On my recent trip to EDDL, I was irritated by the hefty increase in fees. It almost doubled to 150 EUR for a PA28 due to a new invoice position. They now charge 65 EUR for setting up 4 safety cones around every aircraft, regardless the size.
This is obviously non-sense. I’ve tried hard to think of any scenario that would justify this measure and increase the safety around my aircraft on the grass GA ramp. Can’t come up with any.
I’ve written a longer thread on the PuF forum in German to discuss if anything can be done about it (possibly via AOPA or so). For anyone who cares: https://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/servlet/use/MessageView.class?parent=2022,05,02,15,2459498&readStart=2022,05,02,15,2459498&userAlert=msg_posted&reloadIndex=true
So it must now be ok to post about the EuroGA airport database on PUF, without getting beaten up 
Peter wrote:
So it must now be ok to post about the EuroGA airport database on PUF, without getting beaten up
Isn’t that off-topic? 
By the way, and that is also entirely off-topic – the discussion you are referencing including my offer here to contribute time & effort to the project and the cynicism that was met with is the single outstanding reason why my enthusiasm to be active on this forum has been in sharp decline since. I’m not gone, but I still found that irritating enough to keep a safe distance. On PuF, on the other hand, I have never been very active in the first place for very different reasons that would be even more off-topic.
Well, it isn’t a “done thing” to post a link to another forum to continue a discussion there. If someone did that on PUF, or various other places, it would be attacked, or deleted. We don’t delete links to other forums here (other than on specific occassions when it was done as a wind-up) but the others attack/delete links to ours
That project (with various versions of it elsewhere on social media) was little more than a demand to open our data to everyone else (who does not participate here but wants to run their own site, attracting advertising etc etc) while an observation that anyone who suggested that the EDDH database was similarly opened, got beaten up.
Peter wrote:
Well, it isn’t a “done thing” to post a link to another forum to continue a discussion there.
Peter, I think it is a matter of courtesy to disclose if one cross posts on another forum – that is how I have learned it. The post on the German site in German is a bit more detailed as I think it concerns more pilots in Germany. Sorry if there is anything wrong with letting folks here know about the price hike and also the neighboring discussion (for Heaven’s sake, why do you need to drop words like "attacking / “beating up” / “deleting” here?).
Peter wrote:
If someone did that on PUF, or various other places, it would be attacked, or deleted.
That is of course not the case.
Even to the point that a simple search results in links in the PuF forum posted by yourself years ago that nobody (who should have done that?) deleted. And why should anyone do that, anyway? That is honestly beyond me.
Peter wrote:
That project (with various versions of it elsewhere on social media) was little more than a demand to open our data to everyone else (who does not participate here but wants to run their own site, attracting advertising etc etc) while an observation that anyone who suggested that the EDDH database was similarly opened, got beaten up.
I find that depiction actually insulting and don’t wish to discuss it further.
Patrick wrote:
They now charge 65 EUR for setting up 4 safety cones around every aircraft, regardless the size.
When the fueller at ELLX made noises in the direction of not fuelling aircraft that don’t have these cones, I bought lightweight collapsible cones…
lionel wrote:
I bought lightweight collapsible cones…
They are not acceptable at EDDL. It wouldn’t be Germany if the regulations didn’t outline the exact specs to be met.
Patrick wrote:
They are not acceptable at EDDL. It wouldn’t be Germany if the regulations didn’t outline the exact specs to be met.
Darn, mine are 711mm high, and the minimum is 750mm, although other brands have some that are 750mm high. But mine have a light on top. I wonder whether/hope the light is at least 10 cd/m², and thus fulfils
oder ersatzweise vier Lampen (Mindestlichtstärke 10 Candela [cd/m²])
but in reality I have no clue.
lionel wrote:
but in reality I have no clue.
I thought that for 65 EUR, I get to keep them and can re-use them next time when visiting. But they wouldn’t let me.
Sounds like a final nail in the coffin for just putting light-GA off at Dusseldorf. They probably realise a) Someone will pay it or b) They won’t pay it and bugger off somewhere else.
It makes you wonder….
