"QSR", I think...

There are a couple of Q-codes that even a PPL is required to know. But to expect pilots to understand QSR or QSY is just unprofessional.

The whole Q code system could be dropped for more intuitive terms: QFE is anachronistic (the UK obviously has no mountains – imagine doing this at Courchevel!); replace QNH with ‘altimeter’ like in North America; QNE with 1013.25 or 29.92, QFU with ‘runway’

Capitaine wrote:

replace QNH with ‘altimeter’ like in North America; QNE with 1013.25 or 29.92, QFU with ‘runway’

Well… You still would need a way to distinguish mm Hg (“Altimeter setting”) from hPa (“QNH”). Also, QNE doesn’t mean 1013.25/29.92 and QFU doesn’t mean “runway”.
QNE means indicated altitude when on ground with altimeter set to 1013.25. QFU means magnetic landing direction.

Capitaine wrote:

The whole Q code system could be dropped for more intuitive terms

Its not a matter of ‘could be’, its a matter of when this archaic nonsense will be dead and buried. Virtually nobody in the US would have the foggiest idea what you were talking about if you mentioned Q codes, and they are equally unnecessary anywhere else.

In my 18 years of flying I have heard only QNH (often, around Europe), QFE (which I ignore because it’s dangerous), QDM (about 18 years ago when doing VDF approaches).

Peter wrote:

QDM (about 18 years ago when doing VDF approaches).

During my PPL instruction 15 years ago we used QDM and QDR.
This has been officially replaced by Radial Inbound and Radial outbound.

Every year during the general assembly, the president of my local aeroclub, a former military pilot, love to talk of the number of “QGO days” during the year, (probably just to hear some pilots ask “what is QGO ?”)
QGO is the code when landing is prohibited = airport closed.
It englobes weather QGO, administrative QGO, etc.

Peter wrote:

In my 18 years of flying I have heard only QNH (often, around Europe), QFE (which I ignore because it’s dangerous), QDM (about 18 years ago when doing VDF approaches).

I notice that SkyVector TAFs from US military airports (only) forecast the altimeter setting in QNH2992INS code while simultaneously providing the current METAR as A2992, like any other US airport. That’s the only place I’ve seen a Q-Code used in the US, and I think the QNH oddity plus the mismatch between TAF and METAR presentation from the same airport is bad practice. The coded weather format is not often used directly by pilots today in any case: in Foreflight and elsewhere there’s usually a plain language written version, likewise plain language is used on the radio by ATC, ATIS and AWOS. The use of QNH in military TAFs makes me smile anyway because not many of the US pilots I know would understand it – the usual understanding of any Q-code might be something like “I think its some weird version of the altimeter setting” It’d be best if pilots in 2018 hadn’t heard of Q-codes at all.

QDM, QDR, QTE & QUJ Still feature in IFR study.
Slightly annoyingly until you learn them but quite useful after.
One of my flying buddies many moons ago who was older than me would use QSY on the radio fairly often and although I never did, when I hear it, it’s no surprise. I’ve very rarely not dialled in the next station and almost ready to bin the last guy anyway.
I quite like QFE as I’m a bit lazy and usually set it on altimeter 2 as a crosscheck.

One problem with QFE is that it isn’t suitable for instrument flight, where you might land on QFE but then need to set QNH to fly the missed approach, and then you kill yourself forgetting to set QFE again. I “killed myself” at Biggin Hill doing that on a sim…

Also, outside the UK you rarely get QFE. I think Le Touquet does it in their ATIS, because they get so many Brits. So may as well get used to QNH. All airport charts show the airport elevation; add 1000ft to that and fly to a point 3nm downwind, and you are well set up to fly a nice straight-in final approach. And many airports are so elevated that QFE could not be set on the altimeter; for example much of inland Spain is at about 3000ft.