QFE/QNH for take off/ landing
Pegase Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting remark, do you remember the phraseology you used when passing the pressure? , did you say "Fox Echo 1020" or just : "Altimeter setting 1020 " and did you pass it in Millibars or in millimeters of mercury ?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
What’s QFE? 
When I started gliding in my teens, you set the altimeter to zero on the ground, but as soon as I started flying cross-country, I changed to QNH all the time as the numbers printed on the map actually meant something then, in terms of airspace and terrain, and when talking with other pilots you had a common datum.
I’ve done a fair amount of airline ops using QFE where you had to, made a bit easier by a QFE option in the FMC as well as a metres one. Ditching QFE means one less pressure setting to forget out of QFE, QNH and QNE and there are lots of major airports that are high enough that many altimeters can’t be set to QFE anyway.
If you do all your flying on QNH, you just get used to it. Ultimately, the solution is going to be geometric altitude which will remove pretty much all the disadvantages of pressure-based systems.
When I started gliding in my teens, you set the altimeter to zero on the ground, but as soon as I started flying cross-country, I changed to QNH all the time as the numbers printed on the map actually meant something then, in terms of airspace and terrain, and when talking with other pilots you had a common datum.
I’ve done a fair amount of airline ops using QFE where you had to, made a bit easier by a QFE option in the FMC as well as a metres one. Ditching QFE means one less pressure setting to forget out of QFE, QNH and QNE and there are lots of major airports that are high enough that many altimeters can’t be set to QFE anyway.
If you do all your flying on QNH, you just get used to it. Ultimately, the solution is going to be geometric altitude which will remove pretty much all the disadvantages of pressure-based systems.
Pegase Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are lots of major airports that are high enough that many altimeters can’t be set to QFE anyway.
For a conventional mechanical altimeter on which you adjust the datum by moving the sub scale, the most used standard says they should be adjustable ~950mb to ~1050mb, so anywhere between -1,000’ and 2,000’ pressure altitude. Electronic ones have a wider range, I believe from ~750mb to ~1050mb, which would still cause problems trying to set QFE over 8,000' airfield elevation, like Bogata and many other airports in South America and China.
I think it's horses for courses really. I've operated both with different types of operation. If you've been brought up on QNH during initial training you don't think twice about the issue of calculating pattern altitude.
But then again the QFE/QNH debate is as old as aviation.
One thing I do know observing in the simulator is I've seen more bust missed approach heights/altitudes when the approach has been flown on QFE and QNH has not been set on the Go Around; this applies in particular with higher performance aircraft with a relatively low level off.
I was with one operator when we changed from QFE to QNH operation in the 1980s and thereafter I rarely saw a bust missed approach altitude on a Go Around.
But then again the QFE/QNH debate is as old as aviation.
One thing I do know observing in the simulator is I've seen more bust missed approach heights/altitudes when the approach has been flown on QFE and QNH has not been set on the Go Around; this applies in particular with higher performance aircraft with a relatively low level off.
I was with one operator when we changed from QFE to QNH operation in the 1980s and thereafter I rarely saw a bust missed approach altitude on a Go Around.
For a conventional mechanical altimeter on which you adjust the datum by moving the sub scale, the most used standard says they should be adjustable ~950mb to ~1050mb
I’m sure that when I started out some airline SOPs used QNH and others QFE and the RAF seemed to change their mind which to use every time they got a new OC pressure setting. In a radio-optional VFR world I always thought QNH gives you more - you’re always likely to be in the right ballpark area for terrain clearance and rejoin from the airfield overhead.
Fireflybob +1. I’d suggest it depends on the operation.
I’d suggest QFE for circuits well away from controlled airspace. QNH if there is controlled airspace nearby or overhead. I’d agree a potential threat with QNH for circuit work is the possibility of confusion in the event of an EFATO but that can be briefed as part of TEM.
Airline ops seem to work fine with QNH as MSA, terrain etc defined wrt altitude. As others have mentioned at a high altitude airport winding off QFE may be impractical if not impossible. Other areas like fast jet and rotary I’ve no experience so I’ll leave to others to comment.
I’d suggest QFE for circuits well away from controlled airspace. QNH if there is controlled airspace nearby or overhead. I’d agree a potential threat with QNH for circuit work is the possibility of confusion in the event of an EFATO but that can be briefed as part of TEM.
Airline ops seem to work fine with QNH as MSA, terrain etc defined wrt altitude. As others have mentioned at a high altitude airport winding off QFE may be impractical if not impossible. Other areas like fast jet and rotary I’ve no experience so I’ll leave to others to comment.
From a Met point of view [and I ceased being involved in 1997 so may be behind the curve]
The barometric pressure is to be read "frequently" when pressure is changing rapidly, and a "Special on QFE" issued to ATC against a signature or initials.
This was done scrupulously on RAF stations, with highly skilled and well-motivated observers who were often on watch solo. It was mandatory to keep a running log of pressure [hourly or half-hourly] and the observer was expected [of course] to be conversant with the overall Met. situation. We regarded monitoring of pressure as Holy writ, drummed into us on Day One..
The barometric pressure is to be read "frequently" when pressure is changing rapidly, and a "Special on QFE" issued to ATC against a signature or initials.
This was done scrupulously on RAF stations, with highly skilled and well-motivated observers who were often on watch solo. It was mandatory to keep a running log of pressure [hourly or half-hourly] and the observer was expected [of course] to be conversant with the overall Met. situation. We regarded monitoring of pressure as Holy writ, drummed into us on Day One..
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
……….and didn’t we both work for an operator which used both at the same time !
I seem to remember the call “ qfe, qnh difference checked “ !
I seem to remember the call “ qfe, qnh difference checked “ !
Because the Kollsman (?) altimeter on the RH side referenced the pressurisation for landing until they retrofitted a standby altimeter which did that job and then a proper servo altimeter on the RH side - happy days!
