Welcome

Dear Joao,
Thanks for your comment.

Correct, Claudia!

Excellent article. I will add this problem to our educational program for ATC and pilots students in Aviation Meteorology subject. I will suggest to my colegues in the ATC/Pilots Simulation Center to add the procedure of the QNH check.
Well, the provision of barometric pressure by the local meteorological service to ATC is automated, so the human mistake is eliminated. The problem can occur in case of a bad setting of the altitude of the pressure sensor (or technical failure). We've had this problem in the past at the airport. The problem was solved after high-precision measurement of the position and altitude of the new meteorological garden by the National Geographic Institute experts.

I have a question:
Is there a significant error in the altimeter setting that can result in the incident?

Thank you all for the valuable comments

Hello Vastimil. We have Air Liquide PBE's in ours B350s in CAT, which is a compressed oxygen type PBE. You don't need DG approval to carry a PBE for crews in your B350. My understanding is that PBEs when shipped together via cargo for example are considered DG (UN 3072, CL9). But all safety devices to be used by crew members in an aircraft cannot be considered toward a requirement for DG approval. Hope this helps!

Hi,
I am dealing with a clarification about AMC3 CAT.OP.MPA.182 : the tab APPLICATION OF AERODROME FORECASTS (TAF AND TREND) TO PRE-FLIGHT PLANNING. As you know, you should consider gust for pre-flight planning.
Here is the case :
- the destination aerodrome is accessible considering TAF
- after take-off, an amedment of TAF is available and there is gust which would infringe pre-flight weather conditions.
In-flight, should gust be taken into account as for pre-flight planning ? In the example : does that mean that the destination is not accessible anymore ?