Peter wrote:
Then the council sends somebody out to remove them.
What heartless people.
We have several spots around here where people died in accidents and which have memorials tended to by the families. None of them has been removed so far, one or two got moved in cooperation with the equivalent of the council or the police to put them in a safer place for people to attend.
Thank you @Brother-of-Passenger for dropping in and correcting the discussion.
Very sorry for your loss!
Down the road from where I live, where I used to cycle to work, a cyclist got killed by a pickup. His sister turns up regularly to put flowers on the spot where it happened. Then the council sends somebody out to remove them.
This accident has hit home to all of us here.
It has. My sincere condolences!
Brother-of-Passenger wrote:
I wanted to make it clear on the record, in the nicest possible way, that my sister did not have a PPL nor was she working towards achieving one.
Please accept my sincere condolences.
This accident has hit home to all of us here.
And also thank you for the information. I can’t recall where this wrong bit of information came up and I apologize for repeating it. At latest when the report did not mention anything along these lines, I should have recognized it as fake information.
@Brother-of-Passenger
Please accept my condolences.
The fact you were able to find your way here is proof of your sorrow and burden. Terrible events indeed.
You probably read all of the pages of this thread, and the accident report relating to the accident. And maybe more than once…
As usual in these kind of exchanges amongst pilots/observers/betterknowers, some of the facts get diluted, distorted, or exaggerated. Human nature at work.
Best, Dan
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I would also add that his wife was said to have had a PPL, but she was sitting in the back from where her view of the trajectory was even worse.
Hello all, as the brother of the passenger involved in this accident, I wanted to make it clear on the record, in the nicest possible way, that my sister did not have a PPL nor was she working towards achieving one. She was a passenger in the back to be able to tend to her daughter. I’m not sure where the source of this misinformation is that you refer to? There is no reference to my sister having a PPL in the report.
Thank you.
Buckerfan wrote:
Flying in the Alps is one of the greatest flying experiences you will ever have. Just take it step by step. Nothing to be intimidated by.
Hang on, that sentence read:
Mooney_Driver wrote:
with high winds, I would not fly in the Alps anyway
I fly the Alps pretty regularly when active, but I don’t care for situations such as Föhn or other strong wind situations, where the whole airplane get’s tossed around.
On a normal day, flying in the Alps is fantastic. I would not miss it for anything.
Buckerfan wrote:
My lengthy experience with the Alps is that because the valleys are relatively narrow, eg the height of the ridge line is around or greater than the width of the valley floor, the wind blows along the valley, one way or the other, 99% of the time. Thus the “upwind” side of the valley is meaningless.
Correct, thanks for that.
The story with flying on the right has a lot to do with the fact that those routes are pulicized preferential routes to cross the Alps, so most people, particularly those with not that much local knowledge, use them. In Summer, you can really get a LOT of traffic on those routes. I guess this is why someone came up with that mantra, that in order to avoid unpleasant encounters of the frontal kind, everyone should keep to some sort of traffic regime. This is taught in all alpine introductions I am aware of, for that reason. And as @Bukerfan has said, in valleys like this, up and downwind are mostly meaningless as wind usually blows along them. And if the wind is strong enough to make a difference, it will be the one situation where traffic rules may not matter that much because with all likelyhood you’re gonna be the only one there. Not many people are masochistic (or suicidal) enough to endure high winds in the alps.
greg_mp wrote:
I bet it could change from one people to another, but actually french people would enjoy finding a good reason to not following a rule
Yep, and I like the French mentality in this regard ;-). No rules are absolute. I would not advise flying at the leeward sight either if there is heavy wind and turbulence, or if there is anything else that makes it dangerous. And en planeur, you don’t have that choice at all.
But still, generally flying to the right (if possible) is a good idea IMHO and makes life easier for mountain pilots.
You won’t do it bad if you fly right and no problem happens, but just ensure that keeping the right doesn’t add any danger.
Once again I am joining Dan’s club when he said:
Dan wrote:
Do people stick to this? Hopefully not! I’ve had the privilege of flying the Alps a few times myself, and crossing them in a heavily laden spam can or a modestly motorised Cub presents challenges of their own. More than a few times one has to fly on the upwind, or sunny side of the valley, just to reach some sufficient altitude for a safe passage thru the next col.
Even when flying the Alps in a hi-perf SEP such as mine, one will choose the upwind side of the valley in windy conditions, thereby avoiding uncomfortable and still threatening rotors from the lee side of said valley.
And it is what i’ve been taught by the mountain instructor. I bet it could change from one people to another, but actually french people would enjoy finding a good reason to not following a rule :P.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
And, not least, it is what people from the continent do instinctively as they also drive on the right.
Not in my experience. I usually do a couple of introductory flights to the alps per year (“Alpeneinweisung” in German), and people tend to fly as far away from the mountains as possible. I.e. right in the middle of valleys. I’ll probably say “more to the right please” about 400 times during two or three hours of flight ;-)
