altimeter setting
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
Quote:
The other thing to watch out for is taking off from a high airfield underneath airspace with QFE set. Crosland Moor at Huddersfield is a good one for that, there's class A at 3,500 and class D at 3,000. Field is at 800 odd feet, easy to forget on the climb out, seen it happen.
The answer to this problem is to discontinue use of QFE, as previously discussed in this thread.
Which is why I would prefer, in the case of QNE to not bother with the added calculation of QFE. That way a single QNH derived alt reading would do for anywhere & the pilot can add elevation as required.
The other thing to watch out for is taking off from a high airfield underneath airspace with QFE set. Crosland Moor at Huddersfield is a good one for that, there's class A at 3,500 and class D at 3,000. Field is at 800 odd feet, easy to forget on the climb out, seen it happen.
The answer to this problem is to discontinue use of QFE, as previously discussed in this thread.
Which is why I would prefer, in the case of QNE to not bother with the added calculation of QFE. That way a single QNH derived alt reading would do for anywhere & the pilot can add elevation as required.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 408
Likes: 6
From: Melbourne
This is yet another thread that convinces me the British make everything in aviation unnecessarily complicated.
We get by perfectly well with just QNH (aerodrome QNH or area QNH) and 1013, and most light aircraft never have to bother with the latter.
We get by perfectly well with just QNH (aerodrome QNH or area QNH) and 1013, and most light aircraft never have to bother with the latter.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: UK
I use QFE when flying near my base airstrip - that way I don't suffer a CFIT if the weather clags up. As a UK pilot I have an Airspace Aware unit that gives me a (gps derived) QNH so I have belt and braces! Not that QNH is of any use whatsoever as I NEVER go near controlled airspace....
Andy
Andy
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,991
Likes: 8
From: UK
The QFE/QNH debate is as old as aviation itself!
If you've only ever operated QFE you think QNH operation is like going to the moon.
Having operated both over 40 years of flying I know which I prefer and what I think is safer and that's QNH every time.
If you've only ever operated QFE you think QNH operation is like going to the moon.
Having operated both over 40 years of flying I know which I prefer and what I think is safer and that's QNH every time.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
It is generally flatland southerners who want to get rid of QFE because of the minimal difference between QNH and QFE from where they fly from/to. If they came north occasionally where airfields/airstrips are at higher altitude than sea level the novelty of doing mental arithmatic when coming in to land would soon wear thin I think.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,991
Likes: 8
From: UK
If they came north occasionally where airfields/airstrips are at higher altitude than sea level the novelty of doing mental arithmatic when coming in to land would soon wear thin I think.
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
From: EU
While I try not to tell people whch way to do something, because it is their own preference, I simply do not understand a couple of the points made about QFE in the last few posts.
How does QFE stop you having a CFIT?
What is the mental arithmetic required during landing if using a QNH even if into higher elevation fields? I spent some time flying light aircraft around Portugal which I only mention because they have field elevations at and around 2000' in places which is more than you get in the UK, and I never remember doing any mental calcs.
How does QFE stop you having a CFIT?
What is the mental arithmetic required during landing if using a QNH even if into higher elevation fields? I spent some time flying light aircraft around Portugal which I only mention because they have field elevations at and around 2000' in places which is more than you get in the UK, and I never remember doing any mental calcs.
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,377
Likes: 174
From: England
Perhaps a new trend could be set by not including QFE in RT transmissions for those that preferred not to use it. If challenged for non-read back, state - politely - 'using QNH and field elevation'. If passed a RPS, your response could be 'using local QNH'. (Plus optional 'thank you').
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
From: UK
Having said and read all, unless you are making an approach in clag or somewhere where the circuit is busy and need to stick to a circuit height why do you need to look at the altimeter when making a landing? Surely it's all visual clues with the odd glance at the ASI. It doesn't matter what the field elevation is, just use your eyeballs.
Tin hat donned...
Tin hat donned...
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
"If they came north occasionally" I love it! I can't be bothered to set QFE much of the time, it's easier to just add the known elevation to the usually round thousands of circuit heights, hardly mental arithmetic.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
Well if QFE is good enough for the RAF it is sure good enough for me..
Incidently I was once failed on an IMC test for not setting QFE!
Seriously though I admit it was the way I was taught way back in the early eighties to always use. I now cannot see me using anything else. I don't give a stuff what ATC tell me QNH or QFE, regardless I will always use QFE. To me it is just logical...set pressure to give me the altimeter reading zero when I touch down on the threshhold, just tell me what could be simpler!
Incidently I was once failed on an IMC test for not setting QFE!
Seriously though I admit it was the way I was taught way back in the early eighties to always use. I now cannot see me using anything else. I don't give a stuff what ATC tell me QNH or QFE, regardless I will always use QFE. To me it is just logical...set pressure to give me the altimeter reading zero when I touch down on the threshhold, just tell me what could be simpler!
Joined: Jul 2003
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 1,532
From: Near the coast
altimeter setting
If I may interject I would like to profer my opinion? As an RAF pilot with 14 years FJ experience I can see both sides of the argument. In the UK I would much rather use QFE because it is easier in my mind. I am currently based in Canada and in the last year have flown approaches into Boulder CO, Great Falls MT, Casper WY, Salt-lake City UT (I'll stop there or it just looks like bragging) and QFE would make absolutely no sense whatsoever (as discussed here it would be far outside the range of pretty much every altimeter on the market).
In my experience UK civvy airports will give QNH unless you ask for QFE. This arrangement works just fine for me and appears to be the best of both worlds.
I am pretty happy with either. I think the maths that Dave Wilson may be talking about is the need to add circuit height or DH to runway elevation.
BV
In my experience UK civvy airports will give QNH unless you ask for QFE. This arrangement works just fine for me and appears to be the best of both worlds.
I am pretty happy with either. I think the maths that Dave Wilson may be talking about is the need to add circuit height or DH to runway elevation.
BV
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
From: UK
Maths? Didn't realise I'd mentioned it. Because I fly from a mil field it's QFE on the instrument approaches, if I do an approach at Donny up the road it's QNH. I just think that even if they don't bin QFE altogether they could at least make approach plates standard and use QNH on all of them. I know that both QFE and QNH are on the same plate but why confuse the issue when there's no need?
As I said earlier once you're in the circuit you don't need the altimeter anymore, or shouldn't do at any rate.
As I said earlier once you're in the circuit you don't need the altimeter anymore, or shouldn't do at any rate.
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
From: Wales
Well just flipping through my Pooleys, I see that most UK airfields are below 200ft asl. With only a few over 400ft asl. So it is not too much strain to wind on 10 hPa on the dial from QFE to QNH.
btw. I have a spare ex Air Ministry Altimeter that goes down to 800 mB (~6000ft) on the subscale.
btw. I have a spare ex Air Ministry Altimeter that goes down to 800 mB (~6000ft) on the subscale.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
From: Cheshire, England
Three interesting posts from Shoestring Flyer.
Post 45: QFE may be good for you when landing and in the vicinity of the aerodrome (circuit), however once you move away from those environs do bear in mind that the base of controlled airspace, where defined as an altitude, is based on the relevant QNH. Head away from your airfield on QFE and (in pretty much all of the UK) you will already be x feet above sea level. This may cause you difficulty, because you are now flying at a height, which may put you close to or even above the base of CAS (altitude) of which you may not be conscious, because you are flying on QFE. Or do you do the relevant mental arithmetic whilst flying to prevent an inadvertent infringement.
Post 49: At peril of engaging in a north-south, hills-flatlands and QFE-QNH debate, to which others have alluded, I find it remarkable that pretty well all commercial operators, including single pilot operators, use QNH and manage the mental arithmetic involved. I would suggest that adding the elevation of your landing strip to the relevant QNH and then flying it accurately should be well within the competence of any qualified pilot; it is, after all, simple mental arithmetic.
Post 55: Regarding the RAF; sadly, it is a somewhat minor player in aviation these days and it's historic adherence to QFE is not reflected by the major players - the airlines, whose use of QNH is pretty much total. To that end all professional flight training operators will use QNH as part of the process of preparing their students for commercial operations.
It is also worth considering that all UK civil ATC units will use QNH as the basis for providing the vertical separation of aircraft under their control, and are unlikely to make adjustments for the personal preferences of pilots who don't give a stuff what ATC say. Even if you request and are given a QFE, in addition to the airfield QNH, you will be expected to state your vertical position by reference to the QNH, as an altitude.
Fly safely, and do bear in mind that the charts mark elevation related to sea level.
Post 45: QFE may be good for you when landing and in the vicinity of the aerodrome (circuit), however once you move away from those environs do bear in mind that the base of controlled airspace, where defined as an altitude, is based on the relevant QNH. Head away from your airfield on QFE and (in pretty much all of the UK) you will already be x feet above sea level. This may cause you difficulty, because you are now flying at a height, which may put you close to or even above the base of CAS (altitude) of which you may not be conscious, because you are flying on QFE. Or do you do the relevant mental arithmetic whilst flying to prevent an inadvertent infringement.
Post 49: At peril of engaging in a north-south, hills-flatlands and QFE-QNH debate, to which others have alluded, I find it remarkable that pretty well all commercial operators, including single pilot operators, use QNH and manage the mental arithmetic involved. I would suggest that adding the elevation of your landing strip to the relevant QNH and then flying it accurately should be well within the competence of any qualified pilot; it is, after all, simple mental arithmetic.
Post 55: Regarding the RAF; sadly, it is a somewhat minor player in aviation these days and it's historic adherence to QFE is not reflected by the major players - the airlines, whose use of QNH is pretty much total. To that end all professional flight training operators will use QNH as part of the process of preparing their students for commercial operations.
It is also worth considering that all UK civil ATC units will use QNH as the basis for providing the vertical separation of aircraft under their control, and are unlikely to make adjustments for the personal preferences of pilots who don't give a stuff what ATC say. Even if you request and are given a QFE, in addition to the airfield QNH, you will be expected to state your vertical position by reference to the QNH, as an altitude.
Fly safely, and do bear in mind that the charts mark elevation related to sea level.
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 346
Likes: 1
From: USA
Wouldn't it be nice if there was only one altimeter setting... You could call it 'altimeter setting' All the terrain on the chart including the airport elevation would match the altimeter. All airspace delineations would match the altimeter at all times. Every plane of interest would be on the same setting, and would be individually responsible for keeping their altimeter accurate using widespread sources of airborne aeronautical data. Eventually you'd have a difficult time finding a pilot who would know what Q-this and Q-that meant, because it would be archaic nonsense.
It doesn't hurt to dream
All the terrain on the chart including the airport elevation would match the altimeter. All airspace delineations would match the altimeter at all times. Every plane of interest would be on the same setting, and would be individually responsible for keeping their altimeter accurate using widespread sources of airborne aeronautical data. Eventually you'd have a difficult time finding a pilot who would know what Q-this and Q-that meant, because it would be archaic nonsense. It doesn't hurt to dream