What stops people doing longer trips?

Peter wrote:

a large % of pilots don’t want to do those flights anyway

Perhaps, but – as stated in another thread – a large % of pilots do not fly more than 1 hour from their home field anyway. Disregarding those, the discussion becomes more interesting.

Are there any statistics for the number of GA cross-Alpine flights over vs through ?
I have a gut feeling the vast majority will be through, the more so that generally most GA flying is done in SEP planes with limited equipment. Only the well-equipped (oxygen, IFR, de-icing…) will go over. Perhaps, @Peter, you have little idea of who else is flying the skies. If you can make out the language, you might be interested to consult a recent extensive report halfway this thread I am sure the trip reported is quite typical.

Peter wrote:

You can cross them at 0 ft if you go far enough east

Peter wrote:

Which is really dumb, especially if implicitly recommending it to others on a public forum.

I think it’s a matter of perspective – if you live close by the sea 10.000 feet is high, if you live next to a 14.000 feet mountain like we have in the Alps you will cross them without oxygen quite often. To put things into perspective none of the tourist flights operated out of Sallanches or Megeve that tour the Mont Blanc (Helicopter, ULM or plane) carry oxygen and they carry some very unhealthy and unfit individuals without any problem…

Oh and this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiguille_du_Midi half a million visitors a year – no oxygen and people working there with some pretty technical equipment for 8 hour shifts…

And it never even occurred to me to fly through the canyons on any of my long VFR trips

Well, we got some nice “canyon” flying done on Sunday

@LFHNflightstudent
It’s also within all regulations if you are between 100 and 130 for a short time. And i go hard core skiing every year at +12.000 feet and i know that i have zero problems at that altitude.

Regarding the original question, I think the problem is essentially two fold.

-Cost
-Confidence

Both can be managed, probably stem right back to the original flight school.

Cost is a difficult one. Where I rent, I get a Piper Arrow for €170/hour. That’s a really good rate. But none the less, a trip to Dinard (About the nearest place in France that I can reach) is about 3.25 hours. That’s 6.5 hours return, which is €1,105. That’s just not going to happen very regularly! Make it a weekend trip (because I need to to justify the costs) and the there will be another few hundred added on for accomodation, meals etc.

Most renters just can’t afford that sort of thing. If I want to go further, then the costs really add up. the €3.5k it would cost me for a return trip to Vienna, just can’t be justified/afforded.

The solution of course is to get to pilots together. One flies out, and the other back, each paying for the flight that they make/log. Suddenly that cost is only €550, and little more easily afforded by dropping a few burger runs in favour of a bigger trip.

But in a lot (perhaps most, but I’m reluctant to extrapolate from my own experience onto others!) students don’t really get to meet one another. You arrive for your lesson, fly with your instructor and then leave. At no time do you get to meet other students, and as a such you don’t get to form friendships that lead to doing such trips together. Maybe it’s easier for schools that have bars/cafes attached to them, I don’t know. But unless students find a way of sharing longer trips together, reducing the costs to something that allows longer trips is difficult.

It’s further complicated by the fact that if you get to know someone that you’d like to fly with, but they are with a different school/club then you can’t easily fly one leg each. I suspect many give up (or lose the confidence) before they find someone that they can share longer trips with.

Regarding confidence, I think a large part of the problem is that way that instruction is often a transation for people who have just got their CPL/IR to build up hours before heading to the airlines. The pay for instructors can be so low that they can’t afford to do any personal flying. So all the flying that they do is what’s required to teach the PPL. They know the area, airspace and proceedures so well, that they don’t need to look up anything. But they have little experience of going anywhere well away from home.

A student will look up to their instructor, who has been the fountain of all knowledge flying related until this point. They ask their instructor about “going foreign” and they don’t know. Maybe some are honest and tell them who best to ask, but many will try and avoid the awkward questions, which just makes it sound very complicated to the newly qualified pilot. This is particularly the case where, where the majority of the instructors have no knowledge of customs proceedures etc.

It’s a pitty really, as it’s not very complicated at all. But if you don’t know that……

I suppose it’s even less complicated for those inside the Schengen zone. Some clubs are better, and organise “foreign” fly outs for their students and newly qualified pilots. Things would be better if they all did that.

I think the problem is essentially twofold.

-Cost
-Confidence

• cost – yes, but then not only the sheer amount of money involved but also, IMHO even more important to some, the cost of availability, i.e. having only a limited number of “off days” per annum. That has certainly been my main limiting factor

• confidence – yes, at this point I must (to a certain degree) agree with @Peter who has often complained about the flying schools not preparing their pupils for distance flying beyond the mandatory “qualifying cross country” (QXC as those lazy UK’ers often prefer to spell) but in all honesty I cannot blame them – they are paid to get a student to the PPL ticket at the lowest cost possible so that’s what they do.

Some clubs are better, and organise “foreign” fly outs for their students and newly qualified pilots. Things would be better if they all did that.

Precisely. It strikes me that organising such trips seems to be more common in the ultralight “environment”, at least round here in BE. One well-known instructor organises at least two every year, and the national ultralight federation organises navigation trips, too, some of which go cross-border. Mind you, it is more difficult here to organise a multi-day trip that does not cross any border, given the size of our , ahem, nation.

Maybe it’s easier for schools that have bars/cafes attached to them

It absolutely is, in my observation – but local factors could vary a lot. Most fields in BE are operated by an aeroclub, and include at least some kind of bar, several even have a very acceptable restaurant on site. That makes people hang around before and after flying, and that’s where it all starts. If I lived a bit closer to mine, I might well go and spend a Sunday afternoon there even on a totally unflyable day.

dublinpilot wrote:

Regarding the original question, I think the problem is essentially two fold.

-Cost
-Confidence

Which is basically another way of saying you need to be an owner. That is the obvious way an individual can reduce the hourly cost while also giving an incentive to fly more (longer trips, more trips), and therefore also build confidence. Clubs can also do something similar, by having a “owners share” you have to pay before flying a particular aircraft or a set yearly fee, prepay a set amount, or some similar thing, independent of the hourly fee. But, since no one owns anything in a club, the cost an individual will have to pay, will always be calculated in hourly rates nonetheless (by that individual).

Peter,

the 65% unavailability is not just imc in the valleys.

The Alps have 3 scenarios when they are unavailable to fly VFR.

1. Alpine Area has a lower ceiling then the minimum safe altitudes in the mountainous region.
2. Northern orographical cloud
3. Southern orographical cloud

Scenario 1 is mostly flyable above the cloud. no 2 and 3 require usually capability of FL200 or above.

The main problem is: The likelyhood of either 2 or 3 is very high. Either the Alps are in cloud from the North, or from the South. Rarely are both sides of the Alps open.

So either the central alps themselfs are in cloud, or then the northern half or the southern half. That is why the statistical availablility is so low.

Add to that: Low fog or low cloud in the north or south in high pressure situations will also effectively close the Alps off for local destinations, but not necessarily for folks who are willing to fly on top. I recall one situation where I came back from Croatia, the south was clear, the central alps had a cloud top of FL150 which continued for about 50-60 NM north of the Alps. I ended up flying much further north than my destination until past Munich, then turn left and descend below the cloud outside the northern border of the cloud and finally fly back into Switzerland from the north below the overcast. This can work, but doesn’t always.

Oxygen is a must in any moutain flying. I have portable oxygen.

In order to fly the alps in any sort of regularity, I stick to my statement that FIKI and a turbo engine with a capability of at least FL200, better 250, is necessary. Otherwise, every single time you have a gamble.

Alexis: I know that you are in the enviable situation that you never have to fly and you also can make your own schedule. That is a TOTALLY different ball game from the normal worker bee who has the weekends or some defined off days planned ahead several months in advance. What I look at the lethal combination myself is exactly the combination of fixed days and bad statistical probability that a route planned is available at THAT given date. And that is what kills the dreams for just about everyone I know.