It does not „require“ a mountain rating. Having such rating is just one way of complying with the operating restrictions. Anyway, if it floats your boat and satisfies the examiner renewing the rating, then fine.
Well yes, but to land at Courchevel, Meribel or e.g. Megeve you also have other options than just having the MOU rating. It is all a bit flaky but works seemingly.
Altisurfaces do strictly require a mountain rating. There are no authorisations de site for altisurfaces.
However, I agree that it would be weird if only landings at altisurfaces counted towards MOU rating revalidation.
The requirement for Corlier Altisurface is:
AD operating conditions
AD reserved for radio-equipped ACFT.
AD with special characteristics. Pilots must satisfy one of the following conditions:
- to hold a mountain license. or
- having been acknowledged qualified to use the AD (ground cleared of snow) by a flight instructor in view to obtain mountain qualification after a flying test that shall be registered in the flight log. To maintain this aptitude, pilots must have used the AD in the last six months as a captain ; if not, a new flying test will be performed.
So a flight instructor sing-off would also work here and can be kept more or less up-to-date by visiting the place again within 6 months.
Anyways, I am completing my MOU rating as soon as the snow has melted off enough. I am now going to Courchevel, Albertville etc on site license basis.
Corlier is an altiport, according to the Atlas VAC.
Frans wrote:
Your CAA must accept and add your MOU(A) rating into your license. German CAA’s doesn’t want to do that for example. So you need at least a French, Italian or Swiss EASA-license, how are willing to add this MOU(A) wheels rating into your license.
Apparently in the past LBA had issues with their software which did not know the MOU but I was told now they should insert it no problems. But that info was for LBA licenses. If you have no IR and the German license is at the regional CAA it might be different.
Frans wrote:
Even the mountain airfields in the eastern Italian Alps, don’t require a mountain rating and therefore don’t count for your altiport landings.
As written above some like Albertville and Samedan should also legally count so getting the number of landings seems not difficult. Also when going to Courchevel in the summer you can do a few patterns and rack up landings fast.
AeroPlus wrote:
I love the fact that I can fly into Courchevel with my skiing clothes on, my ski pass for the 3 Vallees already activated and that you can join the ski slope right next to the parking bay at Courchevel and start skiing right away.
Very true. I am still on the search but have found two such possibilities so far. First Courchevel and second more crazy Samedan. For 140CHF per person they will airlift you from the airport parking to the top of the slopes in literally 3min with the AS350.
However, I agree that it would be weird if only landings at altisurfaces counted towards MOU rating revalidation.
I understand altisurfaces do count to maintain currency, some even use private ones to regain their lapsed currency (if it’s non-CAP, you can even fly without valid mountain rating subject to owner permission: PPR/Breifing)
The old law did not distinguish between altiports, altisurfaces and glaciers (on skis) when it comes to currency…but I am not sure about FCL815, it’s clear as mud for currency & revalidation, so people revert to old days?
Very likely triggered by the various recent accidents at Courchevel, etc., a new regulation on the use of altiports (and the acquisition of the respective rating) will come in force in October.
It’s explained here, but I don’t currently have the time to read it all.
https://www.aerovfr.com/2023/08/acces-aux-altiports-evolution-reglementaire/
Here is the Arrêté itself:
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000047879166
Seems like that want to avoid people taking the training in a C172 and then crash a PA46 there.
The fact that the validity rules go from 1 landing in 6 months to 2 landings in 9 months will likely be considered an improvement by many occasional users.
This might very well be a good idea – but I still wonder how the DGAC can impose this sorts of regulations on EASA pilots flying EASA aircraft.
Airports and Altiports anf Glaciers are delegated to NAAs.
No such problems with a ULM although you can get training at places such as Gap.
