What’s wrong with QFE at airfields? At least if you’ve got QFE set you have a better chance of being at the correct circuit height.
IMHO the main problem with QFE and QNH is that fiddling with the altimeter is inherently dangerous.
Also the QNH rarely varies enough, on a typical GA flight, to become an obstacle clearance issue, whereas getting QFE and QNH mixed up in IMC (deliberate or accidental IMC) can easily kill you.
I believe that flying QNH makes you much more aware of actual airport elevation (important at hot n high locations) and avoids possible conflict with overlying airspace. In addition, higher elevations soon go outside the possible range of altimeter subscale adjustments! I see no justification for preserving QFE.
Stickandrudderman wrote:
At least if you’ve got QFE set you have a better chance of being at the correct circuit height.
Which would mean that everywhere else in the world we are uable to fly at the correct circuit height? Are you sure?
No, it is only being stated our chances are worse. Why, though, remains a mistery.
Thanks for the various and diverse replies.
Re QFE, I do feel that mixing up the different settings is much more complex and fraught with room for error than just sticking with one.
For example, if I made a short local flight from my home base, to comply with the current UK regulations:
Set QNH on departure
Switch to RPS (Regional Pressure Setting) on leaving the ATZ
Switch to SPS (Standard Pressure Setting) when climbing above the 3000 ft transition level
Switch to QFE prior to making an overhead join on return
Elsewhere, just stick with QNH and take into account the airfield elevation (now shown in the little right hand box)
DavidC wrote:
Elsewhere, just stick with QNH and take into account the airfield elevation (now shown in the little right hand box)
Sure, for a local trip it makes sense, but for a cross-country it makes more sense to use RPS and/or SPS. To avoid controlled/restricted airspace as well as separation from other traffic, everyone (including ATC) should use the same setting.
I am a bit worried about the planned move by some European countries to raise the transition altitude to 18 000 feet. Surely it must be better that everyone uses the standard setting once you’ve reached a level where obstacle clearance is no longer an issue?
Airborne_Again wrote:
Surely it must be better that everyone uses the standard setting once you’ve reached a level where obstacle clearance is no longer an issue?
In the US, using QNH below 18’000 ft seems to work without problems. In Europe, I sometimes find it hard to keep track of different transition altitudes when terrain is not completely flat, which may also add to the fact that not everyone flies on the same pressure setting. And the fact that you may not fly in the transition layer is also rather a nuisance that would go away for most light GA by raising the TA to 18’000 ft.
Peter_Mundy wrote:
You forgot De Kooy, Deelen, Volkel, Woensdrecht and Leeuwaarden :(
Bugger. Forgot that it’s october already. The changeover was late september, wasn’t it? Time flies.
pmh wrote:
Would be interested to hear more about that.
They’re contained in the Dutch AIP, ENR 2.2 para 3. It’s a TMZ and RMZ (transponder & radio mandatory) and you have to have filed a flight plan (a proper one, not one submitted by radio) to get various services. (But you’d have filed such a plan anyway since for most of us you only enter that area for the purpose of making a cross-border flight.) And there’s a lot of rules that deal with providing services to helicopter traffic. Like I said, highly sensible rules.
Peter wrote:
Normally, in the UK, if say you fly from Shoreham to Exeter, via Southampton, Bournemouth, and you file a VFR FP which runs say EGKA – SAM – BI – EGTE (airport names are not valid waypoints in ICAO flight plans) the two enroute airports will
Well, Ronaldsway at least doesn’t throw away my FP if I’m transiting their airspace without actually stopping at EGNS. Perhaps we just have a better quality of ATC over here :-)
