Kathmandu VNKT requires 60M USD third party insurance, training approach procedures in a simulator and confirmation of english proficiency.
Ah, and Courchevel LFLJ only requires doing some landings ;-)
Sion LSGS
Nothing needed for VFR approach, just for the IAPs
We should add LFGX Champagnole to the list of unremarkable lowland airfields which “require” special training/qualification.
Are Germany, France and Switzerland the only nanny-states which go in for this kind of nonsense?
Jacko wrote:
Are Germany, France and Switzerland the only nanny-states which go in for this kind of nonsense?
No, I got qualified for Tioman Island in Malaysia (WMBT) a few years ago…one-way strip with a mountain (large hill) at one end!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tioman_Airport
Its claim to fame is that it was the location for the filming of South Pacific many years ago….
JasonC wrote:
LSZH, Zürich. Online test.
For VFR flights I believe only.
Correct.
Jacko wrote:
Are Germany, France and Switzerland the only nanny-states which go in for this kind of nonsense?
I agree that a lot of these things are unnecessary particularly for light airplanes. Nobody who has a current license should need this kind of additional qualifications in most cases.
However, there are places where that is not entirely true. Courchevel and the likes are not your round the mill airfield but there I perfectly understand why training is quite useful. In some cases, online training is also not a bad thing and may well give very useful information such as the one for Zurich, where VFR is barely tolerated and any form of deviation causes instant reprecussion to all others. The tests involved usually are there to cover the asses of the airport operators, who have been criticized following accidents or incidents. That is particularly true in places like Samedan.
Where I am totally opposed to is obligatory flight training unless the airport really is completely out of the ordinary, as for instance Courchevel and similar sites or IFR where the approach is significantly non standard, such as i.e. Lugano or Sion with 6 degree glide slopes and (LUG) rather hairy circling procedures.
Unfortunately, more and more airfields and airports are going in this direction or trying to. Motivation for this vary, in most cases it is to show to the relevant CAA that they are “doing something”, but in other cases also to discourage GA from using the facility by introducing additional hassles.
Qualifications here are lots of money,time to spare and a good stomach.
EDFM – Mannheim, Germany
for IFR approaches, training is required.
AnthonyQ wrote:
No, I got qualified for Tioman Island in Malaysia (WMBT) a few years ago…one-way strip with a mountain (large hill) at one end!
I’ve flown into Tioman as pax. Interesting to say the least. That was 10-15 years ago and at that time there was commercial traffic. (With DHC-7, IIRC.)
In France, every “altiport” (moutain airfield) and “altisurface” (mountainous landing surface) requires a special qualification. Either a “mountain qualification” or a “airfield qualification”.
The first one grants access to all “altiports” and “altisurfaces”.
The last one grants access to a specific field.
The only list of Altiport (Mountain Airfield) I found is on wikipedia :
Alps :
Alpe d’Huez
Corlier
Courchevel
Megève
Méribel
La Motte-Chalancon
Valloire
Pyrénées :
Aleu
Peyragudes
French Polynesia :
Ua Pou (îles Marquises)
Er, yes, but (splitting hairs) Aleu and Valloire are altisurfaces (with no ICAO code), and the newly renovated altiport at Peyragudes is formally called Peyresourde Balestas LFIP.
There are other French airports like LFHZ, LFKD, LFKE and LFJF which are restricted to mountain-qualified or site-trained pilots, and although they lack the other essential characteristics of an altiport, that’s what the AFPM calls them.
The relevant statutory instrument is here, albeit in French.
Incidentally, the AFPM website shows Zar (Poland) as “restricted use”, in that one has to follow or be accompanied by a Polish-speaking pilot, is that correct?
