Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
The Swiss chart shows the Flight Information Zone. The FIZ has no bearing on airspace classification.
You are right, I stand corrected. It is a FIZ and not class E. So class E only starts at 2000 ft AGL.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
So you would like to enter IMC in an alpine canyon valley and rely on the terrain database for guidance during climb to MSA
Not a good time to loose GPS…
Rwy20 wrote:
Because almost everywhere you have class G up to FL95. In Switzerland, as in Germany, most of the airspace is class E or higher, and you only find uncontrolled airspace close to the ground in the few corners that have not yet been eaten up by some airports with CAT.
My uncontrolled VFR airport is in the class C CTR of another airport. You get the IFR clearance before take-off.
Flyer59 wrote:
HongKong of Madeira airports where Lufthansa pilots (other airlines?) had to train before they could land there as PIC.
Comparing landing a transport jet in Madeira or Kai Tak (the old HK) airport to an 1800m long tarmac field at the oh-so-high altitude of 5600ft is absurd. It’s the typical Europeean attitude that the nanny state knows best.
Yes, it is absurd, because the commercial pilots all have an ATP and did a lot of training, they should be left alone. You are right. Why do they need a nanny to fly a turn into final approach?
@Flyer59, you just don’t want to understand. If you cannot calculate your DA, t/o distance and lean for best power and take of from a strip that’s 1800m long and at 5600ft, then, IMHO, you shouldn’t have a pilot’s license. Somewhat different from flying a curved approach (Madeira) or a turn at final (Kai Tak).
Edited to add: you’re probably going to ask ‘where do you draw the line’. Simple. You draw it where something is totally out of the norm. Kai Tak and Madeira, but also one-way Altiports. Certainly not Samedan.
You are just repeating what i said. Yes, many pilots cannot do all that and they do not have enough experience. They should not have a pilots licence maybe, and maybe they should at least not be allowed to risk their passenger’s lives. But they do.
Private Flying in GA airplanes – in America too! – is about 12 x as dangerous than driving a car*. Many accidents, in Colorado too, happen because of high DA conditions and too little experience.
Why is that so? I doubt it’s because we’re all so good and need no training. We could learn from the pros – and do a proper checkout, where it makes sense. I have zero problems with that, and i never needed a Nanny.
In Europe, not Colorado, Samedan with 5600 ft is clearly outside the norm.
(Sorry for the mistake, commercial flying is much safer than that. I used the wrong statistic)
Samedan has noise abatement arrival and departure routes which may be a motivation. Whether the qualification is to keep light GA out, or as a form of liability management not clear. There are other airports requiring sign offs, some on line (Lugano, Cannes VFR), some with a practical flight test (Lugano, Sion IFR, La Mole), some self evidently training would be useful (Courchevel).
Lugano requires special training only for IFR, not for VFR.
Courchevel you can’t legally fly into with a plain vanilla PPL and no specific authorisation.
…bosco I think I said that …there are also currency requirements to keep the sign off valid.
Lugano are quite keen on ramp checks.
