UK may be going for 18000ft transition altitude

I actually find more QNHs read out on the radio here than in Australia or the US. Because late in the arrival the controllers always read you the QNH at 6000-3000ft. Enroute QNHs are less of an issue for controllers and pilots.

Yes...yesterday on a flight from Aberdeen to Perth I was given 1018 on departure, 1012 Orkney ASR, 1012 Tyne ASR and 1017 on arrival....of course I ignored the enroute settings....

I prefer the flight level concept. I personally don't understand why so many VFR only pilots fly their entire route at low altitudes. In my belief, flying high is often a better choice as it buys you more time in case of any mechanical/engine problem. Also, the air is often a lot more stable and thus the flight will be smooth. Finally, you then don't have to negotiate that much with ATC on getting permission to cross CTRs and other areas: you just fly over them.

The only time you need the QNH again is when descending from the flight levels back and 'returning' back to the QNH. Any controller will give you the QNH automatically when in the descend. The only reason you need to fly QNH is to know your obstacle clearance. When flying in the flight levels, you are assuming there are no obstacles there to interfere with.

I prefer the flight level concept.

Me too. If anything is to be changed, than either worldwide (or at least all over Europe in this case) or - even better - completely away from barometric altimetry to satellite based 3D positioning instead. And I don't like arbitrary figures at all. 18.000 may make sense in the US due to their topography, but not necessarily in Europe or Asia. Here in Germany 10.000ft would make much more sense as everything above is airspace "C" and essentially IFR/FL territory. And our highest mountain is less than 10.000ft high, so no need for accurate altitude measurement for terrain avoidance above that ;-)

Common sense at last. Three altimeter settings around 3000 feet has always been nonsense. Traditionally, the TA was determined by the highest ground within a country but now we live in Europe we need to standardise rather than retain National differences. The best place for the TA is at an altitude that has minimal use however; as 18000 has been standard in the USA for decades it makes sense to adopt a common standard. Next job is to get rid of the ridiculous Regional Pressure System unique to the UK and designed for maritime aircraft operating IFR below 3000 feet, then we can all fly on QNH plain and simple.

Quadrantals are out from Dec 2014 under SERA.

Then if the TA is set to 18.000 feet, most GA aircraft will still have to bother with their pressure settings (QNH) while enroute. That makes no sense to me. If all aircraft flying in your vicinity use the FL system, then they all are using the same pressure setting of 1013. That makes more sense to me. In most European countries, you can fly in the flight levels anywhere from around FL65 or sometime even from FL50 and up. Then, flightschools should train their pilots going for their PPL to fly by default in the flight levels and not to fly long overland flights at an altitude of only 1200-1500 feet.

In Croatia and Bosnia TL is 9500 or 10000.

So 18k is a good place to put it and matches the USA where the majority of the world 's pilots trained.

I would say that in this case we should rather work on the training part than on the altimetry. Why should the majority of the world's pilots be trained in the US rather than locally? Or in Europe instead? In my part of the world, 99 percent of all commercial pilots are trained locally and (my estimate) 95 percent of all private pilots. Most of them probably have never heard of the 18000ft transition level. (I only did on the occasion of a ferry flight from the US to Europe after having flown for some years already!)