For example the LDSB is almost that elevation of LFHL, with cliff on the one side. One day we may map all incidents
around that airport.
LDSB is 1700ft elevation, and a long hard runway. LFHL is 3300ft elevation, and grass. That is a huge difference. Also 5 in a TB20 is likely a lot, even in France where obesity is a smaller issue than most other places.
LDSB is dead easy to land on. You add 1000ft to 1700ft (=2700ft) and position yourself a few miles from the relevant runway end. Same as anywhere else. Around 12:00:
My example here about UL taking off with more than 20+ kt tail wind was example from LDSH taped in April 2023
Nobody can remove pilot stupidity. No rules, no training. The European system, the 1hr flight every 2 years which gets you signed off as long as the FI survives the flight, makes it impossible to prevent this. In the US, a complete muppet should fail the BFR.
Like I posted above, rules cannot solve this. Likely factors are
OK, so they failed to lift off, from a 3330ft elevation AD, 883m grass.
Per the POH, at gross (they must have been with 5 people, even children), assuming ISA + 10 (19 degrees), would need about 2200 feet to lift off (assuming short grass, i.e. +10%). That’s pretty marginal. About 3700 feet to clear 50 feet. Maybe that NOTAM about the 7 foot fence at Avignon LFMV would have been useful in this case.
I’ve now had a look at the FlightAware track. Interesting, to put it mildly. They must have skimmed treetops and/or roofs in some parts of their trip. Question to our Dutch friends here: I know there aren’t any mountains in Holland, but during training do you never go higher than 3-4k ft?
As for more regulation: nonsense. If you fly like that, then you’re asking for trouble. You cannot legislate for stupidity.
PS: I assume that the airspeed variations are a function of their low altitude and FlightAware didn’t get proper data.
It was a long time ago but I do not recall getting above 2000ft during training but then most of it was under the Schiphol TMA . My instructor was an ex Dutch navy pilot who spent much of his career flying low level sorties in Catalinas.
I recently acquired my license in the Netherlands (LAPL, but the training is essentially the same as PPL). I got to 5000’ at some point, but over a flat country, it really doesn’t feel any different from flying at 2000’ or 3000’. And since I was flying a plane with FADEC, it didn’t affect engine control either.
ASN data will probably be updated in future once more details are known.
I didn’t train here, but this plane was based in Rotterdam, which mostly sits under a 1500’ class A shelf for Schiphol. The VFR arrivals into and out of Rotterdam have you basically skimming the tops of buildings and windmills. If I’m flying VFR less than 100nm I rarely climb higher than 2500 due to airspace and the fact that you’re nearly always over something you can safely land on. It’s one of the reasons I nearly always file IFR. I just want to climb immediately and cruise at a reasonable altitude.
Peter wrote:
In the US, a complete muppet should fail the BFR.
Should. In the USA, you can legally buy laws from congress. Do you think for a moment that there are not pencil-whipped BFRs?
https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/proficiency/the-temptation-of-the-pencil-whipped-flight-review/
If you read the crash reports out of the US, you will see that some muppets have somehow gotten through the 10 micron stainless steel filter that you believe is in place and filtering pilots from further flight. 
LDSB is dead easy to land on.
It depends.
Elevation/Location, surrounding topography & local weather effects can cause some interesting conditions. I wouldn’t call it dead easy.
The European system, the 1hr flight every 2 years which gets you signed off as long as the FI survives the flight, makes it impossible to prevent this. In the US, a complete muppet should fail the BFR.
EASA: Either a proficiency check with an examiner every two years or 12 hours flown + a refresher flight with an instructor within the last 12 months (per type/class even).
FAA: A flight review with an instructor every two years (one FR counts for all flown types). One cannot fail a flight review, however the instructor can deny the sign off.
What is your point? I don’t see a big difference between EASA/FAA?
I believe there is very little correlation between accident numbers and renewal/revalidation rules (mostly pointless exercises imho) anyway. An EASA „pilot helpline“ group to obtain advice and information, e.g. via some app or on some messenger would probably have a better statistical safety impact.
It is normal, if not to say common expected practice, for GA to stay very low around the Netherlands, mostly 500-1000ft AGL. Maybe the accident crew thought the same is required of them abroad? A fatal assumption, in this case.
Like I posted above, rules cannot solve this. Likely factors are
a pilot who has never been anywhere (majority in Europe)
not knowing how to plan a route w.r.t. terrain (as above; not needed)
lack of currency due to a long nasty winter (on top of frequently poor currency in GA)
lack of currency caused by covid (both suspension of flying, and many pilots having dropped out and maybe got back in now)
the “hard to get IR” in Europe ensures that some high % of PPLs lose control in IMC (better in the UK)
an SR20 is not exactly overpowered; a lot of mistakes you can make in an SR22/TB20 you cannot do in an SR20
On point, fully agree except the „hard to get IR“ is now easy thanks to EASA however many flight schools aren’t interested in providing it.
