Cirrus SR20 PH-YMC crashed in Croatia

It is normal, if not to say common expected practice, for GA to stay very low around the Netherlands, mostly 500-1000ft AGL. Maybe the accident crew thought the same is required of them abroad? A fatal assumption, in this case.

My understanding Croatia ATS/FIS are one of the best out there and airspace structure is accessible under VFR

Few countries have tight airspace for VFR: UK, Netherlands, Spain, Itay

• The first two, have flat land with zero risks to terrain, however, they won’t let one climb in Alpha even with god sitting with him in the cockpit

• The second two, have tolerances when asking for climb away from terrain including in Alpha (“as long as one can talk or yell”), while near airports, there is no way, they will let VFR go up

Obviously, one can always plan the easy routes first, especially with weather and when they are not current or unsure, it’s just Avgas…

In the USA, you can legally buy laws from congress.

Hmmm, wrong thread (and I don’t think so)

Do you think for a moment that there are not pencil-whipped BFRs?

Of course. If there is an incentive, it will happen at some point. The difference is that the US CFI can refuse the signoff, in Europe the FI cannot. In fact I had this exact discussion with an FI the other day (on exactly that flight – I have a UK PPL too so have to do this every 2 years).

I believe there is very little correlation between accident numbers and renewal/revalidation rules

While that is true, the US has a lot more dodgy terrain than the parts of Europe where the vast majority of GA is trained and executed. It’s a bit like Switzerland; if their PPL training was like the rest of Europe, soon there would not be many pilots left

except the „hard to get IR“ is now easy

Negligible difference to say 20 years ago. Most people still have to stay on some hotel near an FTO, etc.

thanks to EASA however many flight schools aren’t interested in providing it.

You make my point for me

I am writing this because what we are seeing is a manifestation of poor penetration of instrument skills. Someone with an IR is never going to fly like these people did.

I understand from Dutch media PH-YMC was part of a large (10) group of aircraft flying a Euro trip.

https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/5385725/vliegtuigongeluk-kroatie-ongeluk-onderzoek

Peter wrote:

The difference is that the US CFI can refuse the signoff, in Europe the FI cannot.

European FI’s can very well refuse to sign and order more training, particularly if we are talking rental planes in an organisation. I’ve seen it happen, not to me but to pilots I fly with. If the FI feels that the guy is not up to standards, he will not sign off the flight and will discuss what has to be done. In some cases, when the flight is left to the last minute before renewal, this can lead to a skill check having to be done.

Peter wrote:

if their PPL training was like the rest of Europe, soon there would not be many pilots left

I don’t think that European PPL training is deficient as such, but if there are systematical deficiencies, they need to be addressed.

In the US, you have areas the size of Europe of flat lands. If you learn to fly in IL and stay there for most of your career, then you’ll never see as much as a hill. However, even over the great plains, nobody will teach people to fly under 2000 ft and there is no need as airspace does not prevent climbing higher. People are being taught and encouraged to use airspace, “cleared into Bravo” is normal and no student with a deficiency in radio coms would be allowed to progress to PPL.

The main point is, if you grow up under the impression that VFR is low level scud running, then you are not fit to travel Europe outside of the flat lands. And even on the flat lands, flying that low is not a good idea. First of all, altitude is safety. Secondly, all our planes work best at altitudes which are way higher than 2000 ft, non turbos at about 8000, turbos much higher yet. Even a lowly Cessna 150 should and can be flown at 6-8k ft quite normally.

Clearly, the reason this is done in those places is airspace related but out of this comes a general deficiency that even instructors may never have flown higher, don’t know how the mixer works (“below 5000 ft” myth is still around very much and ruins countless engines) and therefore provide instruction which is not adequate.

Anyone who flies a track from the Netherlands to Croatia at those altitudes is NOT qualified to do this kind of travel IMHO. To me, this shows that those crews appear not to be willing or able to communicate with ATC or have a learned fear to do so and therefore will stay low to avoid any form of CAS. And more so, if that was a group of planes, the rest of them is still out there and if they do the same low level flying again on the way back, still are in the same risk. ATC in Croatia, Slovenia, Austria and the whole region there are friendly, cooperative and very nice to work with, possibly the easiest going folks in most of Europe. Fear of asking what they are willing to provide is quite stupid really.

So @9H-LDSA has a point of sorts, only that it has nothing to do with Croatia. EASA should review the PPL syllabus and include flights over the whole spectrum of the aircrafts performance capabilities and also, if it is not in there, compulsory include repeated flights into controlled airspace.

And one other bit: Europe would do well to finally get rid of airspace A and B for good. There is NO reason to keep it, C and D will do the job very nicely as entry can be refused at any time. A and B (no VFR zones) simply show an arrogant exclusive attitude which is nether necessary nor useful and which denies airspace to people who need it without good reason. Without A and B airspaces, we would most probably see more people getting used to interacting with ATC for crossing and flying in CAS under VFR.

IR is another good point but while I agree with @Snoopy that it has become easier and will become easier still with B-IR there still is another of those inbuilt fears which needs to be overcome, maybe by encouraging FI’s to take it. The majority of club FI’s do not have the IR themselves so for them it’s “witchcraft” and they snub it. That means the students learn that attitude. This should be stopped. I don’t mean to make IR’s for FI’s compulsory but maybe it is there where the irrational fear of it should be addressed first.

Pilots from the low lands should pro-actively expand their flying horizon the moment they can. I can only encourage them to take an alpine introduction, there are several schools and FI’s around Switzerland and Germany and Austria who will do this kind of thing with pleasure. I know one guy in Augsburg who does this quite regularly and people who have done it come away raving. Also get away from flying low and dare to fly your airplane where it belongs. Work your performance tables and see where your airplane works most efficiently and fly there. Even 5000 ft is a lot better than 2000 but once you get out of those busy airspaces, get up to where those planes are happiest. Learn to use the mixer, learn to interact with ATC. It will make your flying safer and much more fun.

On risks of getting caught “VFR in IMC” without IFR training/equipment, what is the procedure in SR20, you climb above MSA and cruise in IMC or VMC above, if you ever LOC-I you pull the parachute?

I know one can do 180 turn around or precautionary landing (but many of those who CFIT/LOC did not do it, they scud run into hills )

IMHO regulations and rules should only be brought in when pilots are incapable of thinking for themselves.
We don’t yet know what exactly happened in any of these accidents yet here we are on a pilot’s forum calling for more compulsory training.
I had always thought of pilots in general as being inteĺligent people capable of analysing a situation and taking decisions.
Am I wrong about this? Or are pilots these days becoming a group who need to be trained as you might do a dog or monkey?
IMHO pilots need to take responsibility. If you want to do something which you have never done before. Do some research and some training. Find someone who has done it before and take their advice. But for heaven’s sake don’t start cutting the GA population even more by regulating more training with more hours and more complexity and more cost for to get a ppl and never want or need to experience these things.

@Ibra in case you look the FR24 track that day and airspace, you can spot some PH planes from group doing 180 turn.
Some do not…

@Mooney_Driver this year celebrating 10 years membership in one of EASA Safety body.
Know quite well what is safety about, running my own aviation related biz since 2008. active in aviation since 1996.
Was never involved in PPL syllabus definition but know well about weak spots in H and A up to ATPL level.
Knowing that all recent and well from Jr H and A training in UK, PH, D, and 9A.
But I am bureaucracy or troll for some “wise” people here.

@Emir is right about LDSB. Can add to that that no one is measuring the vertical component of wind on the
South side, despite that the runway is extended on that side.

Personally, I’ve not flown much in my fatherland, but it seems to be true that most VFR traffic within the Netherlands, is cruising at or below 3.000 ft MSL. Especially due the extremely restricted class A Schiphol TMA from 1.500 ft, in the western part of the country. But also in the east, with the Nieuw-Millingen TMA (class B or D) starting from FL55 or FL65, most traffic remains way below it.

On the other hand, Dutch pilots should be pretty common with CAS transits, as there are some pretty large CTRs or extremely low TMAs, especially in the southeast, like Deelen, Volkel, Eindhoven, or Maastricht. But it also seems that ATC is clearing VFR-traffic through these zones at low altitudes. I remember flying through the Schiphol CTR once, where the controller did say “1.000 ft or below” the whole time, even above the old city of Amsterdam. Pretty crazy. But also the departure routes out of Maastricht are for example only at 1.300 ft MSL, while the ground surface with villages is at 400-600 ft and some further obstacles at 750 ft too. That is actually not conform SERA rules, but the altitude restriction is even instructed within the AIP.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Without A and B airspaces, we would most probably see more people getting used to interacting with ATC for crossing and flying in CAS under VFR.

While I do agree with you to get rid of airspace A, I don’t think it will help that much. If I look at Germany, there are already so many pilots that are afraid of airspace C. Doing a CTR crossing is presented as something ‘special’ within many aeroclubs or youtube movies. Most of the pilots I know don’t even know about airspace A and B, as Germany and Austria don’t use them.

Germany did however a great job to get rid of the rule, that activated glider sectors bans all other VFR traffic out of any TMA. This was done somewhere in 2018, after which TMA crossings became much more common. Before that time, especially on weekends, TMA crossings were often refused due “active glider sectors”. It’s now however pretty usual to get a clearance for let’s say the Stuttgart or Cologne/Bonn TMA. I was even cleared once into the Frankfurt TMA. Most people still seem however to be afraid to ask and therefore plan their routes by default around or below it.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

ATC in Croatia, Slovenia, Austria and the whole region there are friendly

Certainly add entire central and northern Europe to that list as well. Slovakia, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway… They all have very accessible CAS for VFR traffic. And I have to add that Italy is also not bad at all, outside of the class A sectors. France below FL115 and outside A is dead easy too.

gallois wrote:

But for heaven’s sake don’t start cutting the GA population even more by regulating more training with more hours and more complexity and more cost

I couldn’t agree more…