Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

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

bosco wrote:

Also, I think it is technically impossible to set an altimeter to zero at an airport of more than 2000 feet elevation. So this is absurd for many reasons.

Indeed, talk of altimeter setting is absurd, not least because every pilot knows (from reading SERA, if not from his own common sense) that QNH varies so much in the mountains that we must apply a 2,000 ft safety margin when using an altimeter for terrain avoidance. So we are more or less condemned to look out of the window, no matter how boring the landscape of rocks and snow.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

172driver wrote:

As to the flight track and autopilot: can you load a route from SD into a G430 (or similar)?

It is possible by entering user waypoint by GPS coordinates. Not the most user friendly stuff to do, but definitely possible.

Last Edited by greg_mp at 27 Aug 18:59
LFMD, France

Yes, but nothing like the functionality GP or FF have

The FR24 tracks didn’t look like lateral+vertical autopilot usage. Lateral guidance is very obvious and is visible there, but his vertical profile was not IMHO smooth enough to be in ALT or VS mode.

Anyway he would not have had the IT expertise (or the sheer anorak determination) to transfer user waypoints from SD into a GNS430 or whatever.

Something else must have happened. I would bet on it involving a bit of IMC. Look at the webcam pic which shows some cloud around the peaks. There was AFAICT almost no wind (see the webcam pic, and the crash site pic) so little potential for downdraughts and such. And nobody who is awake is going to fly into terrain when they can see it. They might in a box canyon (it’s been done many times) but this one was plenty wide enough.

Both him and his wife appear to have had PPLs, but his wife sat in the back in the pictures which are out there. She did sit facing forwards so would have seen stuff happening ahead.

Of course he should have climbed higher earlier. He had tons of time and distance. But he would certainly have been resisting this due to not having oxygen, which is probably impractical with a baby anyway. This is the problem with the Alps. I have always flown straight over the top, FL140+, even when VFR (and got a load of grief from Swiss ATC) but he could not have done that. And what is called “mountain flying” (flying inside the canyons, below the level of the peaks) needs special skills, knowledge, training… Or a high performance plane and oxygen and then if you get lost you can climb up fast.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I am thinking an « Alps crossing » course would be very beneficial for many of us here. If a group is set up, I would definitely be part of it.

LFOU, France

That’s a very good idea. I’ll ask around!

always learning
LO__, Austria

Peter wrote:

But he would certainly have been resisting this due to not having oxygen, which is probably impractical with a baby anyway. This is the problem with the Alps. I have always flown straight over the top, FL140+, even when VFR (and got a load of grief from Swiss ATC) but he could not have done that. And what is called “mountain flying” (flying inside the canyons, below the level of the peaks) needs special skills, knowledge, training… Or a high performance plane and oxygen and then if you get lost you can climb up fast.

I doubt oxygen was a consideration and if so, then it shows only how deficient training is in places where airspace A to a few thousand feet rules. There is no need for oxygen in any of the alpine crossing VFR routes, as all of them are below 10’000 ft. Flying at 6000 ft in the Alps is simply nonsense and for me sympthomatic for someone who may well have spent his whole training below a lazy designed airspace scud running.

Personally I fly always as high as possible and reasonable, my normal cruise on any flight with my 180 hp airplane is between 7 and 10 k ft. Altitude means options, altitude means safety in terms of having time if something goes wrong and altitude means usually a smoother ride in better visibility. There really is no reason to fly 6000 ft in a valley, even one as big as the Valais.

Then comes the minimum crossing altitude, which is 8500 ft in this case. It should be known and planned in. There again was no reason whatsoever not to climb to that altitude after clearing the Geneva airspaces.

I do not buy the idea that the Arrow IV was not capable of going over 6000 ft, otherwise it is time to write to the FAA and cause an AD revising the POH. Similarly, unless the Arrow is really a dog of an airplane, I do not buy the idea it could not cruise climb at 100 kts as in the POH. In the Mooneys (with 180 hp and similar weight) we never climb Vy unless there is a real reason, the best for visibility and engine temps is a cruise climb at 25 square / 2500/FT with best power mix. I have several times climbed up to 12-14k ft like this without any problem.

There is one tiny bit of information which makes me think however. Apparently there was a withness statement in one of the papers that they saw two streaks of flame before impact. I am not sure how many powerlines or even wind power stations are up there, but I also saw them mentioned. I reckon, they collided with a cable or somewhat over the pass, we should learn about it fairly fast. But I would not count out that possibility at the moment, given that he was most definiltlly way below the minimum crossing height.

This crash hits home massively, as my family is in the exactly same configuration (albeit with a 3 year old) and I am really shocked for this to happen.

If this tragedy makes us think, this discussion will at least ensure that maybe some other people who lack mountain flying experience will go the same way. I hope so. I’ve crossed the alps many times VFR, with C150ties, PA28, PA34 and M20C and performance really never was a problem as long as I observed the operating procedures of the airplane and use the time available to climb. But unfortunately, accidents like this are way too common to ignore. Personally I think the obligatory moutain intro in force by Switzerland during PPL training is really worth every penny spent, it is not fool proof but it does give a basic knowledge of what it means to overfly this alpine chain.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Interesting note about the power line. This is the one going over the pass (in orange, with obstacle information in the box) and the red position marker on the right is an estimated location of the airplane according to someone on a Swiss forum, don’t know if that is correct:

Public map here: https://map.geo.admin.ch/?topic=ech&lang=en
You can search for “ICAO” to find the Sectional Chart, or for “Air navigation obstacles”.

Edit: If the pass was in IMC, as suggested by the webcam photo, maybe this was a too late 180° to avoid the clouds. But that’s pure speculation.

Last Edited by ArcticChiller at 27 Aug 20:23

Flying at 6000 ft in the Alps is simply nonsense

It sure is (in most places there, not all) but ask yourself what information sources were reasonably accessible to this pilot.

He didn’t have Swiss PPL training. He had UK PPL training, which doesn’t even qualify you to fly from Shoreham to Le Touquet! It does of course because you have a PPL but you won’t be able to rent a plane for such an epic trip unless you have a “cross channel checkout” (£500).

Say you do a search for “GAFOR” like e.g. this – a thread he started. How do you find out the minimum levels for each pass?

estimated location of the airplane

Is that map in feet or metres (elevations)?

The one time in my 18 years of flying that I think I could have got killed was flying with Swiss charts which had elevations in metres. Luckily I got any IMC out of the way over France, using the Jepp charts. Then changing to the Swiss charts, which mix feet and metres on the same bit of paper, I was in VMC but wondering why the cows look so big. Switzerland was not in the EU so with no farming subsidies the cows should have been normal size. I am certain many have died due to this (I am far from the only pilot who thinks that) but nobody would admit it even if the evidence survived the crash.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

As the crash site has about the same elevation as the pass it is conceivable that the pilot misunderstood the SD information (if he used SD) and/or the GAFOR reference altitude as being the recommended minimum altitude.

There was a discussion about GAFOR forecasts including Swiss route forecasts a year ago, actually initiated by jgmusic. In that discussion there was some confusion about the meaning of “reference altitude” and it appears that jgmusic did believe it was the minimum flight altitude!

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top