Emir wrote:
I’m so sad because of such avoidable accident but it was most probably CFIT – end of story.
I agree it was probably CFIT, but that’s not the end of the story unless we know why. Unfortunately, it looks like we never will.
UdoR wrote:
Boy, departing on a 600 meters runway in such conditions would scare the shit out of me. The 210 gets a bit quicker into the air than a Comanche, but nevertheless it’s a high adrenaline situation,
@UdoR it’s less scary in the Comanche when you can’t see the end of the 600m runway Udo ;-) (I am joking before I get ripped apart here). I have over 900 landings in LFHN in the Comanche and still need to focus on every landing in a very similar setting to this one. I would agree even in a C210 600m in those conditions you would really want to be on top of your game and obstacle clearance from DER will really be from DER…
Without programming something in the GPS, the flight would have clearly been impossible.
No; you can fly a plane entirely with the heading bug, and a tablet running some satnav app. Lots of people do that. Some do it because their plane has no GPS, or no GPS-autopilot capability, or has avionics they don’t understand.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Can you point me to where this is stated?
Art 34 of basic regulation (2018/1139) states that aerodromes need a certificate.
ADR.AR.C.35 states that this certificate (amongst others) includes the “conditions to operate” (i.e. according to AMC day/ night and VFR/ IFR)
LFHNflightstudent wrote:
it’s less scary in the Comanche when you can’t see the end of the 600m runway
Now that’s a good one, I have to admit. 
Ted wrote:
Or he knew exactly what runway he was on, i.e. 05 but he still had the mental picture of a 23 departure in his head, and without the visual cue of the mountain, hangers, tower, whatever etc, his mind did not pick up these two incompatible facts. Particularly when someone is stressed or task saturated they often focus only on things that matter at the time, i.e. tunnel vision, they forget the bigger picture.
Quite so. I made a very similar mistake once (but in more benign circumstances). Landing at Lisbon at night in a southerly direction and being tired after a long flight, I turned the taxi chart upside down so that up would be in my direction of landing. (This was in the 1980s when we used paper charts.) I figured this would make me less likely to make a mistake. Unfortunately, I also reversed the chart once more in my head so that when I got a taxi clearance that began with taxying onto an intersecting runway, I turned in the wrong direction at the intersection. The tower promptly sent a follow me-car to herd me in.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Unfortunately, I also reversed the chart once more in my head so that when I got a taxi clearance that began with taxying onto an intersecting runway, I turned in the wrong direction at the intersection. The tower promptly sent a follow me-car to herd me in.
Same happened to me in St Johns lining up on the wrong RWY (intersection) which the Tower caught but I would not have… I lined up on 16 not 20 at the intersection…
Malibuflyer wrote:
Art 34 of basic regulation (2018/1139) states that aerodromes need a certificate.
Article 2 (Scope), item 1(e), of the same regulation states that it (the regulation itself) only applies to aerodromes open to the public, serving commercial aviation and having a paved instrument runway of at least 800 m length (or serves helicopter IFR ops exclusively). LOIH does not fall into that category.
Airborne_Again wrote:
LOIH does not fall into that category.
Even better! So Snoopy’s original statement: “LOIH is approved for VFR operations, however that might be based on national law which is second to EU law.” is obviously pointless.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Even better! So Snoopy’s original statement: “LOIH is approved for VFR operations, however that might be based on national law which is second to EU law.” is obviously pointless.
Depending on how the Austrian certification is phrased, I agree that an airport VFR restriction in Austrian law could mean that you would need VFR visibility to legally take off. However, it would not preclude entering cloud immediately after take-off. (I know that was not the situation here.)
