No more QFE
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once had the altimeter setting knob fall off the only altimeter in flight, and Oxford Approach kindly calculated the altitude which I should fly the circuit at, and the altimeter reading on the ground when I landed, for me. Actually I'd beaten them to it by about 10 seconds, but it's good to know controllers can do it for you.
Tim
Tim
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deepest Warwickshire
Age: 47
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIP entries and flight guides will be out of synch too with the change. My worry is that many may end up flying 1000ft on the QNH. It's a change and safety concern that should be widely advertised. What would it cost the CAA to mail shot every valid PPL licence holder?
tmmorris: The use of QFE for the RAF makes sense.
I only managed 18 years as a pilot in the Royal Air Force and I would have to say that once I got my training out of the way, QFE was irrelevant.
Mind you, once I got out of Training Command I wasn't really in the Royal Air Force. I was in Transport Command.
I have used QNH for over 40 years and still do even my litle spamcan.
I only managed 18 years as a pilot in the Royal Air Force and I would have to say that once I got my training out of the way, QFE was irrelevant.
Mind you, once I got out of Training Command I wasn't really in the Royal Air Force. I was in Transport Command.
I have used QNH for over 40 years and still do even my litle spamcan.
What would it cost every PPL holder to request the information (s)he needs if it is not forthcoming? You will invariably find that the ATS unit will pass QFE anyway if it is known that specific operators require it - and, for a start, that will invariably include UK-registered light aircraft.
Not that it should be necessary, of course, QNH, elevation/obstacle clearance awareness etc etc...
Not that it should be necessary, of course, QNH, elevation/obstacle clearance awareness etc etc...
Having thought about my last post and bearing in mind that we are on the Private Flying forum I feel that I need to expand my view.
QFE is only ever of any value for pilots who are doing nothing else but flying locally.
QFE gives you absolutely no idea of your height is in relation to obstacles on your map which are measured in QNH (put simply) or in QFF (if you really want to get complicated).
Let us put it simply; all of the obstacles marked on your charts are measured in feet above mean sea level. All airfield heights are given in feet above mean sea level. QNH (or QFF) will give you such a height on touch down.
So what are the perils of using QFE?
Imagine a simple "bimble" down to Compton Abbas for lunch. As most of us know, Compton Abbas is 811ft amsl. So you set the QFE for touchdown, land and have a nice lunch.
After take-off we head east towards Goodwood via Stoney Cross and forget to reset the altimeter. The base of the Solent area is 2000ft amsl (QNH) but you are now at 2811ft amsl and the man on the ground is not very happy about that.
QFE is great if you NEVER want to leave the circuit but otherwise learn to use QNH and stay out of trouble AND stay alive!
P.S. Can you imagine how impossible it would be to set QFE at Nairobi, Addis Ababa or Asmara?
QFE is only ever of any value for pilots who are doing nothing else but flying locally.
QFE gives you absolutely no idea of your height is in relation to obstacles on your map which are measured in QNH (put simply) or in QFF (if you really want to get complicated).
Let us put it simply; all of the obstacles marked on your charts are measured in feet above mean sea level. All airfield heights are given in feet above mean sea level. QNH (or QFF) will give you such a height on touch down.
So what are the perils of using QFE?
Imagine a simple "bimble" down to Compton Abbas for lunch. As most of us know, Compton Abbas is 811ft amsl. So you set the QFE for touchdown, land and have a nice lunch.
After take-off we head east towards Goodwood via Stoney Cross and forget to reset the altimeter. The base of the Solent area is 2000ft amsl (QNH) but you are now at 2811ft amsl and the man on the ground is not very happy about that.
QFE is great if you NEVER want to leave the circuit but otherwise learn to use QNH and stay out of trouble AND stay alive!
P.S. Can you imagine how impossible it would be to set QFE at Nairobi, Addis Ababa or Asmara?
Guest
Posts: n/a
JW411
QFE is only ever of any value for pilots who are doing nothing else but flying locally
I disagree.
QFE is good for less experienced or low currency PPLs in the circuit, as it eliminates them having to do mental arithmetic (i.e. QNH less aerodrome elevation) to decide what altitude they are at.
To experienced pilots this is second nature, but to low hour PPLs to know that 300 ft is 300 ft and its time to take land flap and set carb heat cold just makes the world a tiny little bit safer.
So, IMHO, they need to be trained to set the right pressure settings for the right context.
And I speak as a PPL with a few hundred hours (so little experience compared to you) who is quite happy to fly on the QNH.
QFE is only ever of any value for pilots who are doing nothing else but flying locally
I disagree.
QFE is good for less experienced or low currency PPLs in the circuit, as it eliminates them having to do mental arithmetic (i.e. QNH less aerodrome elevation) to decide what altitude they are at.
To experienced pilots this is second nature, but to low hour PPLs to know that 300 ft is 300 ft and its time to take land flap and set carb heat cold just makes the world a tiny little bit safer.
So, IMHO, they need to be trained to set the right pressure settings for the right context.
And I speak as a PPL with a few hundred hours (so little experience compared to you) who is quite happy to fly on the QNH.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll never understand how this topic can generate so much discussion. Whether you use QFE close to an airfield or in the circuit, or QNH all the time, makes precisily no difference. In the first case you need to remember to reset your altimeter now and then; in the second you need to do a little mental arithmetic. Neither is a big deal, and it comes down to personal preference.
But if something like this is changing in any way, it would be nice to be told, particularly for instructors who are passing on this kind of stuff to the next generation of pilots. And this is the first I've heard of it!
But if something like this is changing in any way, it would be nice to be told, particularly for instructors who are passing on this kind of stuff to the next generation of pilots. And this is the first I've heard of it!
Final 3 Geens:
I said:
"QFE is only of any value for pilots who are doing nothing else but flying locally".
You said:
I disagree.
QFE is good for less experienced or low currency PPLs "In the Circuit".
Now then, you have lost me completely. I had always imagined that being "in the circuit" was "flying locally". So why are you disagreeing? Perhaps you have less control over your students than I do over mine.
The advantage of teaching QNH from the outset means that you don't have to worry when they set off to the Continent (where they might not know what QFE is) and I would further humbly suggest that anyone who is incapable of adding 300 to 1000 and arriving at 1300 should not ever be considered for solo flight.
I said:
"QFE is only of any value for pilots who are doing nothing else but flying locally".
You said:
I disagree.
QFE is good for less experienced or low currency PPLs "In the Circuit".
Now then, you have lost me completely. I had always imagined that being "in the circuit" was "flying locally". So why are you disagreeing? Perhaps you have less control over your students than I do over mine.
The advantage of teaching QNH from the outset means that you don't have to worry when they set off to the Continent (where they might not know what QFE is) and I would further humbly suggest that anyone who is incapable of adding 300 to 1000 and arriving at 1300 should not ever be considered for solo flight.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: down-route
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sleeve Wing,
Not any longer sir, they use QNH nowadays. At the end of the day we set QNH at Nairobi, Harare and Jo'burg in exactly the same way as we do for most other places around the world. Some parts of the former Soviet Union use QFE.
btw, wrt high altitude airfields, is the use of QNE still current ? eg Nairobi etc( Reason being normal altimeter scales cannot be adjusted to cover.)
PM
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The use of QFE for the RAF makes sense.
I know "...fighter pilot - pea brain..." but still
I trained and worked as an ATCO in Sweden, and their air force used QFE. It was a real pain in the @rse, the problem growing with the AD Elev. A fighter at 2000ft could be 1200 above a B737 at 3000ft......QNH.
(Because no sane airline accepted to fly on QFE)
Big dark hole ready for ATCOs to fall into? You bet.
Student pilots that are arithmetically challenged should IMHO not be let outside the circuit, or lack of understanding of the altimeter would see them meet Mr. Cumulus Graniutus fairly soon.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of people have said that it doesn't take much intelligence to remember the aerodrome elevation and work out the altitudes for the circuit.
But I would counter that it doesn't take that much intelligence to remember to set QNH when leaving the circuit and QFE when recovering - especially if the controller gives you the QFE when you call for recovery. Now, if he doesn't give it, surely that is increasing the risk that a pilot who expects to be 'reminded' to set the QFE will now forget, join the circuit on QNH when he should be on QFE, and fly too low?
Tim
But I would counter that it doesn't take that much intelligence to remember to set QNH when leaving the circuit and QFE when recovering - especially if the controller gives you the QFE when you call for recovery. Now, if he doesn't give it, surely that is increasing the risk that a pilot who expects to be 'reminded' to set the QFE will now forget, join the circuit on QNH when he should be on QFE, and fly too low?
Tim
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tmmorris
But I would counter that it doesn't take that much intelligence to remember to set QNH when leaving the circuit and QFE when recovering - especially if the controller gives you the QFE when you call for recovery. Now, if he doesn't give it, surely that is increasing the risk that a pilot who expects to be 'reminded' to set the QFE will now forget, join the circuit on QNH when he should be on QFE, and fly too low
If you want to fly on an anachronistic left over, from the days when people flew from unsurveyed fields for which the elevation was unknown - so be it. Ask and you wil be given.
If you want to fly using the method that the rest of the world has adopted - fine, you'll be happy too.
I would suggest that if you have to fly a visual circuit with constant reference to the altimeter, no matter what it reads on touchdown, then you've got bigger problems in your overall flying than what you're setting on the subscale.
How the hell do some of you people cope flying into unmanned places with nobody to tell you what to set!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE England
Age: 51
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest that if you have to fly a visual circuit with constant reference to the altimeter, no matter what it reads on touchdown, then you've got bigger problems in your overall flying than what you're setting on the subscale.
How the hell do some of you people cope flying into unmanned places with nobody to tell you what to set!
How the hell do some of you people cope flying into unmanned places with nobody to tell you what to set!
If it's unmanned then you have to eyeball it/use some common sense based on terrain heights/RPS etc I suppose, and I agree this should be something that should be well within pilots' capabilities.
However, if it is manned then that's probably because you're not the only one around. A/C flying within the cct without reference to an altimeter set to allow them to maintain the correct height will always put them in the blindspot of aircraft at the correct circuit height. Some days they'll pop up and take you aback, other days you might not be so lucky.
As for QFE and QNH....well, in the circuit as long as you use them both correctly they're fine.
Elsewhere clearly QFE has its limitations.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If QFE had never been "invented" in the first place this "problem" would not exist & we would all be flying circuits at altitude xxxxft touching down at a/d elevations & thinking nothing of it. One big advantage is, at a non radio field you would not "need" airfield information to join, & if you did you could get it from FIS.
As for flying circuits with ref to altimeter, I do not recall ever reading less than 300ft on final, I'm more concerned with what is outside the window.
I believe the "problem" is prising the QFE mentality out of the brain & replacing it with logic. "This airfield is at 399ft elevation so we add 1000 to that so as not to upset the sheep"!
As for flying circuits with ref to altimeter, I do not recall ever reading less than 300ft on final, I'm more concerned with what is outside the window.
I believe the "problem" is prising the QFE mentality out of the brain & replacing it with logic. "This airfield is at 399ft elevation so we add 1000 to that so as not to upset the sheep"!
Guest
Posts: n/a
QFE is abut as much of a problem as is having a ridiculously low Transition Altitude (which is variable across the UK!!). All of this only becomes a problem if the pilots and controllers concerned forget what they are using. As a professional, I was taught how to juggle pressure settings, including the integration of Swedish aircraft that flew at Metres rather than Feet.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is any of this a problem? Are you sure you're not just making it into one?
Recently, when flying in France, the friend I was with asked me if I wanted the QFE (she was doing the radio calls as she lives there and her French is better than mine). I said I didn't care, so long as I knew which way I was doing it. She seemed to think this was a perfectly normal way of thinking.
Either ask for the QFE, or do a quick bit of mental arithmetic. Neither is a big deal, for pilots or students or anyone with a half a brain. Why does this even get discussed?
Recently, when flying in France, the friend I was with asked me if I wanted the QFE (she was doing the radio calls as she lives there and her French is better than mine). I said I didn't care, so long as I knew which way I was doing it. She seemed to think this was a perfectly normal way of thinking.
Either ask for the QFE, or do a quick bit of mental arithmetic. Neither is a big deal, for pilots or students or anyone with a half a brain. Why does this even get discussed?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Professional in the same profession - so was I. (Though handing over traffic on the QFE of an airfield 30 miles away is taking the pi$$ somewhat! You want to use it in the MATZ - fine. Just remember it's cock all use outside and change the aircraft accordingly).
As a Pilot - its retention makes less and less sense.
Crash one, I think, sums it up perfectly.
As a Pilot - its retention makes less and less sense.
Crash one, I think, sums it up perfectly.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London Mil
The point I am trying to make is that the more variables there are the easier it is for someone to get it wrong.
I am quite sure that professionals like yourself don't consider it a problem. This is fine. But as you have said "juggling with pressure settings".
Why should "juggling" be necessary? If all a/c in a particular ASR are on the same setting (QNH) whether in transit or circuit, everyone knows where everyone else is.
In a situation :- a/f elevation 500ft a/c approaching circuit on QFE at 2000ft, a/c in transit reports alt 2500 QNH, a conflict exists but may not be realised. Why make life difficult? Transition alts & levels are a different issue & based on QNH or 1013.2 anyway, & QFE if high enough could bust them.
What I am saying is, we can all do the sums, we know metres are bigger than feet so we don't need so many of them, but why should we sit there doing sums desperately in order to stay alive?
In fact 1013.2 is a prime example of standardising pressure settings over a large area, terrain not being such a problem.
The point I am trying to make is that the more variables there are the easier it is for someone to get it wrong.
I am quite sure that professionals like yourself don't consider it a problem. This is fine. But as you have said "juggling with pressure settings".
Why should "juggling" be necessary? If all a/c in a particular ASR are on the same setting (QNH) whether in transit or circuit, everyone knows where everyone else is.
In a situation :- a/f elevation 500ft a/c approaching circuit on QFE at 2000ft, a/c in transit reports alt 2500 QNH, a conflict exists but may not be realised. Why make life difficult? Transition alts & levels are a different issue & based on QNH or 1013.2 anyway, & QFE if high enough could bust them.
What I am saying is, we can all do the sums, we know metres are bigger than feet so we don't need so many of them, but why should we sit there doing sums desperately in order to stay alive?
In fact 1013.2 is a prime example of standardising pressure settings over a large area, terrain not being such a problem.