| By Capt. Savas Uskent Airline Commander & Aviation Author ATP/CFI, Next Generation Boeing 737/800, Boeing 737/400-500, Airbus 310/300-200, BAe146/100-70 (Avro-100), Challenger 601-3A, Learjet-60, Learjet-55C, Learjet-35A, Aerospatiale Caravelle SE210, Gruman's S-2 http://www.geocities.com/uskent The following article may freely be used in your press printed or inter/intra net publications solely for training/teaching purposes provided kept intact, the by-line included. An email of notice is appreciated. Other intentions of usage are subjected to further clearance of the author. February 09, 2003 Copyright @ 2003 By, Savas Uskent THE IMPORTANCE OF QFE OPERATIONS WITHIN EX-USSR AREA Availability of suitable airports within an hour reach of single engine flight regimen of todays jetliners, scattered over ex-USSR territories, indeed are not scarce. Furthermore, as we consider 120, 180 or 207 minutes ETOPS criterions, the number of suitable airports increase tremendously. When appropriate protocols are signed with local authorities, selected airports may be kept on standby for 24-hour basis, serving as enroute emergency alternates as necessary. Unfortunately approach informations related to most of the ex-USSR airports are not available in Jeppesen sets except the major hubs. To put my cause in easily understood language, I would like to touch on "authority vs responsibility vs priority" concept as the first step. "Pine tree" or "conical" type of responsibilities, authorities and priorities play a basic role in the course of international flight operations. At "the scene of action", all of those come under the direct responsibility of Captain in Charge (Commander in JAR, PIC) of the related jetliner. Once a pilot is assigened as a Commander, CIC or PIC in his/her company fleet, he/she gains the ultimate emergency authority for every matter on board, nevertheless undertakes the responsibility as well. As an example, suppose that you are assigned as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of your company. No body can say; " well, what do you know, who you are!" can he? Instead, they say "he is the one from whom I can get my answer for my problem, he/she is my CEO". Similarly a "Captain In Charge", "Pilot In Command" or in JAR terms "Commander", once assigned, has always got the ultimate responsibilty and authority on every matter effecting his/her "safe flight operation" throughout airspace and on ground. There is no way out, no way to avoid from those responsibilities for a captain in charge. The local laws of the countries within the whole flight operations area of an airline are always there. In case of a mistake, there is no apology for a misconduct of local regulations. "Priority of Responsibilities" are not limited to but can be summarized as the following: 1. Related laws and regulations of country of aircraft registry. 2. Related laws and regulations of countries of overflight and landing. 3. Related laws and regs of country of operator. 4. Requisitions as set forth in aircraft manuals of manufacturers. 5. Company FOMs (Flight Operation Manual). 6. Fleet SOPs (Standart Operations Manual). 7. Related bulletins, notams, etc. You can make additions to the above priority of responsibilities, nevertheless you should never forget the reality of the QFE operation requirement below the transition level, as you make an emergency divert to one of the remote airport within an hour (or certified ETOPS criterion time) reach of single engine flight regimen. As far as today's operations concerned, while some major ex-USSR airports may clear you for a "QNH on request" arrival, the altimetry below transition level for approaches in great majority are in QFE only (mandotary). The transition levels in those countries are not FL180. Transion levels are issued by ATCs. When you operate in US, Canada, Far East, Middle East, Europe (JAR area) and etc, as you're cleared below transition level you can easily get a clue from your ATC clearence. ( e.g. " leave Flight Level 190, descend 4000 feet by the QNH 1008" ). In ex-USSR region, you hear levels in meters above transtion altitude (TA) and you continue to hear in meters below transition level (TL) as well. In that case, there are no clues for you. (e.g." leave 3000 meters descend 1200 meters in QFE 963" ). Today, particularly for the airline pilots, operating deep in the jet-routes over ex-USSR countries or on polar routes, competency in QFE operations is of utmost importance. To that end,correspondence of fleet SOPs with the requisitions of local authorities and regulations is quite beneficial. The importance of QFE training for related pilots is so important and can not be overlooked. As far as flight safety concerned, during emergency diverts to remote ex-USSR airports, setting QFE below TL is of vital importance. Let's set up a scenario for a QNH operation during an emergency approach in IMC to an unfamiliar ex-USSR airfield; As you cruise on your assigned level enroute, you get a cabin fire that persists, or an engine fire or failure, or a multiple hydraulic systems failure that forces you to make a decision to divert to a nearest suitable airport. This shall be an approach to an unfamiliar ex-USSR airport in IMC, and you somehow provided a QNH value to set at TL. If there is no jeppesen chart of the diverted airfield in your hand, or if there is one but without a proper QNH conversion, field elevation must be added to ATC cleared altitude (in meters) converted from meters/feet convertion table. Otherwise the airplane shall go below actually cleared altitude. The margin of error in this scenario, exactly equals to the field elevation in MSL (Mean Sea Level). Any increase in field elevation in MSL, increases chances of jeopardy or a CFIT accident in IMC. As the duress of emergency, workload density, unfamiliarity to approaching airfield in IMC all come together, chances of an undesired CFIT may not be so remote. Thinking of the same scenario on a QFE operation, you should continue using the converted meters/feet values from conversion tables on the condition that QFE set At TL. No additions of airport elevations required. Assuming an error of "QNH set at TL" in a QFE operation during emergency divert scenario, the result shall be "staying high equal to field elevation". No lives shall be hurt. Unfortunately, vertical or profile flight management systems (FMS) of most of the today's airplanes, those I have flown so far, have been designed for QNH operations only. Naturally, under this condition most pilots tend to use QNH values below TL. Just in the name of being able to set QFE values below TLs, required by local regulations, pilots have been compelled to use vertical speed (V/S), Level Change (L/C) and classic HSI procedures only, even switching off the terrain warning system. If you are curious of my opinion, I believe, there should be many ways of incorporating a QFE option in softwares of related Flight Management Systems of today's favorite jetliners. A simple cursor asking pilots for their options on " QNH or QFE ?" for instance. Never forget; once you set QFE at TL, you'll see absolute altitude underneath you. This shall ease your duress of emergency, increase your situational awareness of "remaining distance/remaining altitude", as you approach to an unfamiliar ex-USSR airport in IMC. The importance of QFE training and operations is self evident and must not be overlooked. Let flight safety keep loving hearts together. By, Captain Savas Uskent Airline Captain & Aviation Author February 9, 2003 Copyright (c) 2003 Commander Pilot, ATPL/CFI Next Generation Boeing 737/800, B737/500-400, Airbus 310/300-200, BAe146/100-70 (Avro 100), Learjet-60, Learjet-55C, Learjet-35A, Challenger 601-3A, Caravelle SE-210, Grumman's S-2 http://www.geocities.com/uskent uskent@yahoo.com |
 |
 |
 |