I flew some second hand AA 727s. Their altimeters had an expanded range for the Kollsmam window. It's all what you're willing to pay. |
When I left the RAF, all maritime and transport aircraft were using QNH and not as someone else suggested QFE. Quite what they do in basic training and fast jet ops these days I will let others guide you.
|
Just to put some non UK pilots into the picture of our situation. In the UK most airfields are below 250 ft asl, so it is very easy to set QFE. Whilst in the circuit, it is much easier to fly with the altimeter reading 1000ft, than to have to remember it's 1190 qnh for Carlisle, 1081 qnh for Liverpool, etc etc.
Also for those few odd airfields that have circuit heights of 800 ft or 1500 ft it is so much easier to fly QFE than have to do the maths, especially when you are trying to nail the turn onto final at 600 ft aal. . |
Originally Posted by scifi
(Post 10216001)
Just to put some non UK pilots into the picture of our situation. In the UK most airfields are below 250 ft asl, so it is very easy to set QFE. Whilst in the circuit, it is much easier to fly with the altimeter reading 1000ft, than to have to remember it's 1190 qnh for Carlisle, 1081 qnh for Liverpool, etc etc.
Also for those few odd airfields that have circuit heights of 800 ft or 1500 ft it is so much easier to fly QFE than have to do the maths, especially when you are trying to nail the turn onto final at 600 ft aal. . And the 'official' pressure setting to be used in the UK is QNH, with QFE made available on request. |
Originally Posted by scifi
(Post 10216001)
Just to put some non UK pilots into the picture of our situation. In the UK most airfields are below 250 ft asl, so it is very easy to set QFE. Whilst in the circuit, it is much easier to fly with the altimeter reading 1000ft, than to have to remember it's 1190 qnh for Carlisle, 1081 qnh for Liverpool, etc etc.
Also for those few odd airfields that have circuit heights of 800 ft or 1500 ft it is so much easier to fly QFE than have to do the maths, especially when you are trying to nail the turn onto final at 600 ft aal. |
At Redhill ATC will instruct to "join overhead at 1,400 QNH" or "descend to 1,200 ft and join right base". Airfield elevation is 222 ft.
Simple |
Denham circuit height 750 ft elevation 249ft. Then I went elsewhere and learned that it was easier to 'go with the flow' and use QFE 'cos that's what everyone else was doing. Later on, I did my instructor course also at Denham and went back to QNH for everything. My first instructor job was on the other side of the airfield, where they insisted we teach QFE! (Just to spite the opposition over the other side, I suspect). Now I teach aspiring airline pilots all-QNH but go along with old-timer PPLs in our Club who want to use QFE - just so long as we know what we're doing, that's what matters to me. TOO |
Originally Posted by Discorde
(Post 10212537)
10 years ago was about the time the CAA designated QNH as the 'official' pressure setting. |
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 10217104)
Link doesn't work for me but I'm not using Windows.
10 years ago was about the time the CAA designated QNH as the 'official' pressure setting. I am convinced that GA altimeter setting procedures in the UK are far too complicated. Do we really need Regional Settings? Do we really need QFE? The VFR pilot flying in Class G airspace has to reset his or her altimeter several times. Two problems arise: firstly, there is always a chance of setting an incorrect subscale setting every time it is adjusted and secondly, distraction during resetting can draw the pilot’s attention away from other vital tasks, such as lookout and navigational monitoring. A simpler procedure would be to set local QNH for the whole flight, resetting only if the QNH changes. Rarely does barometric pressure change rapidly, so even if the subscale was not reset at all during the flight the resulting altimeter error would be unlikely to exceed 100 feet or so. Is this significant for VFR flight? Two further advantages of 'local QNH' flight are improving terrain awareness (which QFE degrades) and reducing the potential for violation of controlled airspace, which in the lower levels usually has a base expressed as an altitude. For student pilots doing circuit work, patterns flown with QNH set would not be difficult to learn. When they came to land away from base, adding field elevation to pattern heights to determine pattern altitude would be part of their pre-flight preparations and could be recorded on the nav log. If a MATZ controller specifies a QFE-based penetration height it is easy to convert this to a QNH-based altitude, rounding up or down to the nearest 100ft. Finally, it should be noted that commercial airliners around the world fly local QNH below transition altitude and 1013 above it. If it works for the big boys and girls, why not for GA traffic too? |
Originally Posted by Discorde
(Post 10218038)
A simpler procedure would be to set local QNH for the whole flight, resetting only if the QNH changes. Rarely does barometric pressure change rapidly, so even if the subscale was not reset at all during the flight the resulting altimeter error would be unlikely to exceed 100 feet or so. Is this significant for VFR flight?
Like TheOddOne, I got into the habit of using QNH only when flying from Denham. |
Discorde: I don't think you are going to make much progress on this issue until the "Luddite" flying clubs stop teaching QFE procedures!
|
@Discorde: thanks for the copy!
Regarding A simpler procedure would be to set local QNH for the whole flight, resetting only if the QNH changes |
Originally Posted by Jan Olieslagers
(Post 10218423)
@Discorde: thanks for the copy!
Regarding : yes, if "local" QNH were universally available. But it isn't always. So I am afraid "regional QNH" is the least unfortunate that can be done. And it works reasonably well, in reasonably flat areas. As for discarding QFE: yes of course. Those funny Brits are alone to want QFE, anyway; and not even all of them. I understand QFE is still used in Russia, China and Mauritius. |
There does be "regional QNH" in ICAO definitions. I even know of a few places where it is actually used. But far from me to advocate the concept, I'll not go beyond calling it "the least unfortunate compromise".
And I will agree the UK is not the only third world country to cling to the past. |
"There's no such thing as 'Regional QNH' in the UK, but there might be in other countries."
When did Altimeter Settings such as "Orkney 992 hectopascals, Portree 997 hectopascals" stop being used in the UK? |
If you don't like QFE then don't use it. Why try and stop others from using it if they so choose?
I use QFE wherever possible but I don't complain about you using QNH? Why does it annoy you so much? Leave little QFE alone. Mr Vice. |
Originally Posted by LookingForAJob
(Post 10218642)
I suspect chevvron may be alluding to the fact that it is correctly called the Regional Pressure Setting.
I'm all for getting something technical correct where it matters, but pedantry for the sake of it does become a wee bit wearing! :rolleyes: RPS is totally different from a QNH in that it's the lowest FORECAST pressure setting in a particular region rather than an actual measured and reported pressure setting at an airfield or other defined point. |
And useless for most pilots as a result. |
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 10218843)
Yes I was.
If you've got a point to make, it's helpful to educate people by making it rather than demonstrating some kind of perceived self-superiority. |
I'm a strip flier. If I'm staying local I set my altimeter to zero before departure. If I'm not staying local, I set it to field elevation. Should I change my ways before something bad happens?
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.