Frans wrote:
It is funny to read how often “the Alps” become a kind of myth around European (GA) pilots
I think it’s a correlation with the amount of brits here. The same goes for crossing the English channel. Elsewhere people routinely cross larger stretches of water in much worse weather condition and climate on a regular bases without giving it a notice.
But, the Alps is sort of “crown prince of mountains” only surpassed by the Himalayas, and perhaps the Andes.They are not like “any mountain range”. However, the main difference is the altitude of the peaks. Here in Norway, the CAA has said that mountain flying courses are unnecessary. The reason is we have no airports high enough to necessitate any particular precautions regarding landing/take off due to low density air. The highest peak is 2500m (8200 ft), and no runway at the top 
What we do have is arctic marine climate, and those peaks go straight up from the ocean with corresponding winds and weather.
Which is more difficult? I don’t know. Unless landing at some airport at 6000+ feet, I can’t imagine I would have any trouble flying in the Alps. The weather there is better, the Wallies are broader, much denser populated (in case of a real emergency). But I am grown up with mountains, and I would believe people in the Alps are so too
My experience tells me the “altitude problem” is well known among pilots. There is no discussions or uncertainty or unknown when it comes to what low density altitude does with an aircraft and its performance, or the pilot. This is not to say that many people actually have circuit experience in high altitude airports. It’s just the the basic knowledge is readily around. What is not readily known are all the other stuff. Stuff that is second nature to people living and flying in the mountains (any mountain), but almost void among people from flat lands:
)IMO most of the stuff is more psychological rather than operational. If you experience all this for the first time unprepared, all alone, at an age of 50+ with a smoking fresh PPL or with only flat land experience, I would imagine it can be a bit “much” perhaps. Still, nothing here is dangerous tough, and nothing you cannot cope with using sound judgement and proper flying (using the instruments, studying maps, looking at weather reports and so on). It’s very much business as usual, but with more “sensory input”, sometimes grossly misleading so, which spices up the trip.
Dan wrote: Normal circumstances, no big deal…
Agree, as you mention your crossing of the Jungfraujoch – a breathtaking experience indeed.
What comes into play is then the knowledge of local weather phenomenae. If the wind speed over the Jungfraujoch is more than 15kt I change my routing to another pass. If you cross from north to south and the wind flow is in the same direction as you fly you get just after the pass over the Aletsch glacier. The wind stream will likely have a falling tendency, meaning you need sufficient height over the pass to begin with (as mentioned: recommended alt. is 12500ft). I once watched a twin almost kissing the glacier after the successful passing of the Jungfraujoch but coming too low over the ridge.
To make it short: when flying in the alps, „normal circumstances“ means you know exactly which parameters are important for your given day of flight (even if GAFOR says open) and you need to assess your situation accordingly and in time – and need to have in all cases a plan B which works.
LeSving wrote:
Winds (and no, the winds will NOT push you through the ground, even if the initial loss of alt can be 1000+ feet within seconds etc)
I don’t know what exactly you want to point out. But if it was regarding downdrafts in the Alps, those can go right until the bloody surface. There are accident reports where even twin engine aircrafts hit the ground with full power set, unable to withstand a downdraft. It does not magically stop some meters above ground, like typically in flat lands.
So I think the best advice is just to stay sufficiently away from rocks in situations, where there is no quick exit available. If you can e.g. turn into a valley to escape, it’s no problem. But if it’s over a pass or over some glacier or whatever, just stay away if you don’t know what’s waiting there.
In general, it’s not difficult to learn and understand weather in the alps. But for the totally unprepared, it’d be best to just keep some distance. Another tip maybe worth a life in these circumstances is not to fly too close to stall speed. Entering a downdraft might take away easily 20 knots and more and alter the angle of attack accordingly.
If all one wants to do is fly in amongst the Alps or other mountains, there’s nothing an instructor can teach which isn’t simple Newtonian physics and common sense, in default of which faculty it’s probably best for the individual (but not for the species) to stick to flying a simulator.
To enjoy alpine flying at its best, landing on and off airports or “altiports”, it’s common sense (and fun) to get suitable instruction and a full mountain rating – even if not required to do so by law (as, for instance, when flying a microlight in France).
UdoR wrote:
I don’t know what exactly you want to point out.
Just that physics is usually more correct than pilot tales 
UdoR wrote:
There are accident reports where even twin engine aircrafts hit the ground with full power set, unable to withstand a downdraft
Yes, but what exactly happened the last seconds in the cockpit? Trying your best to fight a downdraft of 1-2k feet per minute will only result in one thing, much reduced airspeed. There are also extreme wind shear effects under these circumstances, and the only way to have a fighting chance is to have speed.
UdoR wrote:
But for the totally unprepared, it’d be best to just keep some distance. Another tip maybe worth a life in these circumstances is not to fly too close to stall speed
Agree
LeSving wrote:
Just that physics is usually more correct than pilot tales
Well according to my personal experience, in this case physics match pilot tales
But if it was regarding downdrafts in the Alps, those can go right until the bloody surface.
What is the physical process which enables air to flow into a solid material?
I think it’s a correlation with the amount of brits here.
If you substitute “brits” with [another large country in on the European mainland] you would have an uproar and a mass exodus Brits are unusual in that they don’t really care about being ridiculed. The reality is that the numbers killed in the Alps are as much from the countries nearby as from the UK or anywhere else. It is mostly people doing dumb things.
Peter wrote:
What is the physical process which enables air to flow into a solid material?
None, but if such solid material has a certain orography around it, it may provide for some perpendicular flow closer to its surface than on a typical flat plate. Picture an area on a glacier full of cracks and crevasses parallel to the wind, for example.
Best advise for this is to never to fly with winds at peaks >20KTS, that will keep you away from the worst of wind-induced trouble.
If nonetheless you are in trouble, then as said before, know your Vy and never slow down below it. If in a downdraft, and Vy does not provide the required climb, turn away (ideally into-wind) and/or speed-up and away from it, like gliders do. Get used to brain power being more useful than engine power for fighting downdrafts.
Best advise for this is to never to fly with winds at peaks >20KTS
Indeed; there is some rule of thumb which I keep forgetting that for every 10kt of wind across a ridge you want to be at least 1000ft above it, to limit the vertical component of the airflow (the downdraught) to minus 500fpm.
In reality anyone flying just 1000ft above is almost “touching” the peaks; the mountains are so huge. Anyway, if there are climbers on top, you have to be > 500ft above, no?
If, as a result of a downdraught, you get anywhere near Vy in the mountains, you are sailing very close to the wind, IMHO
I think you either should stay a few k above the main terrain below, or you need to really know what you are doing. I’ve crossed many times, mostly at FL160 or so, and never had any significant turbulence. The Bora blowing across the Croatian mountains along the Adriatic Sea is a whole lot more fun
But everyone makes mistakes ecery now and again
Of course; my point is that the “locals” seem to make just as many fatal ones as Brits, despite supposedly having superior training
