RobertL18C wrote:
Anybody undertaken the LFTZ La Mole familiarisation training?
Hi Robert, If you speak to Ray B at Andrewsfield he will tell you what its like, he will also tell you it wasnt a problem in a Cherokee 140
4 up in the summer (no fatties onboard), that was before ‘familiarisation’ was deemed necessary!
I have done La Mole. It’s not a familiarisation but a site-specific rating, and it’s added as such on your logbook. It requires currency, too.
I found it useful, especially the westerly take off (or missed approach) and the easterly landing. Even on the westerly landing, following the PAPI will kill you, but to be fair that’s written on the plates.
For westerly landings, it depends what you fly, the runway is quite long and is unlikely to cause problems in most GA types, I would think. It’s true that you don’t see the runway until you’re on final, but that’s less a problem today with GPS moving maps.
The chap I did it with unfortunately passed away (not an aviation induced death) so I unfortunately cannot share his details.
Yes Robert, I did. I flew many times to La Mole since 1985 – but not every year in the last decade since they started to ask for that qualification. So I took a DGAC approved examiner with me on a trip to LFTZ to have him sign my logbook. In my opinion La Mole is not a critical airfield for small aircraft – when it gets windy there (>15kt xwind) they send you away anyhow. Under those conditions I would recommend Cannes LFMD as alternate (xwind runway for smaller aircraft).
Because of the hilly surroundings at LFTZ you can expect downdrafts around 200ft height approaching RWY24. The community of La Mole is very noise critical so if you are forced to go around follow the nonstandard traffic pattern …
Thank you all, nobbi might you PM an e mail for the examiner you used?
The fees are very steep though, both for landing and for parking.
It’s the combination of mandatory checkout and silly fees that puts me off. But hey, that’s probably what they want to achieve.
@Bosco (and sorry this is a very old post) but Albertville is not technically an Altiport. They last year updated their VAC to be “usage restreint” for people who are signed off by an instructor (not a type rating, you wouldn’t even have to have flown there if an instructor says you are OK to fly – you are OK to fly there) OR a mountain rating or an FI.
To add to the discussion, the French national mountain rating (“qualification montagne”, short “qualif montagne”) is required for landings on French altiports (Alpe d’Huez, Corlier, Courchevel, Megève, La Motte-Chaloncon, Méribel) and altisurfaces (many more) with aeroplanes. (For some reason, you don’t need the qualif montagne for mountain landings with ULs in France.) Some altisurfaces are only open in summer, others only in winter. There’s two different mountain ratings for wheels (“roues”) and skis (“skis”). For current pilots, the wheels rating typically takes about 20-40 hours of training, with a concluding skills test. The skis rating takes somewhat less than that, with a separate skills test.
The skills test takes about 1-2 hours and consists of landings on three landings on three separate altisurfaces, and (at least in theory) a oral exam (which is often neglected however). International pilots should mind that a minimum level of French is useful and conducive to safety, as the instruction is given mostly in French, and the radio calls around altisurfaces and mountain passes are done in French. Training in France is done mostly on Jodel Mousqetaire. It’s a good idea to be reasonably proficient with tailwheel aircraft, and practice power-dependent approaches (i.e., not shallow, and not dragging it in), and spot landings to CPL standard (e.g., -0+200 ft accuracy) before starting the training to get the most out of it.
As has been mentioned, Switzerland has a separate mountain rating and there’s several ATOs that are offering training programs for glacier flying. There’s only a single mountain strip (German: “Gebirgslandeplatz für Flächenflugzeuge”) in Switzerland: Croix de Coeur. There are about two dozen glacier landing fields for ski flying. While the Swiss rating is a lot more expensive (expect about CHF 1000-1500 for a 3-4 hour flying day) and demanding (250 glacier landings are the minimum in different snow conditions throughout the season), at the moment this might be a viable way to get an EASA MOU rating on a CAA-issued EASA license. Instructors usually can instruct in English, and radio procedures are done in English (although you sometimes also hear German or Swiss German).
To my knowledge, it’s not (yet) possible to put a French “qualification montagne” on a CAA-issued EASA license, as the French DGAC has not yet produced the corresponding conversion report and were not able to give an outlook for its completion. It’s not a restriction in practice though, as you can do mountain flying in France with the French national rating, and can obtain the Swiss rating only with a check flight with an instructor (at least in theory — in practice it seems you often fly with a MOU examiner). (Converting from a Swiss MOU rating to a French one is also possible in a similar way.)
More information on mountain flying in France and Switzerland may be obtained with the AFPM (France) or the ASPG (Switzerland). A good book about French mountain flying is “Le vol en montagne expliqué au pilote” by Daniel Agnoux.
Hope that helps,
Michael
For some reason, you don’t need the qualif montagne for mountain landings with ULs in France.
Does that mean I could fly my (OO-registered) ultralight into Albertville without restrictions? Before anyone says, yes of course I would not do it without giving them a phone call the day before or so; but up till now I considered the field as unavailable.
Does that mean I could fly my (OO-registered) ultralight into Albertville without restrictions? Before anyone says, yes of course I would not do it without giving them a phone call the day before or so; but up till now I considered the field as unavailable.
I think you’re referring to the notes in the VAC.
Albertville LFKA is not an altiport or altisurface, but just a normal French airfield (which is free, however, to impose additional restrictions). Indeed, its VAC says
AD reserved for airplanes and gliders whose pilots comply with following conditions:
- to be admitted as being able to use the AD by a pilot instructor (or holding and instructor rating),
- to be mountain flight qualified.
AD usable by HEL and ULM.
AD reserved for radio-equipped ACFT.
(The English translation misses a crucial point: The French original specifies only one of the conditions have to be fulfilled (“[…] à l’une des conditions suivantes […]”), while the English part suggests both have to be.)
So for landings with airplanes you do need a mountain rating (or a “qualification de site”, a possibility which I didn’t mention above as it’s very limiting). I reckon you’re not bound by this with an ULM, as it’s not an “airplane”, but I’d give them a call indeed. BTW, on calm days, the airfield is not particularly tricky to get into, but with some wind the approach can be quite gusty and awkward.
Cheers,
Michael
Merci, Michael. For historical reasons, I dream of flying my (very modest!) plane into the Piemonte by way of the Col du Mont Cénis, but I could never find a good departure point. Albertville might well be a good choice. But obviously such a trip, in such a plane, would require perfect weather; which one cannot plan for.
The French original specifies only one of the conditions have to be fulfilled (“[…] à l’une des conditions suivantes […]”), while the English part suggests both have to be.
It’s been many years since I learned to distrust translations – and especially translations by the French. 
Thanks for the warning, though.
