Timothy wrote: Timothy wrote:
Was still on QNH for home airfield, which was distant from location of infringement (may have been small contributory factor)
Was using a local, AFIS provided QNH, which was different from London QNH (small contributory factor)
This one is interesting. If you talk to Farnborough, are they using the London QNH?
If you talk to London Info, do they give you London QNH?
This is something I have Never, Ever thought about or considered when flying in Europe. I fly using the QNH given by the FIS Im talking to because I wouldnt fly around without talking to them and if I am talking to them I wouldnt expect to get busted for a minor transgression as in the UK anyway…
Regards, SD..
PS: someone mentioned there has never been an accident due to QNH/QFE…Im pretty sure there is at least one where it was a factor. Not sure if its in a book or on one of those Air Crash National Geo programmes, but Ive seen at least one accident described where QNH setting was a factor.
skydriller wrote:
If you talk to Farnborough, are they using the London QNH?
On LARS I believe so, yes.
Sometimes Biggin QNH is an HPa different from London (or whatever is used by Thames, which I assume is London). I guess that the only safe QNH to use on the approach is the local one. It can be a little confusing, as Thames vector you using a different QNH to that you have picked off the Biggin ATIS.
skydriller wrote:
If you talk to London Info, do they give you London QNH?
I never use them for a Basic Service (I can’t see the point) so I have no idea.
Peter wrote:
specially as few serious pilots ever set the RPS even if given it.
I think this is a bigger issue for non-UK based pilots where RPS is an unheard of concept.
I have many times been in the cockpit with another pilot (non UK based), and they were given the QNH, QFE and the RPS to see them confused about why they were given three pressure settings. At least with three, there is a clear question about which one they should use, and it requires some thought.
A much bigger point of failure in my experience is ATC coming back to the pilot later to say something like “For your information the Barnsley (or other area) regional pressure setting is changing to xxxx on the hour”. I have regularly seeing pilots reaching for the pressure setting knob at this point, not realising that this something different from the QNH. As there is only one pressure setting given at the time, it’s an easy mistake for someone not familiar with RPS to make.
It’s probably even easier to make if English isn’t your first language.
Of course I don’t imagine many foreign pilots are attending Gasco courses.
Perhaps another factor why the military are happy to use RPS is they don’t get busted when the infringe. Yet they bust airspace all the time
I’ve also never known a military pilot to be sent on any GASCO course or for that matter having their wings clipped in any shape of form.
According to posts here, details further back, the modern RAF operates a Just Culture, which is a totally different process which the self justifying piece of ambiguous bollocks called CAP1404 claims to operate but doesn’t.
Those in the CAA who are ex RAF and running this “scheme” either left many years ago (in the good old days, when the traitors were court martialled and shot) or they are the ones who dropped out because the place was too soft 
Over 10 years ago, I suggested that different altimeter settings should not be issued / used when there are adjoining vertical boundaries with the exception of TA.
I suppose some of that fell on deaf ears…
gallois wrote:
Is there really such a huge hectopascal/mb variation between RPS and QNH in the UK as to make a significant difference between entering or not entering CAS?
For instrument approaches using a QNH of another airport than the destination, PANS-OPS states that minima should be increased by 5 ft per nautical mile (except for the first 5 NM) from the remote QNH station. This translates to an expected maximum pressure gradient of 1 hPa per 5.5 NM.
Our online insurance renewal for our Jodel DR1050, due 30/11, has a request for “pilot incidents”. My “no further action” incursion in the Bolkow Junior has resulted in a request for more information from the underwriters.
Failure to disclose might have serious consequences.
I am with Visicover (previous thread on that, worth reading) and they added nothing for my two incidents (one the dodgy online exam and the other to gasco).
I reckon a license removal (my next scenario) would be more serious. A “licensing action” always is.
Definitely you have to disclose this.
I don’t see the supposed advantage of QFE with respect to just setting your altimeter to zero when you get into the cockpit.
Just set it to read the elevation of the field, i.e. the QNH. The added bonus of this is that it makes sure you know the elevation of the field you’re operating from. I have in the past flown into places that do it old school and pass the QFE on joining, so that when I get back into the cockpit to leave I have wondered “What’s the elevation here? Oh, the altimeter is no clue, just says zero…”
