Jacko wrote:
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.
I disagree very strongly, while defending the right of people who don’t hold an EASA mountain rating to express their opinions on the subject of alpine flying.What is “nonsense” is to fly in terrain by reference to any baro altitude. We sometimes determine and set approximate local QNH at our destination by reference to ground features, but our primary en-route reference is those ground features.
It is also nonsense to speculate as to the causes of an accident when, as a spokesman for police in the Swiss canton of Valais told The Telegraph: “It’s far too early to say what may have caused the crash.”
Flying at 6’000 is absolutely not absurd and is no problem, we do it every day.
We do not use anything other than the local QNH (using another baro setting does not make sense)
One of the first rules that we are taught is never to climb into a valley and always make sure you can turn around (so you need to have enough clearance, altitude and speed to be able to turn around).
Timothy wrote:
I have listened to the ATC at Sion and it gives almost no information.Some very woolly thoughts:
To me, he doesn’t sound “all there”. His first call is very unspecific about what he wants, the controller has to dig it out of him. Maybe a medical issue or distraction?
On leaving the frequency, he has to ask for the next frequency, which suggests a little too little planning?
But these are huge jumps from very little information.
Flying in the Rhone Valley can be destabilizing for someone who is not used to it …
I see he has made his way through the middle of the valley. Something we never do. The rule is to follow the right edge, much closer to the relief.
And yet, the day was very calm. In foehn weather (the name of a local wind), this can be a real washing machine.
I see he has made his way through the middle of the valley. Something we never do.
I only listened to the recording once and then rather briefly, as I was pressed for time, but I am fairly sure that Sion ATC instructed him to remain on the south side of the valley, which he clearly didn’t do.
I have not yet listen, but yes, that’s what we have to do, to not interfere with IFR departures. The TWR are pretty cool when there is not a lot of traffic
ATC were moderately busy with VFR and IFR traffic. Not rushed, but plenty going on.
We do not use anything other than the local QNH (using another baro setting does not make sense)
Agreed, but the issue is how we determine “local QNH” when flying, for example, from Annemasse to St Roch or Megève. We can only do this by reference to the terrain, not by the nearest (Geneva) ATIS which may differ by 10 hPa. The baro altimeter is not an accurate primary instrument for such a flight.
One of the first rules that we are taught is never to climb into a valley
And to make that flight we do climb into one of two valleys, so that’s a good general rule, but one which needs to be applied with common sense.
It has been suggested that we need compulsory “training” or “experience” to fly safely in the alps. I disagree. We need to exercise common sense and good judgment. Training can be a quick and easy way to sharpen these faculties, but where do we stop? To make it compulsory is as absurd as saying that people need “training” to wheel land a taildragger, or to execute wheel landings on water, or to fly a single seat helicopter…
Terrain in SD
As mention, SD could be wrong, way off. It’s just a pad for crying out load 
when flying in the mountains, only the eyes are good enough. I wouldn’t trust any other device, unless flying 1-2k above the highest peak at some distance. Maybe a military grade terrain radar would work, I don’t know, but none of those are installed in any GA plane that I know of
@Jacko I agree. Once you decide that any departure from the norm requires special training, where does that stop?
If you over-regulate, you start eroding the requirement for people to exercise judgement. And if you treat them like kids, they will behave like kids. If they cannot establish for themselves that there might be special considerations when flying in the mountains, and explore what those considerations might be and educate themselves, then should they really be in charge of an aeroplane at all? The problem then goes deeper, and one must ask should there be a thorough examination of those to whom we hand out licences? Note that this is a general point and not intended to infer that the accident pilot was lacking in such a way.
It’s like speed limits on the roads. By setting a (these days relatively low) speed that by law must not be exceeded under any circumstances, you are saying to drivers “you cannot be trusted to select an appropriate speed based on the road and the conditions”. So whaddayaknow, people stop thinking because someone else is making the decisions for them, then they lose control of their cars because they’re going too fast for the conditions and the first thing they shout is is “but I wasn’t speeding!”
Jacko wrote:
Agreed, but the issue is how we determine “local QNH” when flying, for example, from Annemasse to St Roch or Megève. We can only do this by reference to the terrain, not by the nearest (Geneva) ATIS which may differ by 10 hPa. The baro altimeter is not an accurate primary instrument for such a flight.
If there is 10 hPa between Annmasse and Megève, you will have other problems than your altimèrte!
In Switzerland, if there is more than 4 hPa between Lugano and Zurich, we are in foehn situation, it starts to shake well in the Alps, with 10 of difference I do not take off!
Of course, in VFR, you have to look outside. But when you arrive at Brig, it’s better to have enough altitude to pass the pass (pass that you do not see from Brig), your only indicator is your altimeter.
If you know the valley and you still have the security and the opportunity to come back, that’s fine.
But if you do not know the valley, if you’re stressed (a turn in a narrow valley is not easy for someone who has never done it), you can be trapped! Can not climb fast enough, low speed, no possibility to turn around …
Add that on the other side the weather can be very different, wind down, etc.
Require training? no, of course !
LeSving wrote:
only the eyes are good enough. I wouldn’t trust any other device
Yes, but an a moving map highlighting terrain can make it fairly obvious if you are about to turn into the wrong valley. It will be better at you at “strategic” navigation (because you can’t see through rock), but obviously the “tactical” (keeping away from the rock directly in front and on the sides) should be done with the eyes.
My friend in the French Air Force says that when you start flying really fast and low, you have to turn on the autopilot and ground following radar, but as you said doesn’t apply to most of us here.
