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?
He sounds normal to me. ATC is hard to make out in this case, if not a local/native speaker. This is someone who is not flying past Sion all the time.
On leaving the frequency, he has to ask for the next frequency, which suggests a little too little planning?
I would do the same, because it is far safer to do that than to call up some frequency on a chart which may not be staffed, etc.
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.
He was probably a bit nervous about flying too close to the rocks 
in Sion at 6’000 ft impossible to get in touch with GVA info 126.35
Interesting why they suggested he calls them?
We need to exercise common sense and good judgment.
I agree; this is not rocket science. When flying, you can see if you will clear the terrain ahead with some margin, or not.
I suspect this pilot was not aware of the required minimum altitude, otherwise it would have made sense to climb to it before entering the pass.
Peter wrote:
I suspect this pilot was not aware of the required minimum altitude, otherwise it would have made sense to climb to it before entering the pass.
I can’t believe anyone intelligent would set out to cross an alpine pass without making sure they know the altitude they would require to clear the highest ground on the route?
Are there any external factors (airspace, d/r/p areas) that necessitate to fly in 6000 feet?
How old was the baby? A quick google search reveals max. 1500m recommended for babies up to 4 months and 2500m thereafter. Obviously rates of climb/descend should be as low as possible to avoid ear pain.
When I zoom in on foreflight to this gafor route there is a vfr transit route with the same track that is labeled „8300ft recommended“. If I see this during flight planning prep I would plan at least 9500ft, maybe even 10500ft for that area.
The question is if there is some mixup between gafor reference altitude and vfr transit route recommended altitude.
The austrian gafor reference altitude is the highest known (!!!) obstacle (beware of non reported material cable car installations) on the route + — 600 Meters left and right. I’d treat a reference altitude of 8300 as having a 9200 foot obstacle due to altimeter setting variation/low pressure/temperature. As has mentioned here before, eyes out is primary means of avoiding terrain, but what one has to know doing this is that flying over mountains can create illusions of your distance/height over terrain, and you can maneuver yourself into a spot where once you realize you are too low it is too late and you are dead, you just don’t know it yet – (eg due to radius of turn too large too abort). Following ridges/mountains outside during a turn is also deadly because you do not have a flat horizon, so might get the illusion that the terrain is lowering due to a lowering contour outside and follow down a mountain ridge instead of flying a turn without descending using your horizon.
I don’t like flying close to terrain in the alps. Especially not in a fast touring airplane. Sure, in a 70kt motorglider, when all your training has been on this plane out of some local airfield in the alps and you know every topographic detail by heart (complemented by having hiked/skid/toured it on foot) it’s ok to venture around the valleys. But touring in anything faster over wide areas of this region it’s better to look down and keep it simple. Just look at how narrow some turns on these Gafor routes are… and follow them on google earth, every valley looks the same to the untrained eye. They are a nice guidance to have when flying up high, to have the lowest terrain underneath. Anything else where terrain is thousands of feet above one on both sides is not for me. Climb up to 9500+ feet: The amount of things you can hit there is vastly reduced and much easier to manage than at 6000.
Edit:
I sit here at home, my few month old baby and my 3 year old beside me. This accident, whatever caused it, really upsets me.
I would like to offer anyone: if you need a second opinion or some assistance on planning flights, (especially with your kids/family/friends) please reach out and I will tell you what I think. You might not like
it, but it might save a life. I’m sure many others on here who are even more experienced will do the same.
I can’t believe anyone intelligent would set out to cross an alpine pass without making sure they know the altitude they would require to clear the highest ground on the route?
I agree, but various things are possible with chart interpretations.
Take for example this one where the pilot descended to 6500ft, inexplicably. My explanation is that he was using the SIA chart which shows “6500” in just the right place. I emailed this to the BEA investigator (twice, he acked it the 2nd time) but the BEA totally ignored the possibility of their “most official VFR chart” being misleading 
Then you can have total huge cockups, like the one I posted about the old Swiss charts having some elevations in metres.
So maybe this pilot saw something somewhere and misinterpreted it. It is a fair explanation for his very leisurely climb to 6000ft.
1500m recommended for babies up to 4 months and 2500m thereafter.
What does one do about airline travel, with ~8000ft cabins?
Peter wrote:
I suspect this pilot was not aware of the required minimum altitude, otherwise it would have made sense to climb to it before entering the pass.
Yes, to make that pass while on touring and entering at that height is a big planning error
On a good days, one will be tempted to descend and have some scenic views but better to try that at beginning with backtracking to climb as option or at the end of the valley when you are clear of terrain to rely on your eyes, to those who have done this pass very low how reliable those SD maps vs the real life?
Peter wrote:
but the BEA totally ignored the possibility of their “most official VFR chart” being misleading
Stuff like this needs to be collected and published, even better widely circulated among pilots, especially those that are prone to use this chart.
Peter wrote:
What does one do about airline travel, with ~8000ft cabins?
People are stupid and don’t care. It’s not only low pressure but also radiation that’s a concern (to me, at least).
8000 is the maximum allowed. Most newer jets will be around 6000.
It was, in the D-ESPJ thread, but didn’t get a particularly enthusiastic reception
EuroGA does have a pretty big readership.
If this investigation is thorough, they will try to establish what charts were used, and perhaps even ask his colleagues about his briefing methods. I know the D-ESPJ investigators got stuff off the pilot’s Ipad and found all kinds of things there, but IIRC nothing was remarked on. There are also his 281 posts.
While the following is most unlikely to have any bearing on this terrible tragedy, I’d like to remind UK based Alpine visitors who are likely to be SD users of an SD ‘gotcha’ that I reported a couple of months ago.
SD makes a lovely display of the GAFOR routes, something very useful in the ‘turning into the right valley’ aspect of Alpine flying. Unfortunately, these beautifully portrayed routes disappear the moment you enter ‘flight mode’ in SD! This is something you might not realise until actual departure, as in my case, and is perplexing to overcome in flight. Fortunately on my day I had gin clear weather, a Warrior happy to sail along at 10,000’ or more and a ‘live’ SD backup, not in flight mode, still displaying the GAFORs that I could refer to.
Not throwing stones at the wonderful SD, but it would be nice to see this bizarre behaviour eliminated.
Bloody hell…
