Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Flugleiter in Germany - pointless?

chflyer wrote:

To be fair, my understanding is that the requirement for a Flugleiter to be present during AD operations is written into German law and goes back to pre-wartime.

It is more complex. Since WW2 there apparently has been a requirement for a person at the airfield. But the reason and legal basis apparently changed maybe multiple times which then made no big difference in real world operations.

Also there are fields in German which operate without Flugleiter for at least a decade. This is possible if the regional aviation authority approves such procedure and the rules vary by region. Usually this is for based pilots only and they have to sign a paper etc. Also those airfields do not talk much about this as it might be in conflict with federal law somehow so better keep quiet.

Writing something into law is easy. Deleting it can be excruciatingly difficult.

It is not law. The current requirement for firefighting only goes back to a paper called “NfL I 72/83” That was last changed in 1983 (no typo). You can read it here:
http://www.verwaltungsvorschriften-im-internet.de/bsvwvbund_01031983_L11600187038V83.htm

The crucial sentence is:
“Der Landeplatzhalter hat dafür zu sorgen, dass während des Flugbetriebs das für den Einsatz des Feuerlösch- und Rettungsgeräts erforderliche Personal zur Verfügung steht.”
Which means the person operating the fire fighting equipment must be on site during flight operations.

No need for any Flugleiter. A firefighter on a sunbed sleeping next to the runway without a radio would be perfectly fine.

Also this NfL is no law. German ministery of transportation could change it in 10 minutes by publishing a new version if this tiny subject ever became a priority of the minster of transportation. No need for a parliament vote or similar which would be required for a law.

www.ing-golze.de
EDAZ
That requirement for firefighting personal and equipment was an ICAO law – but in most countries ignored for small airfields. These days AOPA is working on this matter to have that requirement removed when no paying passengers are transported. See link below, only in German :

AOPA news

Regarding PPR like in UK, is it OK to land in an airfield next day when you got permission to do so but on the day nobody is on the radio when you prepare for landing ? Certainly you got the PPR but somebody might be upset then ? Vic
vic
EDME

In the UK, if you got PPR then you got the landowner’s permission so you can land there regardless of whether manned or not, or the radio is live or not.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Thanks for the detailed information Sebastian.

So fundamentally it’s a political issue, partly regional and partly federal. My meaning by it being difficult to repeal legislation (or in this case just a guideline) is gathering the political will together to make it happen, in this case having sufficient support for GA in the ministry of transport to just do it. Most countries have an amazing amount of regulatory & legal “baggage” around due to inertia.

BTW,

“Der Landeplatzhalter hat dafür zu sorgen, dass während des Flugbetriebs das für den Einsatz des Feuerlösch- und Rettungsgeräts erforderliche Personal zur Verfügung steht.”

Doesn’t the local Feuerwehr “stehe zur Verfügung”? The statement says only that the personnel required to operate the equipment needs to be available, and normally the local fire department is available for all fires within the town or municipality limits. Or have I missed where it says such personnel needs to be on site?

Last Edited by chflyer at 08 May 21:50
LSZK, Switzerland

In the UK, you have to PPR but no need for someone to be present

If you cancel your PPR today, you will need to call tomorrow for a “new PPR”, I was told such that they will give me the new values of QNH & current wind & circuit hand & active runway, these things change dramatically and they are very important to know to land safely, still wondering what if wind changes by the time I phone for PPR and passing overhead, I think I would personally call 121.5 and divert…

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

vic wrote:

Santa Monica will be one of the most famous and busiest to close in 2028 due to neighbourhood – or real estate corporations.

The issue in KSMO is that the land it sits on is worth gazillions and the deeply corrupt city council is doing the bidding of the real estate mafia. There is actually some hope for the airport to survive, but that’s not the theme of this thread.

However, pertinent to this thread is the fact that KSMO tower hours do not coincide with the opening hours of the airport. So even one of the most ‘noise challenged’ airfields anywhere manages to operate without anyone telling the pilots what to do. And that during the most critical hours, i.e. early morning and late evening.
Further, there are landing fees at KSMO which are billed by an automated system that reads the tail number and sends out the invoice.

There simply is no justification for a Flugleiter or anyone else to ‘man’ an airfield. Btw, in the US this function is often taken over on a voluntary basis by the local FBO. Good example is Bermuda Dunes / KUDD near Palm Springs.

vic wrote:

That requirement for firefighting personal and equipment was an ICAO law

ICAO does not write law. When we talk about “ICAO” in this context there are (at least) three different things. The Chicago convention, the Annexes to the convention and the technical documents.

The convention is closest to law as it has actually been signed by all ICAO member states. The Annexes and the technical documents have not been. The Annexes and some of the technical documents make up the ICAO Standards and Recommended Practises (“SARPs”). ICAO member states are supposed to adhere to the SARPs but they are not obliged to. Indeed, there are lots and lots of deviations from the ICAO SARPs. Also by Germany, see AIP-Germany GEN 1.7.

This Wikipedia article explains it more formally.

Anyway. The requirement for firefighting is not in the convention. It is a SARP. 9.2.1 of Annex 14, to be precise. I don’t understand why this SARP should be more important than the others.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 09 May 08:24
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

I don’t understand why this SARP should be more important than the others.

+1 Nor do I.

It’s called “cherry-picking” or “selective regulation”, and politicians are masters at it.

ICAO itself is a political organization, with member countries subject to interest lobbies in all conceivable directions. So while there is an attempt to standardize aviation worldwide via ICAO agreements, as you mention each country is free to apply or not details as they see fit. Theoretically, the countries have agreed to register deviations with the ICAO, but that is done with more or less (mostly less) diligence.

LSZK, Switzerland

chflyer wrote:

Doesn’t the local Feuerwehr “stehe zur Verfügung”?

One coud argue that way but it seems to be the general interpretation it has to be on the property of the airport “inside the fence”. But with our small planes we are still ok. I once did witness operations at EDFQ. It is a little field in the middle of nowhere but a single massive Dassault Facon is based there. When it did land the local firefighters came to the field all dressed up with their vehicle and I think 4 persons. Then they did park on the airport property, the plane did land and everybody went back home.

www.ing-golze.de
EDAZ

In the UK I have paid for a years landing permission at Dornoch, which belongs to the local .gov, Highland Council.
I do not have to PPR. I have to email within # days after landing, for their records. No one there, no QFE, wind from windsock.
But near town and golf course, and usually has dog walkers.
A few years ago a Tomahawk left the runway and,I think, overturned in the long grass, trapping the pilot. He was rescued uninjured. The Pa38 was written off.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top