't have a radio, or are flying out of radio contact of a nearby facility"
I'm happy to fly on whatever altimeter setting an air traffic facility give to me, eg QFE for Lossie Approach. It never occurred to me that Inverness and Scottish sometimes give me Portree, Orkney, occasionally Belfast, expect a readback, but don't want me to set it on the altimeter.
I'm happy to fly on whatever altimeter setting an air traffic facility give to me, eg QFE for Lossie Approach. It never occurred to me that Inverness and Scottish sometimes give me Portree, Orkney, occasionally Belfast, expect a readback, but don't want me to set it on the altimeter.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It never occurred to me that Inverness and Scottish sometimes give me Portree, Orkney, occasionally Belfast, expect a readback, but don't want me to set it on the altimeter.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Job Centre
Age: 74
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
