Which countries in Europe allow H24 unattended runways?

LeSving wrote:

Ever heard about a flight plan? This is one of the main reason to file a flight plan, so that you are guarantied SAR.

Not at all saying there is no alternative to airport staff. Just stating German what is the idea behind German regulation (and that this is kind of thinking in Germany is not exclusive to flying).

Practical challenge with flight plans as they are practiced in many (not all countries): It has become a habit in many places, that the flight plan is not opened by phone but on radio with ATC after takeoff. Therefore it doesn’t help for takeoff accidents.
Sometimes pilots even close the FPL via radio ( which is legal at least in some country as soon as “landing is assured” which is typically read as “field is in sight and no known obstacle to landing” – but obviously that practice would not help to get support in case of a crash landing.

Peter wrote:

You can even fly a DIY IAP (in a G-reg). Which countries allow that?

As it regulated by EASA, all EASA countries do. But of course their CAAs may spread lots of FUD about it. The Swedish CAA (or at least people) apparently try to prohibit it by saying that you must have an instrument runway. Not that I can find such a requirement in part-NCO.

Practically speaking: If we are really talking about a “DIY IAP” and not about “rumbling down a magenta line that looks kinda okayish on whatever toy I used to plan it” it’s actually pretty difficult to plan such a procedure that fulfills EASA requirements. Getting the accurate terrain and obstacle data that is mandatory to check clearance requirements is not trivial.

Not saying it’s completely unsafe to fly down the Garmin proposal for “visual approach guidance” at a field you know from VMC in easy terrain. Just saying that while it’s easy to blame the local CAA it’s often the EASA rules that really stop the show.

Malibuflyer wrote:

Just saying that while it’s easy to blame the local CAA it’s often the EASA rules that really stop the show.

I would seriously be interested if you could point to such EASA rules.

Malibuflyer wrote:

It has become a habit in many places, that the flight plan is not opened by phone but on radio with ATC after takeoff. Therefore it doesn’t help for takeoff accidents.
Sometimes pilots even close the FPL via radio ( which is legal at least in some country as soon as “landing is assured” which is typically read as “field is in sight and no known obstacle to landing” – but obviously that practice would not help to get support in case of a crash landing.

It would be so simple it’s almost funny:

Mandate that flight plans can be opened or closed via ATC after take-off or before landing only of there is a Flugleiter on-site who can step in if an accident happens.

For take-offs/landings without Flugleiter on-site, mandate that a flight plan is mandatory and it must be opened before take-off or closed after landing – presumably by phoning the AIS.

Problem solved.

IMHO, there is no, none, zero reason for the mandatory presence of a person on the ground. As proven over many decades by the entire rest of the flying world. This whole thing is just highly ridiculous and the single worst thing about flying in Germany. It massively cripples GA usability in many cases.

Airborne_Again wrote:

I would seriously be interested if you could point to such EASA rules

Easy: NCO.OP.110

For published Procedure it is quite simple, as GM1 to NCO.OP.110 allows to use commercially available material to determine DA, etc.

For DIY IAPs it get’s a bit more complex. NCO.OP.110 clearly states that for determining DH/DA amongst others you need to consider:
- dimensions and characteristics of the runways and final approach and take- off areas (FATOs) that may be selected for use
- the obstacles in the approach, the missed approach and the climb-out areas required for the execution of contingency procedures *
- the obstacle clearance altitude/height for the instrument approach procedures;

While there is obviously no exact guidance on how you actually use this information, it is crystal clear that without having this information it is just impossible to comply with the regulation when designing your DIY IAP.
And here’s the catch: For Non-Instrument Airfields or even for “Non-Instrument Runways” (i.e. runways which don’t have a published instrument procedure leading to it) it is almost impossible to get this information, however. Even defining an appropriate FATO according to all the rules applicable to these areas is a task close to impossible to do for “DIY IAPs” – it’s not a surprise that exactly these type of things are the key drivers of complexity when designing an “official IAP”.

*Note, that this implies that even for DIY IAPs you need to explicitly plan contingency procedures – therefore just following the “visual guidance” from Garmin can not be compliant wit EASA roles.

Malibuflyer wrote:

While there is obviously no exact guidance on how you actually use this information, it is crystal clear that without having this information it is just impossible to comply with the regulation when designing your DIY IAP.

Sure, but suppose you have this information? If you are conservative in how you choose the DH, the information doesn’t even have to be very detailed. Obviously you need to consider the missed approach.

Patrick wrote:

IMHO, there is no, none, zero reason for the mandatory presence of a person on the ground.

I have to clearly state before, that I don’t like the current rule and personally believe that no government should prevent people from killing themselves if they wish to by doing stupid things.

But denying that there is a logic behind the mandatory person on the ground doesn’t help in the discussion! Because there clearly is one (and the same one as the also mandatory lifeguard for use of public pools which in my personal opinion is also unnecessary): At least in the current process of handling flight plans, even if you have to open it by phone it doesn’t help in case of Takeoff-accidents. Just imagine you opened your FPL by phone for a 5 hr. flight to a Croatia. As nobody will actively realize that you did not show up on radio on an ATC frequency (which btw. is not mandatory for many flights) the earliest time someone will figure out that something is wrong is 5,5hrs after scheduled departure when you still have not closed your FPL – that is 5,5 hrs you are stuck in the wreck of your plane on the departing runway before the search even starts.

Again: I’m not saying this is a risk that calls for regulatory action – but it undeniably is a risk that is hard to mitigate by a FPL-System.

Airborne_Again wrote:

Sure, but suppose you have this information? If you are conservative in how you choose the DH, the information doesn’t even have to be very detailed. Obviously you need to consider the missed approach.

As said: Even defining the FATO is a very non trivial task for an amateur. And the height of the control tower (or equivalent building) is almost always relevant for the OCH. And even this data point is not easy to figure out for small airfields.

Plus we must not forget that we are talking regulations here and not practical flying: The regulation clearly states that you need to have the described information to plan your DH. Neither the NCO nor the GM/AMC state that you can compensate the absence of this information by being extra conservative in planning.

Therefore, coming back to the original questions, CAAs that generally doubt that an amateur pilot can design an DIY IAP that is in accordance with EASA rules are most probably right. CAAs that allow such procedures anyways, actually accept that these pilots are most probably breaking EASA rules but it’s ok as long as they are more or less safe.

To turn your question around: Have you ever seen a private pilot who claims that he has designed his/her own DIY-IAP that even considered all of the points in the EASA rules? The reality of such DIY approaches in my experience is, that the design considerations end with hitting the “vertical guidance” button (or calculating the RoD for a 3° approach for the older ones"…