@RobertL18C yes as you write most of the courses, speaking from the French club point of view are about landing on slopes (not off airport though) the airfields are there but are challenging, but they do also include fields of a type that the average PPL would be used to, just that they are located in a mountainous area.
There are of summer courses for landing on wheels and winter courses which include landing on glaciers which to some extent might be equated to bush flying.
However, the same instructors would usually tailor training to suit your requirements. So if what you want is to do is get a feel for how your PA28 or C172 should be flown through mountain passes rather than high over them you will usually find an instructor to help you with that.
It’s not a course then, it’s just a bit of mentoring.
I’d highly recommend it. And if that instructor suggest taking one of the club planes to land on one of the glaciers, I would suggest you take it up. IMO it is a fantastic experience.
But as others have said, you don’t need a qualification or tuition to fly in the mountains, but it is a good confidence booster.
You do however need a mountain qualification to land on many altiports or glaciers. Also some aircraft do that better than others.
I believe a mountain qualification also allows you to land at places like La Mole- St Tropez LFTZ (or it did at one time).
Frans wrote:
It is funny to read how often “the Alps” become a kind of myth around European (GA) pilots. Even though I do recommend to catch first mountain experiences with an instructor, I’m not specifically thinking of the Alps, but more of mountains in general.
The special thing about the alps is their mere size and their impact on weather, be it local in every valley, and for at least central Europe. You can easily fly around the Pyrenees along each of the two coastlines, for example, without much additional way. But as the Alps have a main ridge of I think about 800 kilometers, where peaks are higher than 3000 meters (the main ridge should even be longer, but there terrain is lower), it’s not comparable. Additionally, everybody wants to fly to warm summer in the south, so it’s a lot more traffic flying through the alps than through other significant mountaineous areas in Europe.
But I agree that there are several routes where you can fly “through” the alps without any extra training.
not off airport though
The Italian rating provides access to campi di volo, which I guess means the equivalent of farm strips? CofA aircraft are restricted in some countries to where they can land, probably worth a separate thread as this keeps changing, eg Spain
Fascinating discussion with truly masterful contributions, 172 to name but one.
From someone whose spent around half of his 2700 hrs flying VFR in mountainous regions, a little perspective might be of interest:
1) Motives vary. I believe that I fly because of mountains, not in spite of them. The scenery, the ability to get to destinations point to point, the scenery – did I mention the scenery? I’ve crossed the Rockies many times, the Sierras quite a few, and the Alps twice.
2) Mountains vary. No two mountain ranges are the same. In my judgement, the Rockies are a pussycat compared with the Alps, with the Sierras somewhere in between. In the Rockies you can cross the highest pass from one broad landable valley to the next in a few minutes. In the Alps, many of the valleys are far from landable and the hostile terrain continues for many miles. The Sierras are similar, but only 30 mins flying in the Cessna. When I crossed the Alps from Friedrichshafen to Trieste, it was 2-3 Hours with only a few landing options.
3) Planes vary. The 172 SP (in the US) goes to 14,500’ in a about 30 mins, while the PA-28-161 (UK) goes to 10,000’ eventually. It’s not just the difference in engine power – the Cessna has a broad ‘climb’ prop optimised for altitude and the Warrior .. doesn’t. But this is quite logical – European pilots are not allowed above 10’000’ without oxygen, while Americans can go 30 mins at 14,000. Superior physiology obviously. There’s always Oxygen. But how many rental planes, or light GA generally, come with Oxygen?
4) People vary. Almost all my mountain crossings are solo. One time that I did take a passenger, an experienced pilot, we discussed hypoxia and went to 12,000’ over the plains just to make sure he was OK, which he was. But at the Monarch pass near Colorado Springs it was another story and we had to descend, which was OK because of the aforementioned short crossing. Over the Sierras it might not have been so easy. And the Alps….
5) Equipment varies. Foreflight is infallible in the US and almost no GA flies with anything else (like maps…). SD is very wonderful in Europe, but has quirks. One is that the AFORS routes, a wonderful innovation and as has been said before need to be Green all the way for any VFR Alps crossing, vanish from the SD screen when you engage flight mode!! Guess how I found that out. I was lucky to have two separate iPads and to notice that the one not in flight mode still had the routes showing. It’s all very well to carp about ‘relying on technology’, but you really do need to know which valley you’re turning into and SD or FF are in my opinion the proper way to be sure.
6) Weather varies. As has been said already, Alpine weather can be vastly different from one side to the other, and this is also true of the Sierras. In the Rockies, if it’s carp here, it’s carp there as well. Wind speed is the thing to be wary of and my personal limit is 20kts anywhere in the flight, though even then the passes can throw anything at you. In the US, the flight briefer will say ‘VFR not recommended’ for anything other than CAVOK and nobody in the UK would ever leave the ground. But in the mountains it’s another story and just because the webcam shows clear air at the pass, what’s it going to be like when you get there? So I take cloud on the tops as a no-no for these types of crossing.
To sum up: You want to cross the Alps? It’s one of the best things you can do in flying. But wait for a clear day, choose a plane that can climb the tops, and do it on your own
Hope that’s of interest, David
.
Aveling wrote:
But this is quite logical – European pilots are not allowed above 10’000’ without oxygen, while Americans can go 30 mins at 14,000.
Not so… The basic rule in Europe is the same, except the short-time limit is 13,000 rather than 14,000.
Aveling wrote:
Fascinating discussion with truly masterful contributions, 172 to name but one.
Thanks for your kind words, @Aveling!
For Austria, you can get excellent info from AustroControl, amongst others an interactive, zoomable topo map that shows you pretty much everything you need to know.
See here
Further, you can download the 500.000 VFR aeronautical chart here
Make sure you download both front and back, as the back has the legends and some general info on it.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Not so… The basic rule in Europe is the same, except the short-time limit is 13,000 rather than 14,000
I stand corrected. Fortunately I’m unlikely to breach this rule in the -161!
That is also a very recent change. I have some details here. The European oxygen regulatory scene has had various problems.
Various oxygen threads. I would not fly in the Alps without oxygen, not least because some passengers will be much more affected than others.
Peter wrote:
fly in the Alps
Please define that sentence?
Again, sure don’t want to sound condescending… sometimes difficult in regards to so much misinformations and assumptions in this thread…
Crossed the Alps twice today 
once on the way down to the delicious €300 pizza, and on the way back. Passed by the Jungfraujoch (followed by the famous Aletsch glacier slide 
) on the way “down”, returned via the Gotthard/Furka/Rhone valley/etc.
A safe altitude for the “Joch” is 12.5K. So yes, I was sucking O2 on the way down.
On the return trip we passed the Gotthard (6’916ft), the Furka (7’975ft), had a look over the fresh and virgin powder white snow over the Grimsel (7’103ft), before dropping down some and heading towards Sion (LSGS), lake Lausanne (named lake Geneva for a a few), and home. Looking at my SD Log for this leg, max alt was 8’578ft (and, who cares, max speed 201kt, avg 130kt, fuel burn about 5.5USG/21lt/h). This means that the Alps can easily be crossed sans O2. VFR. But the WX better be good.
The point I’m trying to make? There are a minimum of 2 ways to cross the Alps:
Flying pseudo-airliner style above the Alps, say 13K+ is no big feat. Suck oxygen whilst watching your favourite IFE (in flight entertainment) movie, sip that champagne and hope the next sector will give you that longed for shortcut. The AP is in Nav and Alt/Hold (or whatever it’s called on your fancy €€K panel). And you’re hopefully flying (or being flown in reality) above most of the weather, clouds and turbulences.
Alps flying, as crossing say 1K ft above the chosen mountain pass on a meandering route will/might be an entirely different story. Reasons may vary from sightseeing (or loitering as I do ), lack of aircraft performance, direct routing, or else. The challenges might/will be having chosen the right day, valley, pass, aircraft, pilot fitness, and pax fitness for the job. Constantly assessing your flight path, aircraft performance, meteorological conditions, routing, alternates, time/fuel restraints, pax welfare, etc, will tax you. Normal circumstances, no big deal… changes can happen real quick. Be ready, use all resources at hand, react now, don’t wait.
Each is own, you all fly safe above, across or thru the Alps
Peter wrote:
That is also a very recent change.
The EU regulation is question (part-NCO) is relatively recent – it was applicable from 2013, with an option for individual countries to opt out until 2016.
Whether the rule itself is a change at all depends on the national rules in place before part-NCO. Some countries had the exact same rule even before part-NCO. As far as I understand your web page, the UK had the same rule from 2007?
