Peter wrote:
The “olde British thing” is QFE. It’s what “we” have always done, we won two world wars doing this, young man, and if it was good enough for your grandfather in the glory Battle of Britain days it is good enough for you, young man!
Not UK specific, it is used in other air forces
The fact is used in civilian airfields is the “British thing” 
Balliol wrote:
QFE is used for talkdown and recovery still as it was always designed to make the numbers easy in a high workload cockpit
Peter wrote:
QFE breaks down the moment you even think “IFR” and “IAPs”.
Military controllers don’t care much about separation as civilians ATC do
IFR for civilians means separation in military it is called “cloud flying” 
That also counts
I was thinking French/Morocco AFs (QFE & feet) and Russia (QFE & meters)
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I know many will not agree with me, but I recall as a student never understanding why the wind was given as an actual value, rather that the crosswind component, as it was drummed into me how important the cross wind, involving mental calculations to arrive at the correct number. To me then just tell the pilot there was a 10knot crosswind from the left or right, thats all I wanted.
If the wind is gusty the direction does matter as the wind tend to veer in gusts.
Airborne_Again wrote:
If the wind is gusty the direction does matter as the wind tend to veer in gusts.
I agee. I wasnt advocating this, its just what I thought back in those student days when it all seemed so simple.
One kind of altimeter setting and no flight levels has worked fine on every flight I’ve ever made since 1979. American Airlines once used QFE (until the mid-1990s) for takeoff and landing. After an accident (AA1572) that involved the practice, with an aircraft hitting trees on approach, AA procedures were reviewed and the new procedures deleted the use of QFE. Everybody else thought they were a bit bizarre even before that time.
I can see why gliders would zero their altimeter at field elevation. Aside from the obvious, they probably don’t even need to use the pressure window to set the altimeter.
Wind is given as an actual value because at most airports the pilot picks up the (automated) ASOS by radio and selects his runway on that basis. Control towers and/or ground personnel are not the norm at airports, numerically.
Timothy wrote:
but there are good operational reasons why the RAF want them,
Timothy wrote:
but I do know that they make a strong case (which I haven’t seen in detail)
If you’ve not seen the details how do you know there are good operational reasons?
I will use QFE if given but normally would just use QNH all the time.
Off_Field wrote:
If you’ve not seen the details how do you know there are good operational reasons?
Because I trust those that tell me. It’s along the lines that Balliol said, but I didn’t want to announce them because it is in the nature of this forum that if you say what others think, you then have to own the opinion.
Personally, I think that RPS and and QFE are rubbish but I understand why the RAF want them.
I have therefore assumed that most VFR GA lands QFE. Is that not right?
I imagine that most VFR GA lands by looking out of the window. I’ve always assumed that ATC at towered fields blather on about wind and Q-codes just to fill the airwaves so that pilots don’t feel lonely. If people can’t land without all that Q-crap they should never have been sent on a PPL solo cross-country flight.
Jacko wrote:
I’ve always assumed that ATC at towered fields blather on about wind and Q-codes just to fill the airwaves so that pilots don’t feel lonely. If people can’t land without all that Q-crap they should never have been sent on a PPL solo cross-country flight.
To point is not if people can land without information from ATC. ATC typically has to provide separation and if not they have to provide traffic information. That means that they want traffic to fly at specific altitudes and to do this pilot’s need the current QNH. If people don’t understand that they should never have been sent on a PPL solo even in the traffic circuit.
