No really news about this very sad event, just to sum up information that have been given here and there (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/305325)
The best piece of information I have is from FR24 playback function (thanks MD), where we can see here: (https://www.flightradar24.com/2022-12-28/10:17/12x/FJHKN/2eac3b57 ) a unknown plane (FJHKN) of type “Trin”. This track from FLARM network shows a plane coming from west side of the valley (lac de Serre Poncon) coming to join a left hand circuit for R27 (as published) and correctly lands on LFMR, even beaconning on the apron.
As FLARM beacon is configured by the owner, you can set any reg, and this reg (FJHKN) is not existing on French published list.
It landed at 11h13 local time, not far from the crash time we don’t really know because airfield was desert and fire service have been called by external witnesses.
Crash site is just right short of the R09 displaced threshold, in a wood area between runway and road. We can extrapole that a plane taking off on R27 could have crahed here after an unwanted stall (engine failure complete or partial, mis-management, …). TB21 has all needed power to take off here (it has a turbo), even at MTOW. If this track has been recorded on the crashed TB21, it would mean that airplane crashed on TO.
It wouldn’t be the first one, a king air crashed near in 1986 after engine failure (plane crashed in the wood west of installation).
First communication (either hearsay I received 1hour after crash) said the plane crash landed here, it would mean that pilot attempted a landing on R09 that is not recommended and often contrary to prevalent wind, but it is not forbidden and happens.
Name of victims hasn’t been published but it seems to be a couple of people from Antibes, + 1 people in addition to the pilot. All suffers from heavy burns which made identification complex.
I don’t want to make this topic drift too much toward LFTZ, so it will be my last word on it, but for La Mole, Group2 aircraft (All but turbines kind and pistons over 5.7t) need only a pilots checked in the last 6months by a approved FI or flew there in the last 24 month on the same type. It’s less restrictive than a MOU rating for private pilots, but I agree to saying it should be okay for MOU rated ones.
For group 1 aircraft, it’s a totally different thing because – it’s my opinion- liability in case of casualties can fly very high given the weather status of passengers, so they want to ensure landing is safe.
the site qualification is very important to safety
MOU rating (which is valid in Megeve, Courch…) should be enough for La Môle, it does not have to be a “site checkout”?
I’ve never been to Barcelonette so I cannot compare, but in my experience with La Mole, unless you limit yourself to fully committed 24 arrivals and to 06 departure, the site qualification is very important to safety. I wouldn’t want people to read this thread and just try their luck 
I didn’t explained it correctly. You need to send a file to the airport operator when operating a jet in part Ncc, that has to be accepted. And since that crash I mentioned (that are due to the crew trying to land a cj3 on wet runway, too fast with rear wind and wrong landing performance calculations), citation are not allowed.
greg_mp wrote:
Now because of additional measures from DGAC, jets can’t land there if performance calculations doesn’t fit,
I thought that was always the case for all aircraft, measures from the DGAC or not!?
Or do you mean that part-CAT performance requirements now apply also for part-NCC ops at LFMR?
Aside from wind stated above, every year in August, one or two aircraft crash in Barcelonette (density altitude or flying low in calm days)
La Mole has nothing special, maybe challenging for jets? (slightly more than Calvi?), however, someone lobbied to get ride of pistons using “site rating”, it’s reserved for “aircraft with lot of $$$” (who cough money) and “local instructors” (who s*&#t mountain wisedom)
It’s not possible to fly to La Mole with Mountain Rating or with Mountain Instructors, you need the “local site check” & “local instructor” to sign you up, being able to land in Courcheval with MOU rating is not enough for La Mole? go figure !
Also, one can land microlights in many challenging altiports or altisurfaces without any authorisation, except La Mole that require special authorisation and currency 
The problem with la mole is more about jets, as it was the case case until a cj3 crash landed 3 years ago I think. Now because of additional measures from DGAC, jets can’t land there if performance calculations doesn’t fit, and that’s the reason why citation can’t land but falcon can.
Anybody with a SEP can easily land in la mole if weather permits.
From the tiny amounts of information available, I rather think they must have done the same thing I did, except they got airborne but were too low and flew into the trees. There is one recent report that suggests they were on 27 rather than 09 (as I was).
This is an airport that eats airplanes, and sadly also sometimes their pilots. Not just the airport itself but the surrounding terrain as people try to get into it.
It’s ironic that La Mole LFTZ, which is surrounded by flat terrain at sea level, needs special qualification, yet LFMR doesn’t despite its history.
I didn’t get any new from the 3 still-alive POB but they got burnt by the post-crash fire. There is one track on Flighaware about this last flight of the n229gc, but it doesn’t give any clue on what happened as recorded track vanishes once they arrived in the mountain area.
They probably survived because the trees did slow the plane down before it hit the ground. But then fire kicked in.
