CAA Issued Mountain Rating
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oxford
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA Issued Mountain Rating
Has anyone been to the UK CAA and had there Mountain Rating issued?
What exactly is required to have it issued by the means of training etc?
What exactly is required to have it issued by the means of training etc?
The mountain rating is an EASA qualification and the UK CAA should issue such a rating to the holder of a UK-issued EASA licence provided that the applicant has complied with FCL.815:
There are no 'surfaces' in the UK that are designated as requiring a mountain rating, nor do any UK based ATOs hold the necessary approval and so an ATO will have to be found elsewhere in Europe to conduct the approved course of training.
FCL.815 Mountain rating
(a) Privileges. The privileges of the holder of a mountain rating are to conduct flights with aeroplanes or TMG to and from surfaces designated as requiring such a rating by the appropriate authorities designated by the Member States.
....
(b) Training course. Applicants for a mountain rating shall have completed, within a period of 24 months, a course of theoretical knowledge instruction and flight training at an ATO. The content of the course shall be appropriate to the privileges sought.
(c) Skill test. After the completion of the training, the applicant shall pass a skill test with an FE qualified for this purpose. The skill test shall contain:
(e) Revalidation. For revalidation of a mountain rating, the applicant shall:
(a) Privileges. The privileges of the holder of a mountain rating are to conduct flights with aeroplanes or TMG to and from surfaces designated as requiring such a rating by the appropriate authorities designated by the Member States.
....
(b) Training course. Applicants for a mountain rating shall have completed, within a period of 24 months, a course of theoretical knowledge instruction and flight training at an ATO. The content of the course shall be appropriate to the privileges sought.
(c) Skill test. After the completion of the training, the applicant shall pass a skill test with an FE qualified for this purpose. The skill test shall contain:
(1) a verbal examination of theoretical knowledge;
(2) 6 landings on at least 2 different surfaces designated as requiring a mountain rating other than the surface of departure.
(d) Validity. A mountain rating shall be valid for a period of 24 months.(2) 6 landings on at least 2 different surfaces designated as requiring a mountain rating other than the surface of departure.
(e) Revalidation. For revalidation of a mountain rating, the applicant shall:
(1) have completed at least 6 mountain landings in the past 24 months; or
(2) pass a proficiency check. The proficiency check shall comply with the requirements in (c).
(f) Renewal. If the rating has lapsed, the applicant shall comply with the requirement in (e)(2).
(2) pass a proficiency check. The proficiency check shall comply with the requirements in (c).
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no 'surfaces' in the UK that are designated as requiring a mountain rating
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly what type of training does a mountain rating entail, I would have thought most of the points would have been covered in your PPL, i.e.
Don't fly up a box canyon.
Don't piss about on the downwind side of a ridgeline when it's windy.
Don't assume you can scud run under the fog thru hills and canyons
Always have an exit
Lean for density altitude on take off.
Always fly the numbers and know your aircrafts performance specs at altitude.
Take a warm jacket, a tammy, a fully charged phone and an extra pack of smokes in case you get stranded.
And most importantly when waiting for rescue, don't eat the yellow snow.
Have I missed anything ?
Don't fly up a box canyon.
Don't piss about on the downwind side of a ridgeline when it's windy.
Don't assume you can scud run under the fog thru hills and canyons
Always have an exit
Lean for density altitude on take off.
Always fly the numbers and know your aircrafts performance specs at altitude.
Take a warm jacket, a tammy, a fully charged phone and an extra pack of smokes in case you get stranded.
And most importantly when waiting for rescue, don't eat the yellow snow.
Have I missed anything ?
Have I missed anything ?
I would add:
Don't fly along the centre of a valley - fly at the side to leave more room for a turn back - preferably on the right side.
Always cross a ridge-line at an angle and be prepared to turn away ( as you say, "always have an exit").
Get PIREPS if possible. Pilots flying the VFR routes (Ve Follow Roads/Railways) in the Canadian Rockies often give reports on the weather at the mountain passes.
Have some kind of PLB (and don't leave it in the glove-box of your car!
)sapperkenno,
I accept that it may get hot in the UK occasionally, but none of the airfields you mentioned qualify as "high". I routinely operate out of a grass-strip that can have density-altitudes of over 6000' in the summer and that's in the flatlands, not even in the mountains.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Good luck with finding out. I'm still waiting for a response from them as to the rules and procedures for the floatplane rating, several weeks after failing to find anything on the web site so emailing them.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fcl.815, Mountain Mating as contemplated by EASA does not give important details as minimum hours requirements, and therefore will be open to interpretation.
The same goes with EASA Fcl.800 aerobatic rating, this time it mentions 5 hours which for all intents and purposes is the very minimum, even spread around many sorties and considering the limited syllabus when compared to e.g. the french aerobatic rating of min 10 hours..
Mountain Rating and Aerobatics are Aeroclub activities, they have nothing to do with ATO's or ATPL pilots, these are run by private pilots animated by passion upheld during years of activity in which they'd invested loads of money and time.
Their instructors have joined the national instructor scheme which does not involve an ATPL and an instructor course but rather an evaluation and 6 weeks training at an academy like the SFACT in Grenoble.
Now EASA is airline oriented, and it shows when if drafts regulation, the one relevant to Fcl.815 and Fcl.800 is definitely lacking in all respects.
It will enable ATPL pilots who with the minimum experience required ( e,g. in aerobatics the basic 5 hour rating + 40 extra PIC hours, will be able to teach).... Mountain flying will not be much different.
The issue is are we going to see young, frozen ATPL pilots with an FI and 200 Hrs TT running the show ?
Mountain Flying and Aerobatics are not ATPL or CPL activities, they are of the realm of highly specialised aeroclubs, not flying schools. Yet EASA stipulates than only FI's within ATO's will be allowed to impart training. And for the FIE's to do the final check, i can foresee more problems. Unless we find FIE's that have been practicing as a hobby at their own experience for ages, how can they be qualified ?
By holding the rating only ?
I can guarantee that it takes a long time only to be safe with aerobatics, and even more with mountain flying as you are operating in an hostile environment at low level during circuits..A long time to earn these ratings and years if not decades of experience to be qualified for teaching.
The same goes with EASA Fcl.800 aerobatic rating, this time it mentions 5 hours which for all intents and purposes is the very minimum, even spread around many sorties and considering the limited syllabus when compared to e.g. the french aerobatic rating of min 10 hours..
Mountain Rating and Aerobatics are Aeroclub activities, they have nothing to do with ATO's or ATPL pilots, these are run by private pilots animated by passion upheld during years of activity in which they'd invested loads of money and time.
Their instructors have joined the national instructor scheme which does not involve an ATPL and an instructor course but rather an evaluation and 6 weeks training at an academy like the SFACT in Grenoble.
Now EASA is airline oriented, and it shows when if drafts regulation, the one relevant to Fcl.815 and Fcl.800 is definitely lacking in all respects.
It will enable ATPL pilots who with the minimum experience required ( e,g. in aerobatics the basic 5 hour rating + 40 extra PIC hours, will be able to teach).... Mountain flying will not be much different.
The issue is are we going to see young, frozen ATPL pilots with an FI and 200 Hrs TT running the show ?
Mountain Flying and Aerobatics are not ATPL or CPL activities, they are of the realm of highly specialised aeroclubs, not flying schools. Yet EASA stipulates than only FI's within ATO's will be allowed to impart training. And for the FIE's to do the final check, i can foresee more problems. Unless we find FIE's that have been practicing as a hobby at their own experience for ages, how can they be qualified ?
By holding the rating only ?
I can guarantee that it takes a long time only to be safe with aerobatics, and even more with mountain flying as you are operating in an hostile environment at low level during circuits..A long time to earn these ratings and years if not decades of experience to be qualified for teaching.
Could I set up a course at the ATO I work, and go land at Crossland Moor, Octon and Glenswinton and give a thorough theory course on hot/high operations?! Would that count?
For a mountain rating (ski), at least one of the landing surfaces has to be on a glacier - you don't find too many of those in the UK.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oxford
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did anyone actually get a Mountain Rating? and what paperwork did you provide to the CAA for the issue of it?
I assume the paperwork is provided by the French/Swiss/Italy training school?
Any other locations that need a Mountain Rating approval?
I assume the paperwork is provided by the French/Swiss/Italy training school?
Any other locations that need a Mountain Rating approval?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mountain rating sounds like a load of old crap to me anyway... Do Transport Canada have a similar course for people flying the NWT, or FAA for operators in Alaska..? Do they heck.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at BillieBob's photograph, assuming that is ice on the runway, how does one actually stop the aircraft on a downward slope like that without locking the wheels and skidding? Just curious.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A friend attended this "mountain flying school" she showed me her folder from the class, it was basically a bunch of W&B worksheets, density altitude calcs and take off distances etc. Note it's a seminar where you get a certificate from the school not a rating.
Can't remember what she paid but remember thinking it wasn't cheap.
Mountain Canyon Flying Seminars Home Page
Can't remember what she paid but remember thinking it wasn't cheap.
Mountain Canyon Flying Seminars Home Page
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The picture from Billiebob shows Altiport Courchevel in the french alps.
Jetblue, you have correctly noticed that the peculiarity of mountain airfields other than the short length of their runways, is their slope, and there is a reason for this.
There is no such thing as having to use brakes downhill and skid out of control. One always lands uphill, and takes off downhill.
When landing or taking off one is committed and there are no options available.
On take off there is no possibilty to abort, and on landing no possibility to go around.
Though the configuration of mountainous terrain involves slopes, mountain strips are intentionally always with a slope.
At those heights, with the reduced air density affecting lift and reduced power affecting engines in our typical underpowered a/c, a flat strip however long, would almost inevitably render take off impossible and result in a very long deceleration at landing.
The slope acts a secondary source of energy at take off accelerating downhill and does the opposite at landing uphill, gravity comes into play.
Mountain rating in my view is far from useless or "Crappy" it sharpen's one skills, deveops coordination and precise flying, then all trainers i've ever seen are tailwheels, with all the benefits involved..
Jetblue, you have correctly noticed that the peculiarity of mountain airfields other than the short length of their runways, is their slope, and there is a reason for this.
There is no such thing as having to use brakes downhill and skid out of control. One always lands uphill, and takes off downhill.
When landing or taking off one is committed and there are no options available.
On take off there is no possibilty to abort, and on landing no possibility to go around.
Though the configuration of mountainous terrain involves slopes, mountain strips are intentionally always with a slope.
At those heights, with the reduced air density affecting lift and reduced power affecting engines in our typical underpowered a/c, a flat strip however long, would almost inevitably render take off impossible and result in a very long deceleration at landing.
The slope acts a secondary source of energy at take off accelerating downhill and does the opposite at landing uphill, gravity comes into play.
Mountain rating in my view is far from useless or "Crappy" it sharpen's one skills, deveops coordination and precise flying, then all trainers i've ever seen are tailwheels, with all the benefits involved..
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: in front of comptator :-)
Age: 66
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing there is interesting. On touch down you immediately go to full power to get up the hill.
The best bit is the EFATO, really easy. You don't even need to put in the power as you fly away from the emergency landing site. You just glide off down the valley.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetblue, wind in mountains is a killer for general aviation, due to its updrafts, downdrafts and rotors, turbulence can be extreme so it is vital to check weather.
One indication of trouble are scattered lenticular clowds, they indicate strong winds aloft. Avoid flying in these conditions. this is not only valid for mountain flying activities, but also for crossing mountaineous areas during cross country navigations.
One indication of trouble are scattered lenticular clowds, they indicate strong winds aloft. Avoid flying in these conditions. this is not only valid for mountain flying activities, but also for crossing mountaineous areas during cross country navigations.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Although nowhere near requiring any sort of 'rating', the old 09/27 on St Marys, Isles of Scilly was 'interesting'. The first part of 09 was grass, with asphalt on the 'hump', turning to concrete for the downhill part. Conversely, 27 started as concrete, with grass for the second, downhill, portion. If you hadn't stopped by the time you got to the top, then go-around. The hedge at the bottom end was a graveyard for several aircraft. Even if not badly damaged, they were a write-off due to the very high costs of getting them recovered to the mainland for repair.
Even now, being all asphalt, 09/27 takes some 'thinking about'. First-time visitors should use 14/32 and a low approach and go-around is usually recommended to 'get your eye in'. It's not a chore, really, as it's another opportunity to look at the drop-dead gorgeous scenery.
TOO
Even now, being all asphalt, 09/27 takes some 'thinking about'. First-time visitors should use 14/32 and a low approach and go-around is usually recommended to 'get your eye in'. It's not a chore, really, as it's another opportunity to look at the drop-dead gorgeous scenery.
TOO
As I understand it, the EASA Mountain Rating is only available at, and required for, some Alpine airfields.
No rating is required elsewhere in EASAland, nor in the US or Canada.
Some Flying Schools in US and UK offer mountain flying courses.
Colorado Flight Centre required a renting pilot to have completed their course before landing a rented aircraft above 7000'
I've never done a mountain flying course, although I enjoy flying in mountains.
The highest airfield I've used (solo) is Gunnison, Colorado, 7600'+.
If you want to fly in the mountains, in your own plane, I'd suggest glider ridge soaring as training.
If you rent, you have to do what the FBO requires.
If you just want a signature in your logbook, if there's a cheap course in East Anglia or the Netherlands take it.
Weather is important, and there are big differences between high, hot, dry and not-so-high, cool, and wet.
No rating is required elsewhere in EASAland, nor in the US or Canada.
Some Flying Schools in US and UK offer mountain flying courses.
Colorado Flight Centre required a renting pilot to have completed their course before landing a rented aircraft above 7000'
I've never done a mountain flying course, although I enjoy flying in mountains.
The highest airfield I've used (solo) is Gunnison, Colorado, 7600'+.
If you want to fly in the mountains, in your own plane, I'd suggest glider ridge soaring as training.
If you rent, you have to do what the FBO requires.
If you just want a signature in your logbook, if there's a cheap course in East Anglia or the Netherlands take it.
Weather is important, and there are big differences between high, hot, dry and not-so-high, cool, and wet.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: a home
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly and had a French Mountain Rating that I used to use for hiring club aircraft at Meribel or Megeve. I just did the training and sent my UK licence, logbook and paperwork to the DGAC in Lyon. The French know how to do this. The Italians and Swiss do it as well - probably the Germans and Austrians, but I stuck with the French who stoically put up with my awful RT pronunciation and were completely charming. I never strayed across the French borders. Meribel had a Super Cub which was just delightful for learning the techniques around some very tricky little places and Mousquetaires for landing over at Courcheval, but the Mt Blanc massif is that much closer from Megeve if you want to get onto its glaciers. I didn't find the Rating pointless at all, the handling techniques on the ground are very different to flying from the flat. The Altiports are at 5000 - 6000 ft, the designated Altisurfaces (see the AIP) may be higher or lower - they are almost in the almost strip category, but the glaciers are obviously a lot higher and most are fair game. I have certainly landed around 10,000 ft and that wasn't extreme. Some of the cols on the Massif and around places like the Aguilles d'Arves are truly inspiring, especially if you get out for a walk around. They used to differentiate the Rating into Sol et extension Niege. Doing it on skis gave you both privileges, but it was sometimes reckoned that the summer flying off Sol was more challenging with the higher density altitudes and increased anabatic effects. Perhaps that's why it is just one Rating now. If you are a European and want to see how mountain flying is done, go to France - its not just flying around mountains, its landing all over them....and taking off again... in the same flying machine. The Americans and Canadians have their own playgrounds and I have no experience of them to offer.