Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16

When doing circuits, what height setting do you use on your altimeter?

QFE
129
65%
QNH
67
34%
RPS
No votes
0%
I don't look at the altimeter anyway
4
2%
#1519373
Joe Dell wrote:Fast forward and have a careful listen here between 14 and 16 minutes in.
...

14:45 "... this was forecast clear all day!" (flying over the fog).
(Reminded me of the recent Bristol thread with inadvertent IMC and diversion).

I was wondering if it was going to become a saved by SkyDemon thread drift... (plus the fog not beating them to the airfield).
:wink:
User avatar
By AlanB
#1519513
I only ever use QNH, probably because I came into Aviation in California, and if you try winding an altimeter to zero when landing at a 6700' airport, you need to buy a new altimeter afterwards :D

But the benefits are....if you go missed, no worries about finding the QNH to dial back in. It is as easy to fly a TP at 7700' as it is at 1000'.

GPS measures alt referenced to the Geoid, which could be as much as 50m out in most of the UK. WAAS improves on this dramatically though and hence the reason why you can fly an LPV approach.
#1521285
Well today we landed at an airfield elevation AMSL 203m or 685ft with a QNH 983mb, QFE 961mb or 720 mm if thats easier.

Guess what the world did not end at the FAF as we started the approach at 400m QFE. :roll: use what you have to, the world of aviation does exist outside the UK and believe or not many countries still use QFE as an only option for landing.

Next month we are off to an airport with an elevation of over 10,000ft what do you think we use as an altimeter reference for landing ?
Last edited by Lockhaven on Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#1521293
Why can't the powers that be calculate RPS from Metars rather than Tafs? At least they would be more accurate, wouldn't they?
No doubt there will be a multitude of reasons why not.
#1521311
Crash one wrote:Why can't the powers that be calculate RPS from Metars rather than Tafs? At least they would be more accurate, wouldn't they?
No doubt there will be a multitude of reasons why not.


That would defeat the object of RPS. It's to stop you hitting the ground after you've been out of radio contact for some time.

I expect you'll be telling me next that no one should hit the ground as they should be able to see it and avoid... :mrgreen:
Crash one liked this
#1521312
Lockhaven wrote:Well today we landed at an airfield elevation AMSL 203m or 685ft with a QNH 983mb, QFE 961mb or 720 mm if thats easier.

Next month we are off to an airport with an elevation of over 10,000ft what do you think we use as an altimeter reference for landing ?


You big tease you... :twisted:

10000'? Hah...just set QFE, it'll be a doddle. :D :lol:
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16