Dudley,
I agree with your statement about keeping things standardized. I like to
keep everything that way so I can save what little brain capacity I have for
handling the deviations from standard. Likewise, I apply that same logic to
trimming. I trim for nearly any condition I'll be in for more than about 30
seconds, especially on landing. Nothing to do with stick forces, per se,
but then I'm only flying the airplane away from the trim. The airplane's
flying the basic line all by itself, I'm just flying the bits that are away
from that line. Keeps life less exciting but a bit longer lasting, I
reckon.

Funnily enough, though, this QFE thing is one that you soon get used to and
find that it seldom causes a problem. A person is just as likely to get the
mental arithmetic wrong on entering the pattern as they are to forget to set
QFE/QNH. Nearly all airfields here have a manned radio most of the time.
It's standard procedure to give arriving aircraft the active runway and the
QFE, so you get the information and a reminder. Most airfields have a
standard 1,000 foot pattern, 2,000 foot overhead join (now, if you want to
talk about a stupid procedure, let's get started on THAT one!), unless
otherwise noted, so you reset QFE, shoot for 2,000 feet and Bob's your
uncle.

Interesting your input in the other thread about spinning the Mustang. When
I was volunteering at The Fighter Collection, I was assigned to Moose, a D
model, and used to spend a bit of time reading the pilot's handbook and the
maintenance manual. (Never got to fly in her, though) I seem to remember
the Mustang required something like 10,000 feet to recover from a spin.
True in your experience?

Shawn


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
link.net...
Sounds like a nightmare to me. I've zeroed the needle on occasion for
demonstration work, but I just don't get the logic behind the QFE lobby.
It's just one more thing to worry about changing, and that can lead to
serious problems in the air. I'm a standardization buff. Making as much a
constant as opposed to a variable when it comes to flying has always
seemed
to me the best way to go with things. Having several MORE ways to use an
altimeter just adds to normal altimeter confusion; it;s just one more
thing
that someone can forget to set or change or figure out.
:-))
Dudley
"ShawnD2112" wrote in message
news:GPy3c.2813$m56.1401@newsfe1-win...
Nope, you're not missing anything, Dudley. Except maybe topography. I
don't think there ARE any airports higher than 2,000 feet in the UK, and
there's very little terrain that high, even in the Highlands. The
practice
may have grown up here in Britain because high terrain isn't an issue.
Most
alitimeters over here these days are US manufacture anyways because most
of
the fleet were built in the US.

Your understanding of QFE is correct, it's the station elevation such
that
the altimeter reads 0 at some point on the ground. It can lead to the
odd
problem now and again, but normally isn't an issue. My airport is at
about
500 ft MSL, so if someone hasn't set their altimeter to QFE, but flies
that
pattern altitude as it reads on the instrument (without doing the mental
arithmetic to ADD 1,000 ft), he'll come across the field at 500' AGL.
Add
to this that the Brits join the field at 2000 AGL on the side opposite
downwind (known as "The Dead side"), descend to 1,000' AGL as they pass
crosswind over the far end of the runway, then turn downwind and start
their
descent. This means you get clowns passing the far end of the runway at
500
' AGL, just as you're passing through the same airspace in a climb in
the
Pitts. Normally not a problem as not many GA airplanes can be at 500'
by
the end of our runway, but it's happened to me once and is just
something
I
have to keep an eye out for when flying the Pitts. As I say, in 300
hours
flying in the UK, that's only happened to me once, so it's not common.

Different way of "approaching" the same issue (sorry for the pun).

Shawn
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"ShawnD2112" wrote in message
...
Dudley,
Interesting that the "right or wrongness" of the issue is of such a
concern.
Isn't it funny how different cultures view the same problem with
different
perspectives? Here in the UK, no motorcycle rider would even think
of
getting on a bike without a full set of leathers, helmet, and
gloves.
In
the States, guys ride in shorts, sneakers, and no helmets where they
can.
On the other side of the coin, Brits "filter" through traffic on
motorcycles, riding between lanes just to get through traffic
faster,
whether it be in the city or the highway. Most Americans think
that's
too
dangerous to think about.

Here in the UK, setting the altimeter to field elevation, QFE,
before
takeoff is not only allowed, it's taught and expected. Likewise,
when
approaching the airfield, you're expected to reset the altimeter to
that
airfield's QFE in the pattern. In the States, we would think that
would
lead to all kinds of altitude-related accidents.

Different perspectives, but who's to say what's right and wrong?

Shawn

Hi Shawn;

Your comment on using QFE in the UK brings up an interesting point
that
I'm
researching right now and perhaps you can answer for me possibly.
Here in the U.S., our altimeters have a Kollsman range of about 27.5
and
32.0. This, considering an average atmosphere, denies you setting an
altimeter to 0 on any airport runway above about 2500 to 3000 feet
MSL!!!
I'm wondering, since QFE is common in the UK, and by definition QFE is
a
station pressure setting that will produce a 0 reading on the
altimeter
when
on the ground at that station; are your altimeters in the UK equipped
with
a
wider Kollsman range in the setting windows perhaps, and if not, how
can
a
QFE setting be used at airports with elevations above our limits here
in
the
U.S? It's an interesting point....or I must be missing something in my
old
age :-))
Dudley