Mooney_Driver wrote:
In IMC over the Alps I’d like to be a lot higher, FL180
I think FL180 are min radar altitudes in Swiss charts anything bellow that to FL150 is airways IFR (or valleys IFR during takeoff/landing if you are brave enough) then valleys VFR bellow that down to 6kft
I don’t understand the above.
Ibra wrote:
I think FL180 are min radar altitudes in Swiss charts anything bellow that to FL150 is airways IFR (or valleys IFR during takeoff/landing if you are brave enough) then valleys VFR bellow that down to 6kft
The lowest altitude to cross the Alps between Zurich and Milano is 14000 ft. Which means depending on air pressure FL140 or above, yes airways IFR. There are other segments which demand higher such as the east-west airways between FRI and RONAG (16000 ft) but the shortest and most use crossing are the routes GERSA-ODINA and (Southbound), CANNE-URNAS (bi directional) and ABESI-ELMUR (Northbound) all of which have a minimum of 14000 ft.
If you mean directs, then I would not know but I think it would be somewhere around 16000 ft for most of the Alps. I will try to find out what the story is here, most of the off route areas are full of special use airspace anyhow.
What I meant is that if I was to fly the Gotthard route (which pretty much are the routes above) I’d like to have 170/180 in IMC with a twin. Single engine I’d think of even higher if you want any kind of chance to find a valley if you loose the engine. But that is me. There are plenty folks who fly the Gotthard pass IMC at 14000.
How low you can fly while getting ATC vectors in Swiss Alps?
VFR, best consult the ICAO chart. It can be found here:
The pass routes go from around 7200 ft to about 9200 ft minimum altitudes, which means that realistically 10’000 ft is a good altitude for most of those passes.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The pass routes go from around 7200 ft to about 9200 ft minimum altitudes, which means that realistically 10’000 ft is a good altitude for most of those passes.
Yes the pass while VFR can be done between 6kft-12kft in most places
I was referring to radar guidance while en-route IFR, it seems you need to be +18kft to get vectors/directs while on cruise? for airports, I only see Sion, Zurich and Bern having terminal “Min Surveillance Altitudes Chart” (even different charts depending on OAT), the rest of airports are ‘radar-less’ on pure procedural routes?
It depends on where. Swiss airspace is generally Class C above FL130 and they rarely let VFR into that, which is an obvious weather trap. No IFR below FL160 in a lot of places. Italian varies more. I have some videos with ATC sound tracks here which shows examples, but you will need time to watch videos…
Within the terrain, nobody can see you on radar, mostly, so you are “VFR” 
If you want to cross the Alps IFR, there is a route (N of SRN) at FL140 (the DESIP-ELMUR one e.g. here), near Mt Blanc it is mostly FL180, and elsewhere it is mostly FL160. In the far east bit it goes lower, as the terrain goes lower, say FL120. But more practically you need to be at a level at which you are VMC on top, and can see right across the mountains, before you reach the mountains, so you are not climbing above terrain while in IMC and picking up ice (learnt that one a few times).
I don’t see where “vectors” come into this. Anyway they can’t vector you below their MRVA. They also won’t let you fly IFR below their MRVA.
The Alps notwithstanding I still—from experience—maintain that most O360 powered aircraft are just fine for IFR touring in Europe. Every aircraft has limitations, so discussing those is pointless. Having an IR removes many limitations and generally makes touring much simpler. Whether those benefits are outweighed by the hurdles of the European system is the point of this discussion. But the truth is that IFR at say FL110 and below is both doable and extremely useful. Any assertion to the contrary just isn’t true outside of mountainous regions.
But the truth is that IFR at say FL110 and below is both doable and extremely useful.
I tend to agree, the sweet spot for GA IFR is the band 5kft-12kft, where having an IR makes life easier than doing same flight under VFR when it comes to airspace…even on slow dog the climb can be done well ahead of icing, terrain & weather
Anything above that tends to be IFR only and require more logistics: more horse power, oxygen, turbo…and clearly require more dedication and elite pilots, once you hit FL250 you are more close to the RyanAir type of experience but on larger budget
For takeoff & landing, clearly no one in Europe does IAP to IFR airports with 10kft elevations? “any equipped aircraft would do”
Lot of IR pilots just want to go naked to the beach after landing without having to read en-route NOTAMS, them comming back at home on marginal weather, worst case being able to shoot ILS/GPS in 1000m visibility on nearby alternate, after all you gotta work tomorrow
pilotrobbie wrote:
my journey to get the IR and my continuation to share with everyone has probably gained us another 5 IR pilots in the near future.
That’s great Robbie. Your work bears some fruit
