Airfield QNH - what's the point?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The VAST majority of airfields list their circuit heights as XXXXft QFE.
It doesn't mean the airfield will give you a QFE.
And no airfield abroad (that I know of) will give you a QFE.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but what you are supposed to do is look up the published airfield elevation, add it to the published circuit height, and fly the circuit at that altitude.
QFE is useless once one has left the circuit.
QFE is useless once one has left the circuit.
And no airfield abroad (that I know of) will give you a QFE.
The list is very long.
Should you ever fly into my local airfield when I'm in the tower I will pass you the runway in use and circuit direction. Then I'll check the altimeter reads Zero, pass you the QFE and expect you to fly on it.
Hopefully you will fly the circuit at the correct height and your altimeter will be reading Zero on landing. If this is too difficult, there are other places you could go.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LFAT calls it "QFE" but they really mean "AAL".
They are doing this in the belief that they are doing the Brits a favour.
I have never come across a French (or any other non-UK) airport that actually passes the QFE value over the radio, or ATIS.
If you can advise your airfield name, I will take note (along with many others, probably) - not of the requirement to use QFE (which I can mentally and emotionally deal with) but of the attitude 
They are doing this in the belief that they are doing the Brits a favour.
I have never come across a French (or any other non-UK) airport that actually passes the QFE value over the radio, or ATIS.
If this is too difficult, there are other places you could go
Should you ever fly into my local airfield when I'm in the tower I will pass you the runway in use and circuit direction. Then I'll check the altimeter reads Zero, pass you the QFE and expect you to fly on it.
Hopefully you will fly the circuit at the correct height and your altimeter will be reading Zero on landing. If this is too difficult, there are other places you could go.
Hopefully you will fly the circuit at the correct height and your altimeter will be reading Zero on landing. If this is too difficult, there are other places you could go.
2 s
First, for those with an interest, two observations from the continent:
-) here in Belgium QFE is never mentioned after the theory exams. In five years of flying I have yet to actually hear it on the radio.
-) whenever I call Brussels information after leaving my home field, and tell them my intentions, they will respond with "Roger, Regional QNH is xxxx" and I have known it to be 5 hP off from what I had set on the ground - and Belgium is not THAT big.
And now a bold and very personal opinion: the whole QFE vs. QNH argument is futile, almost moot. The real problem is that we still want to stick with barometric altimeters. But at the current rate of progress, it wil take several decades, if not centuries, before ICAO, FAA, EASA, and a zillion more parties agree to the use of GPS altitude.
OK, barometric has the charms of most antique techniques: simple and reliable. But if we took GPS as the prime information source, we could have a barometric altimeter as a backup, and twiddle the pressure setting without having to talk to anyone.
-) here in Belgium QFE is never mentioned after the theory exams. In five years of flying I have yet to actually hear it on the radio.
-) whenever I call Brussels information after leaving my home field, and tell them my intentions, they will respond with "Roger, Regional QNH is xxxx" and I have known it to be 5 hP off from what I had set on the ground - and Belgium is not THAT big.
And now a bold and very personal opinion: the whole QFE vs. QNH argument is futile, almost moot. The real problem is that we still want to stick with barometric altimeters. But at the current rate of progress, it wil take several decades, if not centuries, before ICAO, FAA, EASA, and a zillion more parties agree to the use of GPS altitude.
OK, barometric has the charms of most antique techniques: simple and reliable. But if we took GPS as the prime information source, we could have a barometric altimeter as a backup, and twiddle the pressure setting without having to talk to anyone.
Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 14th Jul 2012 at 21:41.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was taught to use QFE when I did my PPL. Then I went on to do the IMC rating and was taught to use only QNH. Then I went to the USA and did a load of flying, and soon realised that there can't be a QFE for a lot of airfields there.
I don't use RPS (there's always a QNH to be had, in my experience), and I don't use QFE. Somehow, my poor brain copes.
On an IMCR or IR renewal, failure to set QNH on the missed approach is an automatic "fail", which is another good reason not to use QFE.
I don't use RPS (there's always a QNH to be had, in my experience), and I don't use QFE. Somehow, my poor brain copes.
On an IMCR or IR renewal, failure to set QNH on the missed approach is an automatic "fail", which is another good reason not to use QFE.
I find some of the responses on this thread deeply disturbing.
Yes, but what you are supposed to do is look up the published airfield elevation, add it to the published circuit height, and fly the circuit at that altitude.
I'm off flying. 30th anniversary of me taking to the air
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Swindon, Wiltshire
Age: 49
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I toured down France last week to Cannes and never heard QFE mentioned once. It does seem to be a very British thing.
Also, when landing back at my home base, there often is no radio, so the circuit would need to be done based on QNH - I found it easier to ditch QFE because it adds a layer of inconsistency.
Two very active airfields close by. I call one up for their QFE to ensure I'm above their circuit height.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't for the life of me, see why anyone would PREFER to fly a circuit with reference to sea level
For example at Redhill, where the nominal 1000' circuit height is 300ft below the class D and so you will want a circuit altitude on the same QNH as Gatwick. Especially as the class D extends beyond the ATZ.
Conversely, White Waltham, with a higher surrounding Class A ceiling to the West, flatter surrounding terrain, and a slightly lower elevation, gets by with a lower 800' circuit height and QFE.
It does seem to be a very British thing.
It is only a matter of time before we raise the transition altitude, get rid of RPS and operate on QNH, but if the RAF still insist on using QFE, it will surely continue in UK GA.
Well, you'll please excuse me for repeating myself, but it is only a matter of time before we abandon barometric altimeters* and with them the whole rubbish of QNH and RPS and transition layer and what not.
I must admit, though, that the time might be long.
*except as a secondary, redundant source of information, see earlier
I must admit, though, that the time might be long.
*except as a secondary, redundant source of information, see earlier
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you'll please excuse me for repeating myself, but it is only a matter of time before we abandon barometric altimeters* and with them the whole rubbish of QNH and RPS and transition layer and what not.
I must admit, though, that the time might be long.
*except as a secondary, redundant source of information, see earlier
I must admit, though, that the time might be long.
*except as a secondary, redundant source of information, see earlier
All very well for the CofA types/CAT etc but at what cost to the Permit brigade?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, and what would we bitch about here on PPRuNe?
If we abolish arcane stuff like QNE, QNH and QNF for GPS altitue, hand flying skills for autopilots, PFLs for BRS and so forth, we might as well abolish private flying altogether and fly commercially everywhere.
If we abolish arcane stuff like QNE, QNH and QNF for GPS altitue, hand flying skills for autopilots, PFLs for BRS and so forth, we might as well abolish private flying altogether and fly commercially everywhere.
@crash1: That is a valid point, though I am not personally concerned. However it will not be long, certainly less long, before any serious overland flying will require a certified mode S transponder anyhow, and in any practical implementation this includes a certified GPS function.
For myself I'd rather spend my cash on a decent altitude measurement than on publishing for all and sundry where I am flying.
@BackPacker: yes, that is a much harder nut to crack, indeed. But as I read these pages, I feel confident the RAF will take care of that part.
For myself I'd rather spend my cash on a decent altitude measurement than on publishing for all and sundry where I am flying.
@BackPacker: yes, that is a much harder nut to crack, indeed. But as I read these pages, I feel confident the RAF will take care of that part.
Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 15th Jul 2012 at 11:07.