altimeter setting
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 395
Likes: 18
From: anywhere
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 346
Likes: 1
From: USA
Prop swinger - I was describing the existing situation in the US, where most GA worldwide occurs and where the mention of Q-anything would gather only a blank stare, or perhaps a gentle smile of recognition in recalling Q-codes as a long obsolete and slightly bizarre concept from the history books, right next to Morse code as primary communication. QNH is called by that name today (in some places) only as a necessity created by those, mainly in the UK, who refuse to let go of the Edwardian past, including its arcane and today pointless navigation practices.
Given widely available altimeter data, it is normal worldwide practice for all low altitude GA aircraft to use a common type of altimeter setting that tells each of them how high they are above sea level. Accordingly, most pilots worldwide don't have any need to understand Q-codes; most of the world wouldn't know what QFE means and for God's sake of course I'll never use it!!
Given widely available altimeter data, it is normal worldwide practice for all low altitude GA aircraft to use a common type of altimeter setting that tells each of them how high they are above sea level. Accordingly, most pilots worldwide don't have any need to understand Q-codes; most of the world wouldn't know what QFE means and for God's sake of course I'll never use it!!
Last edited by Silvaire1; 28th December 2013 at 13:43.
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 5
From: South of England
I think that you will find, Silvaire, that despite your parochial outlook to the contrary, both QNH and QFE are terms both of description and in RTF phraseology used by ICAO, i.e. recognised world-wide.
2 s
2 s
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
From: Western USA
I think that you will find, Silvaire, that despite your parochial outlook to the contrary, both QNH and QFE are terms both of description and in RTF phraseology used by ICAO, i.e. recognised world-wide.
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
From: Western USA
shoestringflyer
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.
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.
American Airlines used QFE for years with another altimeter set to QNH below FL180 or the Transition Level elsewhere. Talk about confusing mental arithmetic...but if its your cuppa tea...
Quote:
If anyone has a parochial attitude about aviation its ICAO.
Explain, please, in this context.
2 s
Sorry, if I have to explain that you wouldn't understand.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,991
Likes: 8
From: UK
Recall going into Crete one day in the 1980s about number 5 or so in the sequence to join right base visual for the westerly runway. Greek controller working like a one armed paper hangar with departures as well (same track).
In the middle of the RT fracas Danair ahead of us calls up requesting the QFE - a rather exasperated controller replied "Danair XXX the QFE is five millibars less than the QNH".
Silvaire1 - love the irony and am with you all the way.
In the days when we operated QFE you could almost take a £5 bet on seeing an altitude bust in the event of a missed approach in the simulator. As soon as we changed to QNH it became a rarity.
In the middle of the RT fracas Danair ahead of us calls up requesting the QFE - a rather exasperated controller replied "Danair XXX the QFE is five millibars less than the QNH".
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.
In the days when we operated QFE you could almost take a £5 bet on seeing an altitude bust in the event of a missed approach in the simulator. As soon as we changed to QNH it became a rarity.
Last edited by fireflybob; 29th December 2013 at 08:40.
Joined: Apr 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 57
From: Surrey, UK ;
Having just returned from a fabulous Christmas holiday flying in Colorado and Florida, I concur that any expression starting with a "Q" is unlikely to be met with a full and complete understanding in the continental US. The words that get the correct answer are "altimeter setting".
The highest field I flew into was Buena Vista at elv. 7,950', (sadly I missed Leadville 43 miles further up the valley where the pattern is flown at 10,700') and the lowest was Everglades at about 6'.
Reading the Denver sectional and using QFE are two things not to be done together and I made copious kneeboard notes before I set off of the airfield elevs and pattern altitudes I was going to encounter. The changes in altimeter setting over relatively short distances surprised me.
The same principle of using QNH easily translates into my normal flying in SE England with Redhill at 222 ft.
The highest field I flew into was Buena Vista at elv. 7,950', (sadly I missed Leadville 43 miles further up the valley where the pattern is flown at 10,700') and the lowest was Everglades at about 6'.
Reading the Denver sectional and using QFE are two things not to be done together and I made copious kneeboard notes before I set off of the airfield elevs and pattern altitudes I was going to encounter. The changes in altimeter setting over relatively short distances surprised me.
The same principle of using QNH easily translates into my normal flying in SE England with Redhill at 222 ft.
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
From: Western USA
Dave Gittins
The changes in altimeter setting over relatively short distances surprised me.
The changes in altimeter setting over relatively short distances surprised me.
Try the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness area in Idaho next time. An example airport: Wilson Bar (C48) requires a two mile flight upstream in a narrow canyon to reverse course downstream for a low and slow, last minute dogleg turn to a one way final with no go around at no more than 100' above the river. Field elevation 2275', runway length 1500', gravel/grass/snakes.
