Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Which countries in Europe allow H24 unattended runways?

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.

That’s how we do it. You can open and close in flight or on ground. This is a typical thing you have to be aware of. When switching to local ground frequency, Norway control will ask if you want to close it immediately, or on the ground. There could be lots of people on the ground at departure and/or arrival field. In those cases you open and close in the air. At desolate fields, you can open/close on the ground.

You can think of lots cases where this will not work. No mobile phone coverage typically, and you have to close by air. But I mean, in those cases you would be no better off if you were padling a canoo Seriously, there is no difference, except you got the ELT and/or PLB. Besides, when flying back again, you have no other option than to file and open in the air in any case.

Last Edited by LeSving at 10 Jun 11:12
The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Malibuflyer wrote:

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
So you’re saying that almost all countries in the world are doing it wrong, and only Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and maybe a few others have real ‘safe’ rules? I can fly completely without FPL trough many big countries. I can even fly without FPL trough overregulated Switzerland. If I like, I can contact FIS and report them my routing, but that is not mandatory. Lots of Swiss mountain airfields are completely unattended, especially during the week, sometimes you even need to close a barrier for a public road-crossing by yourself. If something happens your ELT should do his job. Is this practice dangerous? I don’t think so.

The “safety” aspect of attended aerodromes in Germany is just a good excuse, to fully control and register all movements. It was introduced during the black pages of German history to prevent the “Reichsflucht” and it never changed ever since. They just changed the reason for this rule. According to our local CAA-guy, the “Flugleiterpflicht” was once almost abolished, however, it was the lobby of the airfield owners that prevented this to happen. They still want to control their movements and landing fee payments.
Last Edited by Frans at 10 Jun 11:48
Switzerland

Collecting money has often been cited as the reason why nearly everything in the UK shuts when the staff goes home.

Well, for based pilots this should not be an issue because you know where to find them and you can invoice them, but reportedly even based pilots have failed to declare movements!

As usual it is the few who do the damage for the many.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Malibuflyer wrote:

Even defining the FATO is a very non trivial task for an amateur.

FATO is a helicopter concept, is it not?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Malibuflyer wrote:

But denying that there is a logic behind the mandatory person on the ground doesn’t help in the discussion!

There is logic in this only as far the actual risk of take off/landing accidents where immediate outside help will be needed is noticeable in comparison to other risks. In my experience that is not the case — although I admit have haven’t checked the stastistics.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Malibuflyer wrote:

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.

The regulation says absolutely nothing about the amount of detail you have to consider. Suppose the MVA around a particular airfield is 2000’. That means no obstacles will be higher than 1000’. In that case, designing a DIY approach with DA = 1500’ would in my opinion tick the boxes.

Anyway, an important argument for DIY approaches are they when the obstacle situation is uncomplicated, they will generally be safer than scud running in marginal VFR which is often the alternative.

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?

I have and I did consider all the points. It took some days of work and I was familiar with PANS-OPS volume II. I did have access to terrain and obstacle information. I decided to use a DH no lower than 500’ although you could certainly go lower using PANS-OPS criteria.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 10 Jun 12:37
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Malibuflyer wrote:

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.

Fair enough – but how does this compare to the risk of waiting for a few hours in a car wreck if you have an unnoticed accident on a street without a Fahrleiter on duty?

Hungriger Wolf (EDHF), Germany

Frans wrote:

So you’re saying that almost all countries in the world are doing it wrong, and only Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and maybe a few others have real ‘safe’ rules?

To be fair, I would say Malibuflyer specifically pointed out that he does not agree with that point of view. Instead, he argued that there is a little bit more than “no, none, zero” logic behind a rule that we probably all agree shouldn’t be there.

Hungriger Wolf (EDHF), Germany

Peter wrote:

Well, for based pilots this should not be an issue because you know where to find them and you can invoice them, but reportedly even based pilots have failed to declare movements!
Well, to prevent people flying away without paying their fees, I would just install some cameras and send them a bill with extra ‘administration’ costs. But is this a real big issue in GA? At some Swiss aerodromes, one can even take away the entire cashbox, if you visit with criminal intentions. Abusing such a trust would be devastating for the GA-community.

Patrick wrote:
To be fair, I would say Malibuflyer specifically pointed out that he does not agree with that point of view. Instead, he argued that there is a little bit more than “no, none, zero” logic behind a rule that we probably all agree shouldn’t be there.
Fair point, I hope he will explain it a bit later on.
Last Edited by Frans at 10 Jun 14:15
Switzerland

At some Swiss aerodromes, one can even take away the entire cashbox, if you visit with criminal intentions. Abusing such a trust would be devastating for the GA-community.

I agree, but often perception (management’s fear of losing the occassional £10) is stronger than reality. I am completely certain it has happened (because I know of the wierdest things which definitely did happen) but it will be quite rare.

What happens rather more often is movements when (a) untowered and (b) outside the permitted hours. Let’s say tower is manned 0900-1800 but, having signed some indemnity document, you can operate 0700-0900 and 1800-2000. Then some selfish dick (who has done the indemnity so he knows perfectly what he’s doing) will depart 0500 and p1ss off the neighbours under the flight path. Then the airport management panics and simply terminates the 0700-0900 concession. I don’t know about non-UK scenarios but a UK “licensed” airport can’t chuck off just a specific based operator. Of course one could eliminate the possibility of an offence by allowing movements all night but that will really p1ss off the neighbours…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top