One of the first movies made in the Swiss Alps with a specially modified Vampire Trainer.
and today’s view on the famous 3, left to right North Face of the Eiger, Mönch, and the Jungfrau. The outline of the Jungfraujoch visible on the col between Mönch and Jungfrau 
A bit of wind there… 1200 today, windy.com, but in line with the terrain
yep, I was there a little bit later, and the wind was slightly less. Slightly…
I climbed and intended to take another picture of the Jungfraujoch for you guys by flying above, and then plunging onto the Aletsch Glacier. The turbulence in the lee of the Eiger/Mönch, a glance at the wind indication, all had me quickly change my mind and modify my course to parallel the famous 3. Knowing where the wind is coming from is one thing… reading the relief to know what it will do over the peaks and ridges, over the cols and valleys, is another…
My aircraft is very capable (speaking about SEP), aerobatic (read a structure plenty strong with very effective flight controls), performance quite good as on this day still climbing close to 1000ft/mn approaching 12’000ft.
The rule I’ve been following is to never loose respect. Respect the environment, respect your limitations, and respect the aircraft’s limitations.
Bleriot made a very good post here 62
If, as a result of a downdraught, you get anywhere near Vy in the mountains, you are sailing very close to the wind, IMHO
But they key thing is that you have to fly faster when caught in downdraughts, toward VNE as you spend less time in them, hence low height loss, flying toward Vy or slower even on full power is not much of help, you spend too much time digging the same hole…
High power and slow speeds are used to gain altitude in still air or updrafts when
Peter wrote:
Of course; my point is that the “locals” seem to make just as many fatal ones as Brits, despite supposedly having superior training
Not sure I can agree with anything within that sentence, despite the ending Smiley…
First point, the name of this forum is Euro.GA. The references and discussions in this specific thread do not apply specifically to the islanders, but European flyers. Geographic Europeans.
Second, the so called “locals” do most of their flying in the mountains. As opposed to transiting traffic. Reading the accident reports, yes “locals” are unfortunately also accident prone, which thinking about it is logical, but not sure about Peter wrote:
just as many fatal ones, a statement which I find shocking.
supposedly having superior trainingNobody mentioned superior. It is additional. As in gives you more tools, an insight to learn about mountain flying. Nothing to do with elitism.
How about “superior for the conditions”?
The context of my reply there was just another swipe at the UK by one “usual suspect”
Let’s not forget that the Chief testing pilot of Pilatus crashed in “normal mountain conditions” in TB10 , he 1/ approached a ridge too low at low speed in a high climb climb angle and 2/ was flying on wrong (MP, RPM, FF) parameters
At the end of the day one needs to know the aircraft and environment very well, have some margins and understand there is a risk things can go badly if one does some operational error or judgement mistake, it’s a mountain after all…
alright, thanks Peter.
Wind
One of the biggest factors, with clouds, affecting the outcome or safety of a mountain flight.
Flight prep, study the wind charts. Look at pressure differential N – S, indicative of a Föhn tendency. A difference of 4hPa can give a slightly bumpy ride. A >10 difference can make a flight interesting or even impossible…
A pretty recent (ok, had this since the 1990’s on airliners…) addition to our safe mountain flying toolbox is the wind indication on whatever glass panel. I use this tool extensively to assess actual conditions, and make predictions based on those. A good help in keeping on the windward side of a valley or mountain and predict what the wind is doing. Still good to remember the latency of the system.
Another big important wind component in the Alps is the so-called “seichter Föhn”. I’m not sure how to translate it into English, but it’s more or less wind that comes from temperature differences. Even though the difference between north and south might be just 3-4hPa, the winds can still be surprisingly fast if the south has for example significant colder air than the north, especially if there is an inversion on the southern side with cold air in the valleys and warm air on top. This results into a “seichter Föhn” and might surprise a flatland pilot quite a bit, because he initially thought the air pressure difference is ‘just’ 3 or 4 hPa. Especially dangerous around mountain passes, as cold air from the south flows down into the valleys on the northern side, resulting into heavy downdrafts. To prevent issues, the goal is to approach mountains and/or passes above the cold air layer.
Another parameter to keep in mind for “Föhn” would be the air humidity differences between mountains.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
On the other hand, it has been suggested that mountainous areas should be special access airspace reserved for those who have completed a mountain training. I am wary of that, because it would mean more red tape and restrictions, but on the other hand, it would be very wise to recommend training.Never heard about those plans. The recommendation of training is for sure a good thing for flatlanders, but to exclude them from mountainous areas? I don’t think further restrictions are something we need in GA… Nonetheless, I agree that the Alps are the most remarkable mountain range in Europe and many people want or need to cross it, while mountains in Norway, Slovakia, Spain etc. can be circumnavigated and have lower terrain.
The late Sparky Imeson’s book remains an excellent primer.I’ve that book too… it’s very educational indeed, but a bit dry to read it like a normal lecture from the beginning to the end. Nonetheless the best book regarding mountain flying I know.
Not so… The basic rule in Europe is the same, except the short-time limit is 13,000 rather than 14,000.That’s true, but those altitudes are not necessarily a binding rule. It’s stated in NCO.OP.190 that the PIC is responsible to determine if oxygen is required on a flight. If the PIC cannot determine how the lack of oxygen might affect all occupants, oxygen is required after 30 minutes above 10’000 ft and is required continuously above 13’000 ft.
IMO most of the stuff is more psychological rather than operational.Absolutely agree. Your post as view from Norwegian perspective was very interesting, thanks!
