Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Altimeter setting regions (again)

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Altimeter setting regions (again)

Old 7th Mar 2019, 14:59
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 492
Altimeter setting regions (again)

The 1969 edition of the UK AIP explains the rationale behind Altimeter Setting Regions:




Given that these days local QNH is available from multiple sources, would it not be logical to discontinue ASRs and thus remove the potential for busts of controlled airspace?

Discorde is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 15:33
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 5,765
Technically incorrect anyway, a forecast area pressure is not a QNH.
There are plans afoot to change the transition altitude to 18000ft where all operation below it will be on QNH but its all taking a long time to put into effect.
Whopity is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 15:41
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 864
Dealing with a certain RAF station this morning, they wanted me to transit around their MATZ (landing site inside MATZ) but on their QFE, eventually sorted out the landing and they insisted on giving me the RPS for a site they could see out of the window when flying on their QNH would have been safer. I never fly on QFE, either at work or for pleasure, so why do the RAF have to make life so ridiculously complex? Actually I'm ex-army, so why RAF anyway? Awaits incomingg from ShyTorque!

SND
Sir Niall Dementia is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 17:16
  #4 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 11,953
The RAF did change from the use of QFE in about 1986 but not for long. The story going around was that some very senior officers (AEF Chipmunk pilots) found flying circuits on QNH too taxing and insisted that it was changed back to how it used to be.

I find RPS redundant and only use it where a military airfield requires it for a transit. Or, as is usually the case, a crafty way of getting civilian aircraft to fly above the MATZ, rather than a transit through as requested.
ShyTorque is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.