Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

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

If your careful plan is not looking good out of the window, surely you would climb further or turn around or something before it is too late?

In the absence of a horizon and seeing lower terrain beyond the pass, which is not possible until you turn NE, the ability to judge whether you will have terrain clearance is quite insidious.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Quite. He probably didn‘t REALIZE he was in danger of crashing until maybe half a minute (or less) before the crash occurred.

(The updated position info shows that he crashed fairly close to the actual pass summit).

It‘s likely all about human factors here.

Anyway, saddened about the loss of a forum mate. He did seem to be a pleasant guy and one that was willing to take other peoples‘ advice. But that of course doesn‘t mean one doesn‘t mistakes… particularly in unfamiliar territory.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

BeechBaby wrote:

Forgive me GIGICRET was he supposed to turn right into the valley towards Breithorn? Did he miss it or was his route to go further up from where he impacted?

why the Breithorn? The Breithorn is not here …

He must follow the road.
Swiss side the pass is quite close to the Rhone Valley and the climb is quite wide, but Italy is a long and winding valley.

Last Edited by Gigicret at 26 Aug 19:41
LSGS, Switzerland


The simplon pass from Italy… (Locarno to Sion)

the 2nd picture I just passed Domodossola
There I must be at about 9’000ft – 10’000ft

LSGS, Switzerland

boscomantico wrote:

(The updated position info shows that he crashed fairly close to the actual pass summit).

he had reached the pass summit, but probably not high enough. Then the pass is about 2 km from the horizontal with turns, then it descends but the valley is narrow and deep.

LSGS, Switzerland

boscomantico wrote:

If you put all this together, an NA Arrow does not climb AT ALL above 6000 feet MSL.

Is the Arrow really such a dog? After all, it is a 200 hp airplane and 2 adults and a baby even with baggage should not really get him in conflict with MTOW.

The POH prescribes 2700 RPM, 87 KIAS and Full Thottle for climb, it should be expected of anyone operating an airplane knowing the parameters for climb in the POH. With 30° OAT at take off and corresponding ISA + values, the POH indicates a climb from SL to 8500 ft to use abut 40 NM. So the airplane is certainly capable.

If someone flies the airplane outside its parameters such as 25/2500 noise power and does not add power in climb, his difference training was severely lacking.

However, unfortunately looking at the airspace structure and the way I read here flying is trained in Brittain, it does not really surprise if many folks don’t know how to operate an airplane above 2000 ft, as in most places that is as high as they go. Whether that qualifies them to attempt an alpine crossing is unfortunately not even only questionable but obvious from the accidents which has happened with people who did never do an alpine flying introduction.

The profile of the flight according to FR would suggest that he flew level for far too long at 6000 ft approx and only started climbing shortly before the pass. The Simplon requires 8500 ft safe crossing altitude, which means he would have needed to start climbing about 20 NM before the pass to overcome the 2500 ft he needed. But he never did climb or if he did, then way too late.

I don’t think this is a problem of the performane of the airplane, but rather the consequence of inadequate alpine flying tactics and the lack of corresponding instruction. Which brings back the question whether alpine flying really should be allowed for people who have no clue how to fly there. As far as I know only Switzerland and Austria mandate alpine introduction flights for PPL, maybe that is something which should change.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

You don’t need the Alps to learn how to fly above FL100, subject to airspace that can be done everywhere, also who wants that as part of an Arrow checkout? or PPL syllabus?

On how high an aircraft climb, I agree with Boscomantico, he flew an Arrow that got stuck at 6000ft, at the end that is all what matters for planing the rest of POH numbers and pilot claims does not (bit like finding the ceiling of your specific aircraft using your own specific technique and take it from there)

Last Edited by Ibra at 26 Aug 21:34
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

I don’t really follow this “max 6k” hypothesis.

I have had a PA28-161 at 11000ft, in Arizona where it was ISA plus quite a lot. I recall the temperature at 11k was just below 0C. We had full tanks. And a PA28R will go a lot better. The instructor leaned the engine for max CHT (yes, not kidding, max CHT) during the climb. I knew better but it was not my job to argue; I was there for the IR.

Even if you climbed the PA28R with all 3 fully forward (i.e. full rich, as most PPLs are taught, UK and most places) you will still reach a lot more than 6k. The only way to not go above 6k is if the throttle is not fully forward, but that would be really dumb.

Also he had burnt off a few tens of kg of weight since Lausanne…

Maybe the engine was not making rated power for some reason. That is not unusual.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

also who wants that as part of an Arrow checkout? or PPL syllabus?

Accident figures show that it should be part of both. Anyone who goes flying with a plane without having made himself familiar with what the plane can do has a problem. The reading and undestanding of the POH, in particular WnB and Performance section when it comes to this kind of questions is vital.

If I read some Pireps about deficient performance of many airplanes, I would guess about 90% of those deficiencies sit beween the pilots’ ears. Like Bosco said: 25 squared instead of reading the POH which mandates FT, 2700 RPM and full rich mixture (which I suspect might be the one item questionable) does not work. For the plane to reach its book performance it must be flown under the conditions the book prescribes, otherwise you are in testpilot territory.

Clearly, after a while you get to know your airplane and know how things are even outside the strict parameters, e.g. you know how it will operate with 2500 RPM and FT, you will know that it needs leaning, you will know what weights you can always take e.t.c But that does not replace reading the manual and making yourself familiar with what the manufacturer sais the plane can do. Sure, you need to verify that, but when you do, better do it right. I’ve more than once seen people complain about performance deficiencies which simply came from not reading the manual proplerly.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

RobertL18C wrote:

In the absence of a horizon and seeing lower terrain beyond the pass, which is not possible until you turn NE, the ability to judge whether you will have terrain clearance is quite insidious.

I was taught to cross mountain passes flying close to and parallel to the downwind ridge. That way:

a)It is way more evident if you will clear the pass
b) It is much easier and quicker to turn around if you find you will not clear

I only cross mountain passes straight down the middle when I have more than 1000ft clearance.I agree it is visually more difficult to figure in this way.

Antonio
LESB, Spain
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top