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?
It’s not a question of right or wrong at all. It’s a question of how much we think the government should take action to protect its people against all kinds of dangers.
Let’s look at a case where most of us are not that emotional:
In Germany public pools are closed when no lifeguard is present – even many shores of lakes are closed w/o a lifeguard when there is some kind of public infrastructure present (e.g. toilets). People (esp. juvenile) are frequently fined for using such pools (by climbing over the fence) at night.
In Iceland, in contrast, there is a sign at most public pools that asks you to close the gate after you used them to make sure that no sheep fall in and drown while no-one is present.
Two different philosophies of how a state protects people. I like the Icelandic one much better, but can intellectually understand the German one as well. And – truth to be told – I’f I’d experience a heart attack while swimming I’d rather be in Germany than in Iceland. It’s just my personal opinion that I’m willing to bear that “heart attack while swimming risk” in exchange for the dramatically increased freedom of being allowed to swim whenever I want and the much better public pool infrastructure in Iceland because there it’s much cheaper to operate a public pool than in Germany.
But again: Not a question of right or wrong but what I like better or not!
Malibuflyer wrote:
It’s not a question of right or wrong at all. It’s a question of how much we think the government should take action to protect its people against all kinds of dangers.
I find it odd that government ‘protection’ consists of forcing the individual to buy a commercial service against his will, with no government involvement other than dictating how others should spend their money. If the government were providing the service with tax revenues it would be more logical although by popular consensus, based on vast worldwide experience it would still be unnecessary and wasteful.
Its narrow minded nonsense that this is even considered a debatable topic when GA in the US and elsewhere, which means most GA, operates mostly from unattended airports.
Airborne_Again wrote:
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
I’m genuinely impressed! I just fear, that in this case you are the unicorn.
Need to actually think about your idea of using the MVA as upper bound for obstacle clearance.
Silvaire wrote:
I find it odd that government ‘protection’ consists of forcing the individual to buy a commercial service against his will, with no government involvement other than dictating how others should spend their money
When FAA mandates that some work on some planes needs to be performed or at least checked by a licensed mechanic they are doing exactly the same thing.
Aircraft operated under FAA part 91 are maintained on condition, so I think in that case there is no mandate to perform any maintenance at all on the aircraft, and certainly no documented or government approved maintenance plan for light aircraft. There is also the option, at the discretion of the individual, to operate the aircraft in Experimental Category – meaning anybody can work on it, and if its a home built experimental the builder can also sign off his own annual condition inspections. So anybody can opt out of being ‘protected’ at their own expense and against against their will, and many do.
The same is true for insurance, not mandatory under FARs.
All that said, and true, the larger point remains that there is a gigantic body of experience showing that staff at airports does not add significant value in terms of safety.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Need to actually think about your idea of using the MVA as upper bound for obstacle clearance.
You could use MSA for that matter as well …
Peter wrote:
You can even fly a DIY IAP (in a G-reg). Which countries allow that?
Why it is not possible in F-reg (or EASA-reg) in UK airspace? (I know some will say it is not possible with N-reg operated under Part91, I would stretch that by saying you can’t be IFR in class G in N-reg with no IFR clearance neither 
)
Malibuflyer wrote:
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"…
With my limited understanding of how complicated the business of designing an IAP, one still need to survey for new built obstacles every year? or month during real estate booms ?
While most private pilots are not designers, nothing will beat flying simple IFR flight paths regularly in VMC and using them in IMC when weather is tough to get home, you will have a “good picture of the situation” if one fly them regularly in VMC/IMC with good margins they are way safer than VFR-in-IMC scud running bellow MSA, ideally, you need a long IFR instrument runway with ATC and published IAP that is regularly updated with 200ft minima…
As to the German approach to Flugleiter and its analogy of swimming pools- it max very well be a response to liabilities. There have been silly cases of folks suing the municipalities, land owners, whoever, after a truly self-inflicted accident/mishap.
It is that kind of eird growth of liabilities that is at the core of quite some rules in Germany. We used to laugh about silly court cases in the US. But Germany comes pretty close these days – minus the liquidated damages, of course :-)
So a number of things are forbidden to limit or prevent liabilities…
I fly from an airfield with a high degree of freedom (in all aspects, incl maintenance :-) ) and think it works perfectly.
ch.ess wrote:
it may very well be a response to liabilities
Good point! Non Germans might not be aware, that just recently a German mayor of a small town got sentenced for involuntary manslaughter because kids drowned in a pond that belonged to the municipality because it was not protected by a fence.
That is possible here in the UK too. Nowadays this is a problem. Stuff has to be fenced off in the “modern kind caring world” so people don’t fall into that stuff called water
But how many legal actions in GA have resulted in a victory for the plaintiff (the one doing the suing in a civil action) or the prosecutor (the one doing the suing in a criminal action)? One often reads about the famous €50k fine in Germany but they seem to be never actually imposed.
If a Flugleiter is legally required and is thus present, the liability for not having one is theoretical.
