Clipperstorch wrote:
It certainly can’t teach the weakness of every type of airplane.
Lower performance (and greater TAS/IAS difference) at higher altitudes is not a weakness of a particular type of airplane. It is a property of every airplane (even turbonormalised if you get high enough).
It’s easy to fly up til FL100. It is impossible to find an airport with DA even 5000 feet in most of Europe.
I’d never flown higher than required for spinning, but had flown in valleys. At 47 hours solo I was allowed to rent at Grand Junction, KGJT, 4,800’, Colorado with a 1h 50m checkout flight, in July. Affect of density altitude on a C150 was obvious.
I’ve never flown in the Alps, but have flown in high valleys in the US.
Perhaps an unfamiliarity with the cockpit view below the hills is a feature common to several accidents.
Airborne_Again wrote:
What should be in the EASA PPL as a general requirement is to fly at some point to at least FL100 (or the service ceiling of the aircraft, if less) to experience the performance differences. This would also have a positive psychological effect.
I agree.
Peter wrote:
I have overflown the Alps at FL150 or so, VFR – in places where ATC let you, so probably not CH. But even in CH I was doing it at FL129 – good for photos
For pure overflight I fully agree.
The idea which I heard several times after accidents like this one was to make the use of the passes (valley flying) dependent not on a rating but introduction. In most places that would mean a special regulation area SFC/10000 ft approximately. Those who wish to navigate through the mountains need a similar training as what is done in AT / CH (2 alpine training flights) with a designated CFI. If you don’t have that, fly over the special rules area ft or around the mountains.
Clipperstorch wrote:
I don’t really see a point in that. When I did that after the PPL, the CD-135 pulled the Cessna just as bad towards the sky at FL95 as at 3kft. What I learned was: TAS is a thing and to get back down to 1000 ft takes a while. Safety wise nothing.
No but psychologically it is something a lot of flat land pilots never get to do. Consequently many are scared above 2000 ft or so, never really use the full potential of their airplane and are generally misled about the aspects of flying higer. Most GA planes have their sweet spots at 7-8k ft. Operating full Rich at 2000 ft is simply stupid unless airspace demands it. Apart, the introduction to any airplane type should include as much performance samples as possible. Flying near service ceiling is a vital skill which can save your life.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
No but psychologically it is something a lot of flat land pilots never get to do. Consequently many are scared above 2000 ft or so,
That is true. We had a thread about that .
I can also confirm personally that – having spent most of my flight time below 3000 ft – going higher feels unusual and certainly somewhat scary, regardless of my brain being perfectly aware of the fact that altitude also gives you more time to act in case of an engine failure, among other benefits like higher TAS.
Though, knowing how the human brain works, I’d blame that mostly on “visual altitude above the ground”, so if you fly over a valley floor at 6000 ft where the valley is at 3000 ft, this effect should be less pronounced than when flying at 6000 ft over East Frisia where the ground is at 2ft.
Most GA planes have their sweet spots at 7-8k ft. Operating full Rich at 2000 ft is simply stupid unless airspace demands it.
If you are after TAS in NA SEP that is where action happens but you need long cross-country leg for that?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The idea which I heard several times after accidents like this one was to make the use of the passes (valley flying) dependent not on a rating but introduction. In most places that would mean a special regulation area SFC/10000 ft approximately. Those who wish to navigate through the mountains need a similar training as what is done in AT / CH (2 alpine training flights) with a designated CFI. If you don’t have that, fly over the special rules area ft or around the mountains.
These two flights are just slightly above worthless imho. And if in times of fantastic planning tools on tablets, terrain awareness views, 3D views etc.. someone still bimbles towards a pass at its altitude instead of +1000/ +2000 feet above, then nothing else will help.
Perhaps some well composed and voluntary e-learning training hosted by EASA, reminding pilots that it’s been a year or two since they last watched it, would be helpful.
Doing such trainings could even get one some credit for rating revalidation etc.. similar to FAA wings program.
A short, 20 minute course, specifically on crossing the alps, highlighting GAFOR reference altitudes, best practices etc… would have done the trick.
MedEwok wrote:
I can also confirm personally that – having spent most of my flight time below 3000 ft – going higher feels unusual and certainly somewhat scary, regardless of my brain being perfectly aware of the fact that altitude also gives you more time to act in case of an engine failure, among other benefits like higher TAS.
For me it’s the opposite. The higher the better for all the reasons you mention.
MedEwok wrote:
Though, knowing how the human brain works, I’d blame that mostly on “visual altitude above the ground”, so if you fly over a valley floor at 6000 ft where the valley is at 3000 ft, this effect should be less pronounced than when flying at 6000 ft over East Frisia where the ground is at 2ft.
It’s also about best use of equipment. Most NA airplanes are most efficient between 7 and 10k ft, some even slightly above that. In any case, the higher you are, the better your options in case of cases.
Ibra wrote:
If you are after TAS in NA SEP that is where action happens but you need long cross-country leg for that?
Not really. With a 180 hp or larger engine you climb to 7-8k ft within a fairly short time. Almost always worth it if you have more than say 30 mins of cross country. For longer flights I usually would climb as high as airspace or oxygen allows. I’d rather have air below me than above me.
Apart, the higher you are the less other small GA traffic to hit.
With a 180 hp or larger engine you climb to 7-8k ft within a fairly short time.
You spend 10min not moving forward 
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Not really. With a 180 hp or larger engine you climb to 7-8k ft within a fairly short time. Almost always worth it if you have more than say 30 mins of cross country. For longer flights I usually would climb as high as airspace or oxygen allows. I’d rather have air below me than above me.
Ibra wrote:
You spend 10min not moving forward
So I made a few calculations using SD for a PA-28-181 in zero wind conditions. You can see that for a short flight with high power setting you’d better stay low. In other cases you better go high. Of course for all except the longest flights with low power setting, it is much more important to choose the cruise level with the most favourable wind. (Blank entries mean either that the given power is not available or that you have to start descending before reaching the cruise level.)
Airborne_Again wrote:
You can see that for a short flight with high power setting you’d better stay low. In other cases you better go high.
Good table! Yes, this is what I meant. 50 NM is very short indeed so it is actually almost a parabola to climb high there. At 100 NM time enroute is almost identical throughout while with 150 NM the advantage of going high is clearly visible.
Another interesting table for this would be to actually calculate out the fuel used for each variant.
In the old days, I recall POH’s which had a table or graph in it where the optimum flight level would be indicated vs distance and weight. I can’t recall what the “optimum” was based on but reckon it had to do with flight time and consumption. I found those tables pretty neat and very practical.
Ibra wrote:
You spend 10min not moving forward
LOL, well, Mooneys climb good but not vertical. That ’s why it is time, fuel and distance…
But you have a good point as obviously with NA engines, distance will increase massively the closer you get to the service ceiling.
