Barometric Setting?

[Hog_No32]

If I am not wrong (I‘m not at work so I can‘t check in their AIP) the Chinese also publish procedural altitudes in QFE (and metric units of course). Commercial chart vendors like Lido or Jeppesen usually convert these to altitudes QNH for „western“ airlines.

The same is done by the way for the FMS database codings of these terminal procedures (which is also done by these companies). But that is another story...:music_whistling:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

For a VFR pilot, is there actually any regulation that prescribes how you achieve flying at 1000ft above aerodrome elevation in the pattern? When taking off you actually have the choice, right? Because even if the tower or some met report provides you with the QNH only, you could still change the pressure setting so thatnyour altimeter reads zero on the runway. Then just fly up until it reads 1000. If you want to use QNH, fine, just add the aerodrome elevation to the 1000 ft and that is your pattern altitude in MSL. It probably is also a matter whether your VFR chart set shows heights AGL or altitudes MSL.

 

The following is applicable to the UK: flying VFR, QFE is issued to aircraft in the circuit or arriving (into the circuit) to land. Otherwise QNH is issued (including to aircraft on the ground that will be departing and not remaining in the circuit). You can always request the setting you weren't given, but there's no real reason to. But ultimately yes, as long as you fly at the correct pattern altitude it's not really important how you do it.

 

You wouldn't set QFE by yourself, firstly because if you're arriving at an airfield you don't know what it is :D but secondly because the ground an airfield is built on isn't perfectly flat. For example, the threshold at one end of a runway can be quite a bit higher or lower than the other. Depending where a pilot set 0, there could be quite a difference in what their altimeter setting ended up being compared to another.

 

I don't believe there are any figures on a VFR (UK) chart that refers to heights AGL.

 

So did the ATIS/AWOS or weather reporting facility at your departure airport actually report the QNE setting or did you put it in yourself? Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never heard of it officially reported or used outside of Russia.

 

Hi Gaspipe.

 

I'm guessing from what you've said you fly internationally out of the US (since you referred to AWOS)? I've only done a few hours flying there. Things are a bit different in the UK. We have three levels of service provision at airfields: ATC, FIS (flight information service) and A/G radio.

 

• ATC is staffed by qualified people who provide positive control as you will be familiar with.
  
• FIS is staffed by qualified people who provide positive control on the ground up to the holding points, reverting to information only (essentially uncontrolled) for aircraft on the runway/in the air.
  
• A/G radio is information only, but they will relay traffic and airfield information, as FIS do, including active runway, altimeter settings etc. Although they are not permitted to instruct you, following their advice is good practice!
  

Only airfields with ATC have an ATIS. We don't have an AWOS equivalent, as the FIS/radio operators provide that information. All three service providers will issue QFE/QNH in accordance with my reply to Hog_No32.

 

In the UK there is far more separation between GA and airline traffic than in the US (landing fees at major airports will ruin a private pilot). This is likely the reason you've never heard QFE reported, because if you've flow into a major airport, there's no VFR traffic to need it.

 

Hope that helps.

[Hog_No32]

Thanks Flamin_Squirrel for taking the time to explain.

[Gaspipe]

If I am not wrong (I‘m not at work so I can‘t check in their AIP) the Chinese also publish procedural altitudes in QFE (and metric units of course). Commercial chart vendors like Lido or Jeppesen usually convert these to altitudes QNH for „western“ airlines.

The same is done by the way for the FMS database codings of these terminal procedures (which is also done by these companies). But that is another story...:music_whistling:

 

China is all QNH as I was in Beijing last week. They do work in meters though. As for the chart vendors, i’ve Used both lido and Jepps and they publish in QNH. FMS databases use QNH as well. QNH is definitely the icao standard for altimetry. We use to have a fairly ridiculous process to convert to QFE for Almaty and it use to suck because the weather was always bad and Almaty is in the mountains. In Other words, don’t screw up the procedure or you will die.

[Hog_No32]

China is all QNH as I was in Beijing last week. They do work in meters though.

 

You may want to read my post again: I said they publish procedural altitudes as QFE (height related to threshold elevation) for approach procedures. I did not say the use those in ATC clearances (which you may be exposed to) and obviously you don't see these heights in your commercial chart sets. But if you would use the AIP plates (which would be legal) you would work on QFE for approaches. See attached sample chart.

 

As for the chart vendors, i’ve Used both lido and Jepps and they publish in QNH. FMS databases use QNH as well.

 

Which is just what I said, right? And it is just why you are not aware in what form they publish their altitudes in AIPs.

 

QFE instead of QNH as the altitude reporting reference (including ATC phraseology) is currently standard in Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

[Hog_No32]

Further from AIP China ENR 1.7 Altimeter Setting Procedures:

 

2.2.1 At aerodromes where transition altitudes and transition levels are established:

QNH shall be used for flights at or below the transition altitude specified in the aerodrome Altimeter Setting Regions; 1013.2hPa shall be used for flights at or above the transition level.

 

2.2.2 At aerodromes where transition heights and transition levels are established:

QFE shall be used for flights at or below the transition height specified in the Aerodrome Altimeter Setting Regions; 1013.2hPa shall be used for flights at or above the transition level.

 

So just flying to one airport (Beijing) might not tell you the whole story for the entire country. Just like Flamin_Squirrel wrote: QFE is used during GA VFR flights in the UK while everbody who flies to Heathrow know they're using QNH there.

[Gaspipe]

Further from AIP China ENR 1.7 Altimeter Setting Procedures:

 

2.2.1 At aerodromes where transition altitudes and transition levels are established:

QNH shall be used for flights at or below the transition altitude specified in the aerodrome Altimeter Setting Regions; 1013.2hPa shall be used for flights at or above the transition level.

 

2.2.2 At aerodromes where transition heights and transition levels are established:

QFE shall be used for flights at or below the transition height specified in the Aerodrome Altimeter Setting Regions; 1013.2hPa shall be used for flights at or above the transition level.

 

So just flying to one airport (Beijing) might not tell you the whole story for the entire country. Just like Flamin_Squirrel wrote: QFE is used during GA VFR flights in the UK while everbody who flies to Heathrow know they're using QNH there.

 

Further from AIP China ENR 1.7 Altimeter Setting Procedures:

 

2.2.1 At aerodromes where transition altitudes and transition levels are established:

QNH shall be used for flights at or below the transition altitude specified in the aerodrome Altimeter Setting Regions; 1013.2hPa shall be used for flights at or above the transition level.

 

2.2.2 At aerodromes where transition heights and transition levels are established:

QFE shall be used for flights at or below the transition height specified in the Aerodrome Altimeter Setting Regions; 1013.2hPa shall be used for flights at or above the transition level.

 

So just flying to one airport (Beijing) might not tell you the whole story for the entire country. Just like Flamin_Squirrel wrote: QFE is used during GA VFR flights in the UK while everbody who flies to Heathrow know they're using QNH there.

 

So what exactly are we talking about here? The main point I responded to was that QFE is not routinely used in the UK as stated and is only used in Russia and some surrounding countries. When I say that, I mean used in a controlled ATC environment, not low level uncontrolled VFR as that does not apply to the F-18C as this is the forum we are in. Low level, uncontrolled VFR you can basically do whatever you please, but as soon as you communicate with an appropriate ATC facility, you would be given the QNH setting, not QFE, which is my point.

 

Using the AIP chart, you would not be legal flying the numbers in the parentheses as those are radio altimeter references or height above runway threshold as you previously stated and used for reference only. The only time you can use the numbers in the parentheses is during a CAT 2 or CAT 3 approach, which would be flown using the radio altimeter, not the barometric. My point again is that you would not be given a QFE altimeter setting at any airport other than the previously mentioned countries, hence you have to use the QNH setting for the baro minimums.

 

30+ years and 15,000+ hours of flying and I’ve used QFE less than 10 times.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

...but as soon as you communicate with an appropriate ATC facility, you would be given the QNH setting, not QFE, which is my point.

 

And you'd be wrong. Aerodrome based services providers, including ATC, will issue QFE to VFR traffic in the UK.

[Hog_No32]

My point is there are more countries than just Russia that use QFE in procedures and publications. Not necessarily for all airports and all types of operations/airspace users but for some. That was all I wanted to say.

 

[...] Using the AIP chart, you would not be legal flying the numbers in the parentheses as those are radio altimeter references or height above runway threshold as you previously stated and used for reference only.

 

Sorry, but that is not correct. Look at the headline of the sample chart I attached. It reads "heights related to THR RWY31 3.7M". Dial in QFE in your barometric altimeter (never talked about the radar altimeter and it has no relevance on the topic so I don't get why you mention it) and fly exactly those altitudes on the charts (provided you have a metric altimeter). What's the problem? You are perfectly safe and legal.

 

Any by the way: Whether a commercial B777 or a Cessna pilot, you ARE legal to fly with the AIP charts (in the issuing country). That is the whole point of AIPs. Having a globally standardized chart set from a commercial provider like Lido or Jepp is not a legal requirement. Their business case is the standardization part which makes it easier for crews operating globally where they otherwise would be exposed to various different AIP formats, fonts, colors etc. That is where Lido or Jepp or NavBlue (to be complete) comes into play. The fact that 99,9% of all commercial operators fly with commercial charts does not say it would be illegal to fly with AIP charts.

 

Congrats on your flight hours (seriously, no sarcasm here).

[David OC]

I know right. What's the go with pilots always posting here fight hours and years flown when they have discussions / debate here, they should all just flop it out and compare and be done with it.:)

[Dangerman]

RAF airfields with training aircraft and Fast Jets generally use QFE. although truckies probably don't.

[Ventus_Clu]

The British military almost exclusively use QFE/SAS for terminal control except for the transport fleet which the newer aircraft (C17, A400m and KC30) actually require QNH for the nav systems, even during circuit work.

 

All charts for UK military aerodromes include heights and altitudes. So it hugely depends on where your flying as to what is used. Military and civil ATC operate with distinct differences in the UK and I assume the rest of the world.

 

Edit: typo

Edited August 29, 2018 by Ventus_Clu

[Gaspipe]

Sorry, but that is not correct. Look at the headline of the sample chart I attached. It reads "heights related to THR RWY31 3.7M". Dial in QFE in your barometric altimeter (never talked about the radar altimeter and it has no relevance on the topic so I don't get why you mention it) and fly exactly those altitudes on the charts (provided you have a metric altimeter). What's the problem? You are perfectly safe and legal.

 

You cannot fly the approach that way, by dialing in QFE into your barometric altimeter for an airport that defines QNH, it's illegal in the US. Those numbers in parentheses are for the radar altimeter, plain and simple. Yes, I understand it aligns with the QFE settings and such, but when the QNH is defined as it is on the chart, you cannot deviate from that.

 

Like I said, the only time, at least in the US 121 world, you can use the numbers in the parentheses, is for decision height based CAT 2 and CAT 3 approaches, that's it.

[Gaspipe]

And you'd be wrong. Aerodrome based services providers, including ATC, will issue QFE to VFR traffic in the UK.

 

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I have never heard QFE issued at any of the UK based airports that I've flown from, both military and civilian and that's most likely due to being on an IFR flight plan.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Gaspipe

[Hog_No32]

You cannot fly the approach that way, by dialing in QFE into your barometric altimeter for an airport that defines QNH, it's illegal in the US.

 

You realized the chart is from China, documents a Chinese procedure and that we were talking about local/regional procedures to fly that approach in China? What that has to do with what is legal in the US is beyond my understanding.

 

Those numbers in parentheses are for the radar altimeter, plain and simple.

 

Again, plain wrong, sorry. Look at the chart again, these are not radar altimeter heights. There is higher terrain under the initial and intermediate approach. A radar altimeter height would tell you the height above terrain below, right? So how comes the numbers in parentheses are consistently only 4 meters lower than the numbers without parentheses all the way to the runway? With changing terrain elevation below you you would expect to see a variance in the difference between barometric altitudes and radar altimeter heights.

The numbers in parenthesis are altitudes QFE meaning they are in reference to the threshold elevation (which surprisingly is 4m above MSL). Just what the chart says in its headline but it appears you decided to ignore that.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Hog_No32

[Gaspipe]

You realized the chart is from China, documents a Chinese procedure and that we were talking about local/regional procedures to fly that approach in China? What that has to do with what is legal in the US is beyond my understanding.

 

 

 

Again, plain wrong, sorry. Look at the chart again, these are not radar altimeter heights. There is higher terrain under the initial and intermediate approach. A radar altimeter height would tell you the height above terrain below, right? So how comes the numbers in parentheses are consistently only 4 meters lower than the numbers without parentheses all the way to the runway? With changing terrain elevation below you you would expect to see a variance in the difference between barometric altitudes and radar altimeter heights.

The numbers in parenthesis are altitudes QFE meaning they are in reference to the threshold elevation (which surprisingly is 4m above MSL). Just what the chart says in its headline but it appears you decided to ignore that.

 

Jesus bro I've tried to explain it to you multiple times. Let me know if China Airlines is flying a QFE approach into a US airport using the minimum in the parentheses or vice versa, a foreign airline flying into a Chinese airport using the same procedure. It ain't happening.

[Gaspipe]

You realized the chart is from China, documents a Chinese procedure and that we were talking about local/regional procedures to fly that approach in China? What that has to do with what is legal in the US is beyond my understanding.

 

Again, plain wrong, sorry. Look at the chart again, these are not radar altimeter heights. There is higher terrain under the initial and intermediate approach. A radar altimeter height would tell you the height above terrain below, right? So how comes the numbers in parentheses are consistently only 4 meters lower than the numbers without parentheses all the way to the runway? With changing terrain elevation below you you would expect to see a variance in the difference between barometric altitudes and radar altimeter heights.

The numbers in parenthesis are altitudes QFE meaning they are in reference to the threshold elevation (which surprisingly is 4m above MSL). Just what the chart says in its headline but it appears you decided to ignore that.

 

Right out of our SOP's, which are legally binding.

 

6.53 Determining MDA, DDA, DA, DH, or AH

( OpSpec C073 )

 

Approaches which use a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA), Derived Decision Altitude (DDA), or Decision Altitude (DA) are based upon a barometric altitude. Barometric altitude must be used to determine descent minimums or the decision altitude.

 

Approaches which use a Decision Height (DH) or Alert Height (AH) are based upon a height above the touchdown zone. Except where not authorized, radar altitude must be used to determine the DH or AH.

 

CAT I (MDA, DDA, or DA); All CAT I approaches use barometric altitude.

 

All aircraft except MD-11 (FMS-923 with PROF to MDA Option)/MD-10: A non-ILS approach with MDA minimums must be flown using a barometric DDA. To calculate a DDA, adjust the published MDA by adding 50 ft. All procedural references to the DA apply equally to a DDA.

 

All aircraft except MD-11 (FMS-923 with PROF to MDA Option)/MD-10 - Non-ILS DA/DDA Minimums:

 

•

 

Domestic and International

: For LNAV/VNAV approach minima, a published DA may be used. For all other approaches, a DDA must be used for all published DA (H)/MDA (H).

 

•

 

Domestic VNAV Exceptions

: For those approaches that have the ball note "Only authorized operators may use VNAV DA(H) in lieu of MDA(H)" and LOC (GS out) MDA(H) on ILS approaches with the glideslope out of service (while flying the associated LOC Nav database approach), VNAV may be used to treat an MDA as a DA (no need to add 50 feet to create a DDA).

 

MD-11 (FMS-923 with PROF to MDA Option)/MD-10: On RNAV approach use the lower of LNAV/VNAV or LNAV minimums and treat as an MDA. For all other non-precision approaches minimums are an MDA.

Notes

 

MD-11 (FMS-923 with VNAV Option) is authorized to use a DA or DDA.

 

Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) is a technique for flying the final approach segment of a Non-ILS approach in a continuous descent to MDA, DDA, or DA without level off. If unable “Continue” or “Landing” upon reaching MDA, DDA, or DA, a missed approach is executed. Countries may mandate use of CDFA technique. Refer to Jeppesen Airway Manual > Air Traffic Control > State Rules and Procedures.

 

EU-OPS 1 member states are transitioning non-precision (NDB, VOR, LNAV, and LOC) approach charts to a CDFA standard, which depicts minima as DA(H) in lieu of MDA(H). Unless the DA(H) specifically states LNAV/VNAV, flight crews must consider these DA(H) minima as MDA(H). All aircraft except MD-11 (FMS-923 with PROF to MDA Option)/MD-10: When flying these approaches using VNAV modes, a DDA(H) must be computed and referenced. LNAV/VNAV minimums are correctly depicted as a DA(H) and may be flown to a DA(H). MD-11 (FMS-923 with PROF to MDA Option)/MD-10must use an MDA(H).

 

•

 

CAT II (DA, DH)

 

•

 

Where RA NOT AUTHORIZED appears on the approach plate, the DA is determined using barometric altimeter.

 

•

 

In all other CAT II approaches, DH is determined from the radio altimeter (RA on approach plate).

 

•

 

CAT III (DH or AH); DH or AH is determined from the radio altimeter. DH is used if visual reference is required to land. AH is used when visual reference is not required.

 

I think I understand what I'm talking about

[Hog_No32]

Bro, that is YOUR SOP (obviously at FedEx). I have no doubt that you know that better than me and I have no doubt that you operate legally and correctly and safely.

 

The point which I am trying to make is that YOUR SOP with YOUR operator in YOUR country accepted by YOUR regulator is completely irrelevant to anybody outside of YOUR company, YOUR country and outside the jurisdiction of the FAA. You claimed „China is all QNH“ and I clearly proved you wrong on the „all China“. Otherwise, why the section 2.2.2 in ENR 1.7? You claimed QFE is not used by ATC in UK which was proved wrong by three other forum members. Still you believe you know it better.

 

My last post here. It is pointless to explain regional specialties to someone who believes the whole world works like the United States.

[Gaspipe]

Bro, that is YOUR SOP (obviously at FedEx). I have no doubt that you know that better than me and I have no doubt that you operate legally and correctly and safely.

 

The point which I am trying to make is that YOUR SOP with YOUR operator in YOUR country accepted by YOUR regulator is completely irrelevant to anybody outside of YOUR company, YOUR country and outside the jurisdiction of the FAA. You claimed „China is all QNH“ and I clearly proved you wrong on the „all China“. Otherwise, why the section 2.2.2 in ENR 1.7? You claimed QFE is not used by ATC in UK which was proved wrong by three other forum members. Still you believe you know it better.

 

My last post here. It is pointless to explain regional specialties to someone who believes the whole world works like the United States.

 

No regional specialties here, it's a PANS-OPS approach = ICAO. You fly what is published on the approach, which in this case is QNH. Has nothing to do with my company or country.

 

And both your examples of Chinese and UK QFE (military aside) is for local VFR traffic below transition heights.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Gaspipe

[Hog_No32]

No regional specialties here, it's a PANS-OPS approach = ICAO. You fly what is published on the approach, which in this case is QNH. Has nothing to do with my company or country.

 

And both your examples of Chinese and UK QFE (military aside) is for local VFR traffic below transition altitudes.

 

LOL, someone under FAA jurisdiction is pointing out to PANS-OPS. Really, you are making my day.

 

Ehm, and you certainly can tell me why you believe that the Chinese regulation which I quoted applies to VFR only, can‘t you?

[Gaspipe]

LOL, someone under FAA jurisdiction is pointing out to PANS-OPS. Really, you are making my day.

 

Ehm, and you certainly can tell me why you believe that the Chinese regulation which I quoted applies to VFR only, can‘t you?

 

Yeah ok. 30+ years experience doing this, you?

[Hog_No32]

Yeah ok. 30+ years experience doing this, you?

 

That is not a proof. You are not source. Show me a regulation that supports your thesis.

 

Bro, you even demonstrated that you can‘t interprete the altitudes provided on a Chinese AIP chart. Also you seem to confuse radar altimeter readings with QFE all the time which have nothing to do with each other. Looks like those 30+ years in a bubble...

Edited August 29, 2018 by Hog_No32

[Gaspipe]

That is not a proof. You are not source.

 

Well you keep arguing that I'm just plain wrong, then how have I survived for 30 years flying all over China, UK, Russia, Asia, Africa and everywhere else? Surely I must be doing something wrong or right, which one is it? :huh:

[Hog_No32]

Ok. I see. I quote official government regulation as proof. All you came up with is „I do this for 30 years and I am still alive“.

 

That speaks for itself.

[Gaspipe]

Ok. I see. I quote official government regulation as proof. All you came up with is „I do this for 30 years and I am still alive“.

 

That speaks for itself.

 

Your Official government regulation:

 

2.2.2 At aerodromes where transition heights and transition levels are established:

QFE shall be used for flights at or below the transition height specified in the Aerodrome Altimeter Setting Regions; 1013.2hPa shall be used for flights at or above the transition level.

 

Where exactly on that Lishe chart you provided does it specify Transition Height? Cuz all I see is Transition Altitude which would fall under your other government regulation:

 

2.2.1 At aerodromes where transition altitudes and transition levels are established:

QNH shall be used for flights at or below the transition altitude specified in the aerodrome Altimeter Setting Regions; 1013.2hPa shall be used for flights at or above the transition level.

 

You incorrectly stated you could use QFE procedures on the Lishe chart and I tried to explain to you why you cannot. Even your own published regulations say you cannot.

 

So what exactly speaks for itself?