Antonio wrote:
a 30-min effort to read it thoroughly in French
I’ve read French accident reports using https://www.deepl.com/translator. It is much better than Google Translate.
Airborne_Again wrote:
https://www.deepl.com/translator
Never tried it. Thx for the tip! You still need 30 mins to read it thoroughly and validate your own conclusions.
The final BEA report is out. An English translation will follow later.
This is the crash that ultimately led to a tightening of the rules for obtaining site authorizations for altiports.
The report also talks about clarifying the roles of pilots sitting in the front row before flight.
Interesting read indeed.
The more so, having recently experienced the situation myself, the last paragraph:
Lors de la réalisation d’un vol sur un avion monopilote, le commandant de bord est responsable de la conduite et de la sécurité du vol. La présence d’un passager en place droite, lorsque celui-ci est un pilote plus expérimenté, voire un instructeur, est susceptible dans certains contextes d’altérer la gestion de certaines phases de vol. Le commandant de bord peut alors reporter une partie de son jugement sur la personne qui l’accompagne. La définition avant le vol d’une répartition claire des rôles de chacun et une prise de conscience commune que ce contexte peut être une menace potentielle pour la sécurité du vol peuvent permettre de diminuer les risques associés à cette configuration.
Deepl translation:
When flying a single pilot aircraft, the pilot in command is responsible for the conduct and safety of the flight. The presence of a passenger in the right seat, if the passenger is a more experienced pilot or even an instructor, is likely to change the management of certain flight phases in certain contexts. In such cases, the pilot in command may delegate part of his judgment to the person accompanying him. The risks associated with this configuration can be reduced by defining a clear division of roles prior to the flight, and by a shared awareness that this context may pose a potential threat to flight safety.
A very interesting report but somehow I feel it misses the final explanation. Sure the training could have been more detailed, sure the cockpit cooperation was not good etc. I received the Courchevel theoretical training twice from two instructors and the very first thing they tell you is to do the turn to final at 7000ft. They will complain in flight if you are off by 100 feet.
Many things can go wrong but this final approach failed even before it did start. How could the pilot forget about the correct altitude?
The differences to the training I have witnessed is that usually they will insist on doing it on two days, which might help to get more used to the procedure. Also the instructor I had did recommend strongly for occasional visits to never fly directly into base as on this flight. Better do the full procedure passing Lima and overhead. This means you actually fly at a steady stabilized altitude of 7000ft for a while which helps to take out the speed and “settle in”.
Sebastian_G wrote:
Also the instructor I had did recommend strongly for occasional visits to never fly directly into base as on this flight. Better do the full procedure passing Lima and overhead. This means you actually fly at a steady stabilized altitude of 7000ft for a while which helps to take out the speed and “settle in”.
No mountain pilot would ever fly directly into base for an approach to an altiport without a go around option. Always check the runway, wind conditions, etc. There are often even multiple overflights to pick up all the information. This also helps to make known that you are going to land soon.
Thomas_R wrote:
No mountain pilot would ever fly directly into base for an approach to an altiport without a go around option.
I do not do it but at Courchevel this is actually quite common when AFIS is operating. So the idea is probably that AFIS will relay the information otherwise gained by flying over the field and the airfield likes it as it reduces the noise. Also Courchevel AFIS is watching very closely at all times when operating. So this probably can not be compared to an unattended mountain strip. But still flying over the field only costs 3-4 minutes extra, so we always do it.
I think also to get your head into the optical illusions(?) you will get.
Eg flying into Megève the slope tends to descend as you descend..I don’t know about others on here but I found the visual picture strange the first time. I was instructed to think of it as a glide slope and put the ground out of your mind. For me that was difficult for the first few times and had to constantly make sure I was not too fast.
At some altiports a go around is absolutely discouraged which is why you need to get the whole picture in your head before making the final approach.
Not an Altiport (but still a hilly area) there is a reminder in a recent REX of why you need read all the information on the VAC during planning.
At Avignon a pilot recently had a bad experience because of the direction and of the wind over the hills which he hadn’t taken notice of on the VAC. He hit his head so hard on the canopy that he broke the plexiglass and he considered himself lucky to get away with only that.
Sebastian_G wrote:
I do not do it but at Courchevel this is actually quite common when AFIS is operating. So the idea is probably that AFIS will relay the information otherwise gained by flying over the field and the airfield likes it as it reduces the noise. Also Courchevel AFIS is watching very closely at all times when operating. So this probably can not be compared to an unattended mountain strip. But still flying over the field only costs 3-4 minutes extra, so we always do it.
Hmm…when I landed in Courchevel in summer there was no AFIS present, even though it was well within the “opening” time. I would find it difficult to trust relayed information by someone on the ground in mountain ops. But you are right, Courchevel is of course different to an altisurface and the AIP also mentions flying into base with “AFIS open”. I still would fly the whole procedure to get a good look at what’s going on 
gallois wrote:
Eg flying into Megève the slope tends to descend as you descend..I don’t know about others on here but I found the visual picture strange the first time. I was instructed to think of it as a glide slope and put the ground out of your mind.
I think the key is to focus on your aiming point and not on the terrain in front of it. Of course, hitting the terrain in front of it should still be avoided, and especially in Megève, there are some high trees in front of the runway 
