Barometer Setting in Europe question...

In article , says...


Sounds confusing? You get used to it.


Good post, Stefan.
Sounds confusing? It IS confusing, even when you get used to it.
Having flown both systems, the European system is really a nuisance!
It is (at least theoretically) justified because in Europe, the "general"
18000' altitude would not be sufficient to provide terrain clearance in all
locations, as it is in the US. Therefore, rather than create a special
airspace for the 10 sq-mi area concerned, the entire continent is subjected to
arcane usage rules, with transition altitudes and levels (they are different
when climbing and descending) that vary from day to day, depending on the
barometric pressure, and are different according to whether or not one is in a
TMA or other terminal procedure controlled airspace.

Generally speaking, however, these transitions almost always occur at or below
5500', so it is common to hear aircraft - even VFR - reporting FL5500, for
example.

Fortunately, the use of QFE - once dear to VFR-only pilots - is going by the
wayside. Time was, pilots would set their altimiters to "0" before takeoff,
then "at some point" transition to the local altimeter setting. On VFR
approach, they would set their altimeter to the field elevation, so they could
execute their pattern with the same reference altitudes displayed on their
altimeter, regardless of the actual field elevation. Good idea, I suppose, but
in reality it only added "one more" reference setting to the already thick
soup. This practice appears to be disappearing with the institution of
pan-European flight crew training.

G Faris

G Farris wrote:

Sounds confusing? It IS confusing, even when you get used to it.

Frankly, I think street traffic rules are more comlicated. But you
really must do your homework before you o to a place (or even a country)
you've never been before.

Having flown both systems, the European system is really a nuisance!
It is (at least theoretically) justified because in Europe, the "general"
18000' altitude would not be sufficient to provide terrain clearance in all

I don't think this is the main reason. The real reason is that there are
many independant countries here, each with its own regulation. Of
course, each country has its own idea what a good regulation should look
like. Simple (or comlicated) as that.

Stefan

Not disappearing at all in the UK. QFE is still taught and the numbers are
given every time a pilot calls up an airfield for landing information.

Having trained in the US, I thought QFE/QNH was just the most absurd thing
I'd ever heard. But when you fly in the south of England where the highest
point is usually less than 500 ASL, it's actually not a bad way to do it. I
kind of like the QFE reference because, once I've set the altimeter on the
approach to the pattern, it's one less piece of mental gymnastic work I have
to do.

Transition height in the UK, by the way, is 3,500 ft.

Shawn
"G Farris" wrote in message
...
In article , says...


Sounds confusing? You get used to it.


Good post, Stefan.
Sounds confusing? It IS confusing, even when you get used to it.
Having flown both systems, the European system is really a nuisance!
It is (at least theoretically) justified because in Europe, the "general"
18000' altitude would not be sufficient to provide terrain clearance in
all
locations, as it is in the US. Therefore, rather than create a special
airspace for the 10 sq-mi area concerned, the entire continent is
subjected to
arcane usage rules, with transition altitudes and levels (they are
different
when climbing and descending) that vary from day to day, depending on the
barometric pressure, and are different according to whether or not one is
in a
TMA or other terminal procedure controlled airspace.

Generally speaking, however, these transitions almost always occur at or
below
5500', so it is common to hear aircraft - even VFR - reporting FL5500,
for
example.

Fortunately, the use of QFE - once dear to VFR-only pilots - is going by
the
wayside. Time was, pilots would set their altimiters to "0" before
takeoff,
then "at some point" transition to the local altimeter setting. On VFR
approach, they would set their altimeter to the field elevation, so they
could
execute their pattern with the same reference altitudes displayed on their
altimeter, regardless of the actual field elevation. Good idea, I suppose,
but
in reality it only added "one more" reference setting to the already thick
soup. This practice appears to be disappearing with the institution of
pan-European flight crew training.

G Faris

In article , ShawnD2112 wrote:
Not disappearing at all in the UK. QFE is still taught and the numbers are
given every time a pilot calls up an airfield for landing information.

The one time I like QFE is when towing gliders. Never going more than a
couple of miles from the field, so I always set QFE.

Pretty much any time anyone gives it to me otherwise, I tend not to
bother though.

Dylan Smith wrote:

The one time I like QFE is when towing gliders. Never going more than a
couple of miles from the field, so I always set QFE.

The only case, but then consequently, we use QFE here is when doing
aerobatics.

On tow it's nice when both pilots speak the same language. Ok, there's
already knots vs km/h and feet vs meters, so I guess I could get used to
the QFE vs QNH conversion, too.

Stefan

"ShawnD2112" wrote in message
news
Not disappearing at all in the UK. QFE is still taught and the numbers
are given every time a pilot calls up an airfield for landing information.

What you say is true enough, but I get the impression that there are very
few commercial operators who still use QFE, and fewer PPL with instrument
ratings who use it. IMHO, the sooner it's confined to the history books the
better.

Julian Scarfe

Whatever. Airlines probably don't use it, not that many UK PPLs with
instrument ratings.

Shawn
"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
"ShawnD2112" wrote in message
news
Not disappearing at all in the UK. QFE is still taught and the numbers
are given every time a pilot calls up an airfield for landing
information.

What you say is true enough, but I get the impression that there are very
few commercial operators who still use QFE, and fewer PPL with instrument
ratings who use it. IMHO, the sooner it's confined to the history books
the better.

Julian Scarfe