Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Piper Arrow G-BVDH down on the Simplon Pass in Switzerland

Peter wrote:

Working out safe altitudes for passes is not that easy.

What is the problem? Pass altitude plus 1500 ft. MSA. Period.

Why do Switzerland and Austria go to the trouble to publish charts where exactly this information is printed on if nobody spends the equivalent of 4 flying minutes to look at them? The information is there, including the best and safest routes through the alps. And most software allows to load that chart and it can be viewed for FREE here

If altitude is a concern, don’t cross the Alps or cross them at the lowest possible routes. Incidently, Simplon is one of the lower routes with 8300 ft MSA. Of course the Brenner is lower with 6000 ft MSA.

Snoopy wrote:

Surely, he must have checked to be above any terrain enroute However, for some reason, he came to the pass at its elevation, and not above. It looks very much like he was convinced the GAFOR ref provides a safe altitude, and maybe the fact that a lower altitude was preferred due to the baby helped create this misunderstanding. We see what we want to see.

Being based in Austria you certainly also have heard local pilots and regulators muse if it was not better to declare the whole alpine region a restricted area GND to FL150 for which passage a mountain introduction is required. Reading some of the stuff here, I might reverse my opposition to such ideas.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Clearly, with a baby you’d try to descend shallow.

Yes. Increasing pressure affects the ears more than decreasing pressure.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Tons of kids go up with cable cars to heights well beyond 10’000 ft and nobody thinks anything. For me, going up the Titlis in a cable car was noticable at 11000 ft AMSL and higher DA but I’ve never experienced a similar sensation in an airplane, even well beyond 10’000 ft for short times.

Sure you are talking rational but again it’s something extra you need to explain to your partner when taking 6 weeks baby into SEP at FL120 (you may find they are reluctant about 3kft), anyway, it’s likely the reason why they did not cross at FL100-FL120, no issues with clouds, airspace, performance…

Last Edited by Ibra at 27 Nov 08:18
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

I flew over the Simplon Pass dozens and dozens of times during the 10 years I was based in Switzerland. I had an aircraft based at Sion, but did my maintenance in Locarno on the other side of the Alps. Always observed the 8,500 minimum altitude before entering the pass and kept strictly tight to the right side of the pass – a) because we were taught always right side when I trained there and b) very tight to the side in case there was a sudden need to do a 180 and turn back.

After the first few trips I increased my comfortable altitude to 10,000 ft as I once encountered incredible turbulence after crossing southwards and in between the ridges that the pass transitions to there, caused by wind flowing over the peaks from the north and creating an intense down flowing rotor.

I mention this, not to criticise the pilot in question (I don’t know what factors he was trying to take into account), but to pass on some local knowledge as lots of people seem to be reading this thread.

I know that in the US they talk about flying the upwind side of the valley, but I never heard that in hundreds of hours of Alpine flying. Everyone flies right side there, and it really pays to fit into the flow. Consider Sion for example – there are dozens of mid to large size business jets blasting out of there every day, you certainly don’t want to be on an unexpected side of the valley as a G5 climbs out at 3,500 fpm. Swiss Airforce F18s and Tigers there too.

Another thing to consider is that heading from Switzerland towards Italy over the Simplon, you pass from “relatively” benign Swiss valleys and the pass itself where you have a chance of making a survivable off field landing to the most incredibly hostile terrain. The valley that runs eastward from the pass has extremely steep sides ending in a sharp V river bottom. There is absolutely nowhere to put a plane down until you get to Domodossola. Altitude is your friend, even if it means (illegally) sucking 12,000 ft air for a few minutes.

Lastly, the weather is usually quite different on the two sides of the southern Alpine range (which the Simplon crosses). Often clear on the Swiss side and cloudy on the Italian side, or in situations of high pressure very smoggy stratus on the Italian side. If VFR, you have to be prepared to turn around unexpectedly.

Last Edited by Buckerfan at 27 Nov 11:09
Upper Harford private strip UK, near EGBJ, United Kingdom

well, reading Buckerfan’s post above finally prompted me to write a few line on the subject as well

Which side of a valley does one choose? Right side we are taught, same as on the road… why, yes for traffic avoidance reasons. Some of those valleys are pretty narrow, and if each traffic sticks to his right side the risk is minimised.
Do people stick to this? Hopefully not! I’ve had the privilege of flying the Alps a few times myself, and crossing them in a heavily laden spam can or a modestly motorised Cub presents challenges of their own. More than a few times one has to fly on the upwind, or sunny side of the valley, just to reach some sufficient altitude for a safe passage thru the next col.
Even when flying the Alps in a hi-perf SEP such as mine, one will choose the upwind side of the valley in windy conditions, thereby avoiding uncomfortable and still threatening rotors from the lee side of said valley.

Re the area of Sion, if radio contact is made with ATC, or one stays outside the TMAs and CTR, the risks of meeting the Airforce or biz jets is pretty small. Locals will fly either side of the wide Rhone valley at will.

A final word, respect. Respect the weather, the aircraft’s limitations, and above all, oneself’s limitations.

Dan
ain't the Destination, but the Journey
LSZF, Switzerland

… and one more factor which hasn’t been mentioned nowhere in this thread (hope I’m true ).

Loss of visual horizon
For a VFR pilot the horizon line usually is clearly visible. The more so for people used to fly in flat countries…
Performing a 180° turn, on the verge of stalling, under stress, maybe in turbulences, anxious passengers, down in a narrow valley, and no horizon but the jagged contours of the peaks and near vertical faces around you. Now there is a challenge…

Dan
ain't the Destination, but the Journey
LSZF, Switzerland

Ibra wrote:

Sure you are talking rational but again it’s something extra you need to explain to your partner when taking 6 weeks baby into SEP at FL120 (you may find they are reluctant about 3kft), anyway, it’s likely the reason why they did not cross at FL100-FL120, no issues with clouds, airspace, performance…

The recommended altitude was above 8300 ft. That is a huge difference to FL120. And as his wife was a pilot her self, such discussions should go in the direction that are we doing this flight or not. If there is a concern above 3000 ft, then personally I would take the consequence and not fly at all until the baby has grown up sufficiently that there is no more issue with that. 3000 ft is an altitude which may be fine in the Netherlands or some parts of the UK, but not many other places allow that.

I am well aware that new babies are a challenge to flying, hence my hiatus for now 6 years exactly for that reason. But pressure issues were never even part of the thought process. However, many new mothers tend to change their attitude towards stuff they used to love to do dramatically with the arrival of a child. Well, this may well lead to having to stop flying for a few years.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Great post @Buckerfan

even if it means (illegally) sucking 12,000 ft air for a few minutes.

No worries, it’s legal too.

NCO.OP.190 Use of supplemental oxygen
Regulation (EU) 2016/1119

(a) The pilot-in-command shall ensure that all flight crew members engaged in performing duties essential to the safe operation of an aircraft in flight use supplemental oxygen continuously whenever he/she determines that at the altitude of the intended flight the lack of oxygen might result in impairment of the faculties of crew members, and shall ensure that supplemental oxygen is available to passengers when lack of oxygen might harmfully affect passengers.
(b) In any other case when the pilot-in-command cannot determine how the lack of oxygen might affect all occupants on board, he/she shall ensure that:
(1) all crew members engaged in performing duties essential to the safe operation of an aircraft in flight use supplemental oxygen for any period in excess of 30 minutes when the pressure altitude in the the passenger compartment will be between 10 000 ft and 13 000 ft; and
(2) all occupants use supplemental oxygen for any period that the pressure altitude in the the passenger compartment will be above 13 000 ft.

always learning
LO__, Austria

Yes, great post @Buckerfan. Nothing to add.

@Snoopy already mentions that there is nothing wrong with going between 10 and 13kft for a short time <30mins.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland



always learning
LO__, Austria
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top