QFE/QNH in any order?
Guest
Posts: n/a
QFE/QNH in any order?
I know I should know...but I don't.
If somebody calls for "airfield information" is there a specific order in which you should pass them the QFE and QNH - or doesn't it matter provided you make it clear which is which (which should be obvious anyway except in Rotterdam)?
------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!
If somebody calls for "airfield information" is there a specific order in which you should pass them the QFE and QNH - or doesn't it matter provided you make it clear which is which (which should be obvious anyway except in Rotterdam)?
------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Will somebody PLEASE scrap QFE. Who the hell uses it and why?? All it does is allow us pilots another opportunity to screw up. Whilst I've got the whingey hat on, JAR should also implement a European Transition Altitude like wot they've got in the US. Will we ever catch up or just continue with the old system because "that's the way we've always done it lad"!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Doesn't every pilot-in-command have the indiviual option to scrap QFE, if he/she wishes...but leave it there as an option for anybody who wants it?
Maybe an uneducated comment but I would think an inexperienced pilot going into Leeds/Bradford or Bristol would be grateful for QFE.
I'm open to suggestions and criticisms.
------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!
Maybe an uneducated comment but I would think an inexperienced pilot going into Leeds/Bradford or Bristol would be grateful for QFE.
I'm open to suggestions and criticisms.
------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bear Cub,
As far as public transport flights go, whatever landing pressure setting the company's operating procedures are based on should be adhered to. I'm guessing any pilot that set the other one for whatever reason and then had a nasty wouldn't have time for tea and biscuits with the Chief Pilot before being shown the door.
We have seen a gradual decline in the number of airlines operating out of our place landing on QFE - Brymon and Gill being the most recent, but we still have four public transport carriers still use that setting for landing.
If QNH landing is so good, why do flying schools teach students to land QFE - is that not building in bad practices at the earliest stage?
As far as public transport flights go, whatever landing pressure setting the company's operating procedures are based on should be adhered to. I'm guessing any pilot that set the other one for whatever reason and then had a nasty wouldn't have time for tea and biscuits with the Chief Pilot before being shown the door.
We have seen a gradual decline in the number of airlines operating out of our place landing on QFE - Brymon and Gill being the most recent, but we still have four public transport carriers still use that setting for landing.
If QNH landing is so good, why do flying schools teach students to land QFE - is that not building in bad practices at the earliest stage?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm not saying I'm right here - just expressing an opinion...and maybe playing a little of the "Devils Advocate", but...
Surely there is an argument for an inexperienced pilot - who is expecting to LAND at a zero altitude indication - using QFE...especially if thrashing round the circuit during the early flying school training (as suggested above) and/or visiting different airfields, whilst an instrument rated, professsional pilot makes an approach to a pre-determined altitude on QNH.
If the professional pilots subsequently see the runway (either) he/she (or his/her approach monitoring non-handling colleague) will revert to a visual landing. If the professional crew do not see the runway then they will likely follow the approach chart to a pre-determined altitude in the go-around...which requires the local QNH to be set. I agree there would be little point in changing from an approach QFE to a go-around QNH at the professional level - especially if the aircraft has an automatic QFE -known as a radio altimeter.
Is it not academic when following an approach chart - and doing a two crew approach briefing - to fly down to any altimeter indication as published?
Shoot me down here, if you wish, I don't fly in a two crew environment...educate me.
------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!
Surely there is an argument for an inexperienced pilot - who is expecting to LAND at a zero altitude indication - using QFE...especially if thrashing round the circuit during the early flying school training (as suggested above) and/or visiting different airfields, whilst an instrument rated, professsional pilot makes an approach to a pre-determined altitude on QNH.
If the professional pilots subsequently see the runway (either) he/she (or his/her approach monitoring non-handling colleague) will revert to a visual landing. If the professional crew do not see the runway then they will likely follow the approach chart to a pre-determined altitude in the go-around...which requires the local QNH to be set. I agree there would be little point in changing from an approach QFE to a go-around QNH at the professional level - especially if the aircraft has an automatic QFE -known as a radio altimeter.
Is it not academic when following an approach chart - and doing a two crew approach briefing - to fly down to any altimeter indication as published?
Shoot me down here, if you wish, I don't fly in a two crew environment...educate me.
------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
While we are on the subject of altimeter settings, does anyone think that Regional QNH is of any value? For VFR flights in S England busting controlled airspace from below seems a bigger hazard than CFIT, so the "safety margin" inherent in the regional setting tends to work against you - or have I missed something?
AD
------------------
If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money
AD
------------------
If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'd have thought that the danger associated with a couple of hundred feet excursion into controlled airspace was rather less than that of a couple of hundred feet excursion into the ground.
I had an aiprox once where my altimeter and the other chaps were reading very differently. He was on regional QNH and I had set my altimeter to read zero before taking off from a beach halfway twixt low and high tide marks. Wasn't related to the incident cause particularly, just something interesting that came out of the reports.
I think QFE should always be available - it is useful landing at a new airfield when otherwise you have just one more thing to add to the workload (or for a local flight in VFR returning to the same runway). But, QNH is no doubt the most useful setting for general purposes.
G
I had an aiprox once where my altimeter and the other chaps were reading very differently. He was on regional QNH and I had set my altimeter to read zero before taking off from a beach halfway twixt low and high tide marks. Wasn't related to the incident cause particularly, just something interesting that came out of the reports.
I think QFE should always be available - it is useful landing at a new airfield when otherwise you have just one more thing to add to the workload (or for a local flight in VFR returning to the same runway). But, QNH is no doubt the most useful setting for general purposes.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
My point is that in VMC you can see the ground, but you can't see the base of controlled airspace. Encouraging VFR traffic to set Regional QNH increases the chances of entering controlled airspace from below where the base is defined as an altitude.
AD
AD
Guest
Posts: n/a
Acker...if i've understood your point correctly - I do recal that if flying BELOW a TMA/CTR etc. you are supposed to set the TMA/CTR QNH - even if outside that TMA/CTR - which is just for that reason...stop you climbing into it.
------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!
------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Genghis - I wouldn't think that Regional QNH is a sufficiently accurate figure to work with.
Whilst it would be - by definition - a safe figure for terrain clearance for the entire local area - it would not be accurate enough for the crews that would need to use the same figure for a precision approach at the airfield(s) located within that controlled airpace - at the points where the airspace reaches the ground.
Cool for flying under it - not good for precision work within it though.
------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!
Whilst it would be - by definition - a safe figure for terrain clearance for the entire local area - it would not be accurate enough for the crews that would need to use the same figure for a precision approach at the airfield(s) located within that controlled airpace - at the points where the airspace reaches the ground.
Cool for flying under it - not good for precision work within it though.
------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!
