Mountain Flying Malarky

[italianjon]

Hi All,

So what exactly is the story with the Mountain Flying “Rating”?

I have heard you need it for the Alps, but where is the limit of need? Is it just for altiports or for en-route within the valleys? Or for all airports in a specific area.

Cheers

J

[Jan Olieslagers]

What is (in this context) Malarky?

[mad_jock]

its just for the airports although you would be wise in these areas to take some local knowledge purely for personal safety not getting a Darwin award.

[italianjon]

Malarky... oh god how do you explain that... something annoying I guess. that's how I meant it.

Mad Jock, of course, as much as I would love to win an award I could easily forgo a Darwin.

it's more from the legal angle I am interested. do airfields publish if they require it. let me put some context and it might help.

say I am flying to southern germany/northern switzerland/Austria at what point do the hills become mountains? There are some Swiss and Austrian airports that I would feel comfortable going to on a clear day because the terrain is mountainous but lower... I would not fly in the Davos area for example without a couple of experienced hands.

I would probably feel ok going over the pass south of innsbruck on a CAVOK day... but would this be legal? would a flight to innsbruck be legal.

I am struggling to find much written about it with clear details... Other than EASA mountain rating... but no definition of what an EASA mountain is?!?!

[tecman]

Jan,

Malarkey = nonsense, rubbish, bull!!!!

[trinnydriver]

The rating is for landing and take off at altiports and altisurfaces. I only normally fly in the French alps so can say how they do it which is to notify that the airport is of restricted use in the chart from the AIP for that particular site. It then goes on to explain the restrictions. https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv..._AD-2.LFLJ.pdf is a good example and one of the most used altiports of the winter in France. It is also probably the largest altiport in France. Note that there are two further sub-divisions of the rating one for wheels and one for skis.

[italianjon]

and the EASA stuff will be the same sort of thing right? So we don't need to worry? it wont affect us?

[markkal]

In France, til EASA takes over, there is like it was said 2 subdivisions, wheel and ski, when you get your rating.

But, without getting your rating you are allowed to be signed off for two altiports / altisurfaces, after training with an instructor and endorsement on logbook.

[BillieBob]

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.

[italianjon]

if it is a designated airport I imagine that is propogated via AIP, either AD or a list in ENR and/or NOTAM

[charliegolf]

A lot of people didn't survive, 'feeling confident' about mountain flying. That's why people train for it. CAVOK simply means you won't see it coming.

CG

[UV]

Trinnydriver
I do like the paragraph, in your link to Courcheval AIP entry, which reads:

Preferential crashing zone: 020°/2,7 NM/AD, at the
bottom of the valley.

[RomeoZulu]

and if I remember the crash point is the football pitch but the link fencing around it slows you down first. Its a lovely scenic glide down after engine failure on take off practice.

[trinnydriver]

Courchevel

There were also other ski slopes to land on (flying in the summer so no snow or skiers on them) as emergency landing sites. One thing to note is that when you do the mountain rating Courcehevel looks massive compared to some of the places you fly to.