Peter wrote:
But I can tell you it depends on how the club is run
Sure, but I took Clipperstorch’s question to be about pilots who are not members of the club but visitors.
That is probably true, but in reality (IME) airfield policy violations are committed by long standing based pilots.
The rogue visitor scenario cannot be dealt with by the Flugleiter especially if this is some FTO using the runway for a low pass.
Peter wrote:
The lack of input on this is interesting. This has been a super hot topic in Germany since for ever.
I’m quite active in a movement that works at the moment to gather as many German airfields as possible to move this topic forward with the authorities.
The situation is roughly as follows: The ICAO requirement that mandated firefighting and rescue services to be provided at aerodromes (which has been followed word for word by – among others – the German authorities in the past decades and been happily ignored for private operations by many other member states) has been adjusted last November to apply to commercial operations only.
The German authorities now have one year (since November) to implement that change. Currently, NfL I 72/83 is still in place but it is expected to be revoked (and possibly be replaced by another one, detailing the new rules) within the next weeks or months. We are in touch with AOPA Germany, who in turn is in touch with the German federal authorities. However, due to the federal nature of Germany, the local implementation will depend largely on the state authorities – some of which are more eager to work towards a pragmatic solution than others.
Even if the NfL is revoked, unfortunately, the requirements both for a Flugleiter and a person able to provide firefighting and rescue services, which (although often the same person) is two entirely different topics, are “hard-coded” into the operating permits of many airfields. Some state authorities are considering a general ruling to overrule such local rules – while other state authorities prefer to amend every single airfield permit – which will obviously be a bureaucratic hassle and take time.
What we are currently expecting to come out of this:
For smaller airfields (“Sonderlandeplätze”), this basically means “always” as they do not have published opening hours. For mid-size airfiels (“Verkehrslandeplätze”) with published opening hours, it means that outside of those times, you can use the airfield practically at any time without someone present.
Note that this does NOT remove the PPR requirement or change anything about the actual opening hours. So PPR is still required. Many airfields are looking at options to automate this as much as possible though. For our airfield, I’m trying to achieve an automatic approval directly after the online PPR request has been sent (unless the AD is really closed) – so in theory, you could even get PPR while airborne already, if you have some network coverage.
Also note that airfields with a hard runway of more than 800m and an IFR approach are suject to other regulations by EASA, which are even more flexible: RFF not required for NCO and NCC operations, regardless of opening hours.
For payments and recording the flight movement (“Hauptflugbuch”) the guys from AeroPS (who are already handling the payments at many small airfields and even several large airports in Germany and Europe today) have now a solution in place that can be used by pilots either via the app or via a web form/credit card/Apple Play that is accessible from a QR code that participating airfields will exhibit next to their “C” sign.
Clipperstorch wrote:
That’s obvious but not what I meant. What I mean is: How to make sure that aerodrome users stick to the rules which have been negotiated between the operater of said aerodrome and its neighbors?
Reading the approach chart maybe?
(they are supposed to be free in Germany now… well only actually free if you are OK with low resolution and don’t want to download, print or load them into your ipad – yet another scam from company Eisenschmidt but that deserves an entire thread of its own)
Peter wrote:
There would have to be a legal framework for that. Otherwise any pompous knob who can pick up a handheld radio could order people about.
Peter, in my understanding a Flugleiter has no responsibility as far as aircraft movements are concerned. They are done solely under the responsibility of the pilots. Consequently, flugleiter are not supposed to give orders, only advice and traffic information. For instance I could tell “You are number 3 in the circuit” or “parachute operations currently ongoing” (frequent in EDQN) but I am not supposed to say “stay away from the field due to parachute operations”; this decision should come from the pilot. Of course, we could say “parachute operations ongoing, suggest you stay north-east of the field, be aware there is another aircraft north-west of the field”. By the same token, when an aircraft calls ready for departure, the standard answer is “take-off at your own discretion.”
Reading the approach chart maybe?
That is too obvious, like reading speed limit signs?
The question was how you ensure users comply with rules between aerdrome and neighbours?
Easy,
Peter wrote:
Maybe in Germany the Flugleiter is by definition an agent of the landowner?
That is actually the case in Germany. He can order people to leave the airfield premises and on his request the police will remove people who don’t comply.
Airborne_Again wrote:
In any country with a reasonable justice system (as I believe Peter puts it) the airfield operator can’t be held responsible for rouge actions by pilots who break the rules as long as these rules have been made clear.
In theory, this is true. But what happens in reality is that somebody pisses off the airfield neighbours by crashing into their house (see Reutte for example) or by spoiling too many barbecue parties with airplane noise. Usage restrictions and opening hours restrictions is what follows. No sanctions are involved in a legal sense but in the end it is the airfield operator who has to live with the consequences.
Patrick wrote:
Also note that airfields with a hard runway of more than 800m and an IFR approach are suject to other regulations by EASA, which are even more flexible: RFF not required for NCO and NCC operations, regardless of opening hours.
How do I read this: it is easier to introduce PPR operations 24/7 if there is an established IFR procedure…such as a GPS (LPV) approach?
Sounds like a win-win situation to me…
How do I read this: it is easier to introduce PPR operations 24/7 if there is an established IFR procedure…such as a GPS (LPV) approach?
Runways > 800m with CAT mouvement and/or GPS approach are subject to EU Part-ADR
As it stands, you won’t be able to fly GPS RNP out of hours…while EU laws would allow it, the German AIP still insist on having an operational RMZ with AFIS who operate the radio (INFORMATION) for IFR OPS by private operators
GA are usually less than 15T, technically, they don’t need DFS protection or separation !
Worth reading these docs in full, the case of German airfields is well discussed
Ibra wrote:
GSA-GNSSRisk-Based
Wow. Talk about making things complicated…
