IMC cockpit organisation
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing
When I did my inital training for the IR the SOP was to make the approach on QFE, holds and the start of the procedure was flown on QNH.
So the drill was as you went outbound from the IAP you set QFE for the base turn and approach, If you did a GA you reset QNH immediately to fly the GA procedure.
This constant resetting of the altimeter mattered little at Bournemouth with an elevation of thirty feet or so but go to Bristol or Luton and one mistake was likely to kill you.
Thankfully as soon as I did not have to fly using the training organization's SOP I ditched QFE until I was forced to use in when operating from military airfields, fortunately the military fly the whole procedure on QFE so altimeter setting is done at a low workload part of the flight.
My point is that the civil system has largely changed from using QFE for instrument approaches and as the rest of the worlds ATC is issuing clearances based on QNH it is a bit silly to have one system for the UK and another for the rest of the world, converting clearances from QNH to fit the QFE setting of your altimeter is a disaster waiting to happen and I can't believe that this is common practice but nothing would suprize me in the UK training system that has a habit of turning even the most simple things into a black art.
Kharmael while agreeing with you about changing altimeter settings you are not correct about most plates having both QNH & QFE values printed on them Jeppesen plates don't, they are the global standard and outsell all the others by a large margin. Perhaps you should RTFA as you so quantly put it !
So the drill was as you went outbound from the IAP you set QFE for the base turn and approach, If you did a GA you reset QNH immediately to fly the GA procedure.
This constant resetting of the altimeter mattered little at Bournemouth with an elevation of thirty feet or so but go to Bristol or Luton and one mistake was likely to kill you.
Thankfully as soon as I did not have to fly using the training organization's SOP I ditched QFE until I was forced to use in when operating from military airfields, fortunately the military fly the whole procedure on QFE so altimeter setting is done at a low workload part of the flight.
My point is that the civil system has largely changed from using QFE for instrument approaches and as the rest of the worlds ATC is issuing clearances based on QNH it is a bit silly to have one system for the UK and another for the rest of the world, converting clearances from QNH to fit the QFE setting of your altimeter is a disaster waiting to happen and I can't believe that this is common practice but nothing would suprize me in the UK training system that has a habit of turning even the most simple things into a black art.
Kharmael while agreeing with you about changing altimeter settings you are not correct about most plates having both QNH & QFE values printed on them Jeppesen plates don't, they are the global standard and outsell all the others by a large margin. Perhaps you should RTFA as you so quantly put it !
Last edited by A and C; 10th Sep 2013 at 07:59.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankfully as soon as I did not have to fly using the training organization's SOP I ditched QFE until I was forced to use in when operating from military airfields, fortunately the military fly the whole procedure on QFE so altimeter setting is done at a low workload part of the flight
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole discussion relies on the fact the one is able to shoot either a QFE or QNH based approach at this hypothetical airfield.
If you are able to fly a QFE or QNH approach at an airfield then the plate will have both heights and altitudes on it. If the plate doesn't have heights on it then it really renders moot the whole argument doesn't it!?
If you are able to fly a QFE or QNH approach at an airfield then the plate will have both heights and altitudes on it. If the plate doesn't have heights on it then it really renders moot the whole argument doesn't it!?
Originally Posted by johnm
Keep it as simple as possible and use GPS with the procedures in it wherever possible and remember that no one in their right mind uses an ADF for NDB procedures in real life.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not just those with steam driven flight decks that have to use the ADF, I recently shot an ADF using the ADF as the primary navigation source because the NDB approach was not in the navigation data base.
The aircraft was a very well equipped 737NG.
Obviously the approach is made much easier with the FMS generation a reliable track line but at the end of the day the ADF is legally required and if you step outside the limits of the ADF you have to go around.
Also the ADF fitted to the aircaft is more reliable than most GA ADF's ( with the exception of a well set up Bendix/King KR87).
The aircraft was a very well equipped 737NG.
Obviously the approach is made much easier with the FMS generation a reliable track line but at the end of the day the ADF is legally required and if you step outside the limits of the ADF you have to go around.
Also the ADF fitted to the aircaft is more reliable than most GA ADF's ( with the exception of a well set up Bendix/King KR87).
Last edited by A and C; 11th Sep 2013 at 15:11.
