Why ATC gives you QFE and not QNH?

[nessuno0505]

As in the title.

I was reading some infos about the two, and I've learnt QFE is no more used since ww2, except for sailplanes and short take-off and landing circuits around a single airport. So why DCS ATC keeps giving us QFEs? Is this related to the way in which wearher is simulated in dcs?

[Bouli306]

As in the title.

I was reading some infos about the two, and I've learnt QFE is no more used since ww2, except for sailplanes and short take-off and landing circuits around a single airport. So why DCS ATC keeps giving us QFEs? Is this related to the way in which wearher is simulated in dcs?

 

+1

[randomTOTEN]

I *believe* it's old Russian doctrine from the mid 2000's to use QFE. Since the sim has lineage from the Flanker series of the 1990's, and was primarily built around the Kamov/Georgia 2008 and created by Russian developers.. it doesn't surprise me that ATC issues altimeter settings in QFE.

 

After doing a quick google search, it's only been a couple years since Russia instituted QNH!!

https://ops.group/blog/big-change-russia-finally-moving-to-qnh/

 

Quote

• As of February 2017, ULLI/St. Petersburg will be the first Russian Airport to start using feet and QNH – chosen because it’s pretty close to sea level. And one of the more ‘western’ Russian airports.
• Descent clearances will be to an altitude in feet, based on QNH
• The ALT/HEIGHT conversion chart will disappear from charts
• You’ll get “Descend altitude 3000 feet QNH” instead of “Descend Height 900 meters” from ATC.
• After the St. Petersburg ‘trial’ is complete, the rest of Russia will slowly follow suit. We don’t yet have a firm date for further airports within Russia, but will update this page when we do (or we’ll tell you in the bulletin).

Edited February 6, 2024 by randomTOTEN

[flyco]

It is certainly not true that QFE has not been used since WW2. I spent my whole flying career in the RAF, and when I retired some 15 years ago it was still in general use. I am fairly sure that that is still the case. Even in the USA, QFE was generally available at many airfields, particularly military ones.

[Chaogen]

Speaking strictly from a GA perspective, I've yet to see anyone use AGL over AMSL. Been flying for almost 20 years and never seen QFE used even by other pilots or instructors that had been flying considerably longer than that.. And my home airfield where I flew most at is 5500 MSL with a 2800x30ft Runway.

[rrohde]

We're all waiting for the ATC overhaul DCS undeniably needs. Here's hope that after the new ATC implantation for ED's Supper Carrier, the land-based ATC gets some love a well.

[nessuno0505]

It is certainly not true that QFE has not been used since WW2. I spent my whole flying career in the RAF, and when I retired some 15 years ago it was still in general use. I am fairly sure that that is still the case. Even in the USA, QFE was generally available at many airfields, particularly military ones.

 

I know QNH is a standard for general aviation below transition altitude; can you affirm for sure that QFE is most used by military? I ask since I'm not a real pilot, either GA or military, and if so that could be an explanation. Then I'd ask myself why military choose QFE, and that's another question; I can speculate ground targets are on ground level and not on mean sea level (unless they are ships).

[Sierra99]

It is certainly not true that QFE has not been used since WW2. I spent my whole flying career in the RAF, and when I retired some 15 years ago it was still in general use. I am fairly sure that that is still the case. Even in the USA, QFE was generally available at many airfields, particularly military ones.

 

As a retired USAF aircrew member I can say we only used QFE in Europe. Stateside we used QNH. I.E. altimeter reads field altitude not zero.

[nessuno0505]

I do not see a problem, it's just a different reference plane, operationally it's identical except you use heights instead of altitudes.

 

We use QFE at GA fields zones, it's much nicer to fly at 1000ft AAL than at 1765ft AMSL.

 

Well I'm not a pilot but I tell you my educated guess, maybe someone can clarify my ideas:

If I have to land in bad weather maybe QFE is the most useful: it makes it easier to check my glideslope above the runway; but if I have to fly in bad weather, my first concern is not to crash on a mountain, and mountains are measured above mean sea level; it's easier if I set a QNH rather than calculate mountain's height above my airfield. Under transition altitude, the first concern of every pilot is not to crash on the ground, and it's easier to calculate ground altitude above mean sea level (it's written on every map!) instead of ground height above an arbitrary airport! I do not know if this is the reason why QNH Is the standard in general aviation, but It makes sense to me. Above transition altitude, I have enough air below me to be quite sure not to crash on the ground; now my first concern becomes not to crash against other airplanes; so I set standard 29.92 inches of hg (or 1013 hectopascal) and I'm fine since the others set it too.

This said, QFE seems to me the less useful and most complicated in the majority of situations; with QNH if I have to land I have my airport altitude on the charts and I do some easy maths, but can more easily avoid mountains.

Edited October 24, 2019 by nessuno0505

[nessuno0505]

I'm back on my topic since yesterday I took off from Nellis with an f-5 and ATC gave me QFE 29.78 but I could not set since minimum f-5 setting Is 29.81. How to deal with such situations? With a QNH this would not happen.

[Cab]

I'm back on my topic since yesterday I took off from Nellis with an f-5 and ATC gave me QFE 29.78 but I could not set since minimum f-5 setting Is 29.81. How to deal with such situations? With a QNH this would not happen.

 

It's been a long time, but I believe if you don't have QNH you can set airfield altitude in your altimeter before you takeoff and you should be close enough.

[Yeti42]

RAF military aircraft in Europe still use QFE for approach and pattern work. Here is an example of a Hawk doing and PAR approach and setting QFE:

[Chic]

Seems to me that QFE could be problematic if landing in an area remote from your takeoff point and at different altitude if you don’t know the QFE at the landing spot.

[=475FG= Dawger]

QFE is a pain and pretty dangerous for flying in the clouds. It is a throwback to the VFR only days of aviation and military, especially tactical, is mostly VFR or was until the generation of all weather magic weapons.

 

QNH is now the world standard and Russia was the last to adopt.

 

Not knowing current local pressure setting, no matter the reference point, is always problematic in instrument weather. When you can see the ground, the altimeter setting becomes largely irrelevant except to beginners, EXCEPT for traffic separation.

 

I never bother with altimeter settings in DCS. There is really no point is setting them unless one is doing hard IFR, and I don't do that. Even on servers with dynamic weather, it is never low enough to really worry about hitting the ground before you see it.

 

A big reason for altimeter setting discipline is traffic separation and there isn't enough traffic in DCS to worry about that and even if there were there are no controlling agencies.

 

Its a big sky.

[nessuno0505]

I know. I often leave the default 29.92 setting and don't care about, but since dcs Is a simulator sometimes you can have the desire to simulate, and check a setting Just for the Will to do It. Altimeter setting Is One of those.

[Chaogen]

To affirm what pmiceli and others have said, in a steam gauge 6 pack world, changing between QFE and QNH when your fields are on average 4500 ft MSL it is a real pain. Additionally switching between ISA Setting and QFE is painful too. With QNH, figuring out your pattern/circuit altitudes on a dial gauge is pretty easy. Just need to know the Field Altitude (which your map will have). QFE is dependent on getting an ATIS report/Contacting a tower before landing. And THAT QFE is only applicable to THAT airfield. In a place where most airfields are unmanned, QFE is almost unusable, and a bad practice to learn flying your approaches/circuits with. If you don't know the QNH setting you can always dial in your ISA setting and be close. All charts will have objects AMSL including the terrain elevation for mountains, peaks and obstacles. So honestly I see very little use for it, except maybe a zero-zero ILS approach if for whatever reason you don't have a radar altimeter and you cant do the math. Of course with all the modern glass cockpits and integrated GPS navigation this whole conversation becomes even less of an issue.