Aw, c’mon. Nobody was hurt. A Piper aircraft was slightly damaged. The world isn’t short of Pipers. People make mistakes – even very skilled and experienced pilots landing on long tarmac runways or big flat areas of water. 
If we take the attitude that GA pilots should stay so far within the envelope of “safe” flight as to eliminate all possibility of even such a minor fender-bender we might as well pile every floatplane, every skiplane, every acrobatic airplane, every helicopter, every Cub, Maule, Husky and microlight into a crusher and turn them into garden furniture or golf clubs.
Well, Jacko, I’d have to say I disagree in such a case.
If the facts are as denopa has related, then this flight was most probably illegal as neither had the site qualification been completed nor by the looks of it transition training to the PA46 for the guy who flew it. Those are factors which I’d regard as absolute no-go with passengers on board, let alone commercial flights.
Courchevel is one of the places where site qualification is not just some CYA rule but a real necessity. In fact, I sometimes wonder how it is possible to operate such an airport at all in Europe, I seriously doubt it would be possible in some European countries. And then it is right out stupid if someone creates an accident because he thinks the rules are for other people.
Cowboys like that give GA a bad name. Not too long ago, an accident on a German airfield on a hilltop caused that airfield to be permanently banned for visiting pilots after many decades of operation. That is the environment we are operating in today and it is each of our responsibility to see that we act professionally when we go fly.
I really don’t see how calling out a pilot for a flight which is both illegal and stupid can honestly be construed as advocating for pilots to stay far inside the safety enveloppe. Are you joking? Hard to say on a forum.
The problem is that it is close to impossible to get proper training for Courchel and the PA46. They will make you land on a C172 or something even slower and then it is up to the pilot to figure out how it might work out with a completely different aircraft. At least bits I saw in the video looked like he did apply the techniques they teach you to the PA46 which is a lot heavier, faster and more powerfull. I have plans to do the full mountain rating but so far I only found ways to do it on a taildragger and I fear after the training I best simply forget all they told me before using the rating on a PA46…
The pilot in the video came in quite fast and left the power untouched during the flare. Both things which they teach on the C172.
Good lord, Denopa, if true that is damning catalogue of errors and misjudgements, if ever there were one! I did the 5hr course at Courchevel in order to land there, and although I loved every minute of it, never used it in anger as the airfield is just too unforgiving of mistakes – let alone a list of them. I think that if Air France were indeed involved in that as a trial for a service in and out of Courchevel, I suspect that they now have their answer to that trial.
I haven’t seen you for ages – all well I trust?
@Sebastian_G: you could try to contact Alex Combes from Aéroclub des 3 Vallées. He used to operate from the Courchevel Altiport but is now stationed at Albertville. He can do the site license training on PC12, PA46, PA34 and some other types, so not specifically only on a C172. The mountain rating is done mostly in taildraggers (Jodel D.140 Mousquetaire).
We don’t know that the flight was illegal – or is that official now?
And if it was, we don’t know that the alleged illegality had much to do with the minor runway overrun.
The ship just came in a bit high for reason(s) as yet unknown, whereupon the pilot did exactly what he should have done, i.e. to land and make use of a pile of snow at the back of the platform.
Those of us who have bothered to get a Part-FCL mountain rating do know that Courchevel is one of the easiest and most forgiving altiports. We also see that folks (incl. Ryanair) have managed to slide off the end of Prestwick’s 3 km runway but nobody is wingeing complaining about closing it or the insurance premiums on their B737s.
As for our German friends restricting the use of an airfield due to just one GA accident – it ought to be hard to believe. Would that be the same government which allows unlimited speed on some roads, despite consistently second-rate road fatality statistics?
I don’t know what’s most annoying, you using derogatory words (“wingeing”) for no good reason at all, or completely missing the point many of us are trying to make.
heavier, faster and more powerful
We know from elementary physics that only “faster” is relevant to landing distance up a steep slope. Kinetic energy at touchdown and potential energy at the top of the slope are both proportional to mass.
Ignoring air resistance, the rough calculation of landing distance is trivial: µ = (((V^2)/(2*g))-H)/L where µ is tyre friction coefficient (close to zero on ice).
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend. I’ve changed it to “complaining”.
If I understand your point correctly it is that other pilots should not attempt something which you regard as moderately risky (but which others do with hardly a second thought) or anything which someone having neither authority nor proof says may be illegal. I understand those sentiments, but I do not share them.
My point is that in this particular accident, nobody was hurt or ever in danger of being hurt, and having (possibly) made some mistakes, or encountered some technical fault, the pilot acted correctly. It takes courage not to try to go around when you’ve screwed up an altiport approach.
I would sooner eat my aeroplane than use it for flying from one long flat tarmac city runway to another, but I’m not about to criticise anyone else who wants to do that. It’s a free country.
