what_next wrote:
I am a man of science. Aeronautical. For me, casualities in aviation are percentages. Mathematical figures.
Then why are you so strongly opposed to IFR in class G? To the point of saying that you would never do it while many airlines do it regularly.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Then why are you so strongly opposed to IFR in class G? To the point of saying that you would never do it while many airlines do it regularly.
You have an excellent memory, I wrote this years ago 
And the answer is: Because, when I myself have a chance of becoming that one-in-a-million-passenger-miles-casualty I do everything I can to avoid that. In this case, I don’t fly IFR in class G airspace. Apart from the occasions where I have to, because thanks to SERA we have instrument approaches and departures in class G airspace in Germany as well.
Silvaire wrote:
Irrational fear
You can call it what you want, I call it statistics. General aviation has about the highest risk of all aviation activities (base jumping and low-level bombing apart) and the takeoff and landing phases are again the most accident prone phases of flight. Therefore I think that having someone ready to assist in those phases will increase safety overall.
Silvaire wrote:
I’d genuinely rather be dead than continuously debate the management of risk with unwelcome intruders into my life.
That is your personal freedom of choice (as others have already written). That’s perfectly OK for me. However, we have had a thread here some time ago about people we knew who lost their life in flying accidents. All the ones I knew were not alone on board. So I think it would be fair to include (unsuspecting) passengers in that choice as well. I wonder how many of those familiy members/friends/business partners would still be alive if the pilot would have told the beforehand what he was planning to do and given them a chance to stay home.
what_next wrote:
You have an excellent memory, I wrote this years agoMaybe you did, but you also wrote it a month or so ago!
And the answer is: Because, when I myself have a chance of becoming that one-in-a-million-passenger-miles-casualty I do everything I can to avoid that. In this case, I don’t fly IFR in class G airspace.Even though that chance is negligible compared to the chance of becoming a casualty in the class controlled airspace you otherwise fly in (because you spend much more time there and the traffic is more intense) or for reasons unrelated to the airspace? Do I understand you correctly?
As this topic is about remotely operated towers, I’d like to point out that their crew can call the fire and rescue services just like an on-site Flugleiter can do. The main difference is that he cannot physically assist in the rescue effort himself. But, if we talk about the typical German GA airfield manned by a single Flugleiter and maybe some restaurant staff, what can they really do? If I think of this as an emergency physician, I don’t think they can do much. Self protection prevents one from approaching a burning plane without protective gear and proper training and there aren’t many fires that can be put put by a single hand held extinguisher that the crew in danger wouldn’t be able to either put out or at least get away from themselves. For anything more serious you need a fully equipped airport fire crews anyway
MedEwok wrote:
But, if we talk about the typical German GA airfield manned by a single Flugleiter and maybe some restaurant staff, what can they really do?
I fly to one destination in eastern Germany once per week. An uncontrolled airfield which has instrument approach procedures outside of controlled airspace. The “Flugleiter” / radio operator sits in a very low “control tower” just one flight of stairs away from a fire truck (solid and indestructible german democratic republic technology) with several thousand litres of foam liquid. He/she can do a lot more to assist me than a remote operator who can only call the fire brigade of the next town which is ten minutes driving away. On this airfield they got their fair share of microlights overturned upon landing, twin turboprop gear collapse upon landing, runway overrun (who knows why because it is more than 2000m long) by single engine piston plane – all in the last year. Maybe they didn’t save a life during that time, but they would if any of these accidents would have caused a fire. And I am pretty sure that the pilots involved in these accidents were happy about the assitance they got.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Even though that chance is negligible compared to the chance of becoming a casualty in the class controlled airspace you otherwise fly in (because you spend much more time there and the traffic is more intense) or for reasons unrelated to the airspace? Do I understand you correctly?
In my part of the world, the upper limit of class G airspace is either 1000ft AGL or 2500ft AGL. With many obstacles coming up to 500ft or more. In the southern half the terrain is not flat. I have no idea how anyone can safely fly IFR in these conditions when the altimeter reads AMSL. This is my main reason for not flying IFR in class G airspace. The risk of collision with other traffic is comparatively low.
what_next wrote:
In my part of the world, the upper limit of class G airspace is either 1000ft AGL or 2500ft AGL. With many obstacles coming up to 500ft or more. In the southern half the terrain is not flat. I have no idea how anyone can safely fly IFR in these conditions when the altimeter reads AMSL. This is my main reason for not flying IFR in class G airspace. The risk of collision with other traffic is comparatively low.
But then you are talking about something completely different – flying below MSA which no one has advocated. That has nothing to do with the airspace class.
In Sweden general controlled airspace starts at FL95. Below that you only have the TMAs and CTRs. The situation is similar in Norway and Finland.
The Flugleiter discussion in Germany is ages old and anyone who has tried to attack this institution has gone down in flames.
I reckon as long as the generation who were and are quite comfortable to have their lifes regulated and supervised by Ordnungsämter and ither left overs of bygone times this won’t change… but then again it is their right as a sovereign nation to live line that. Just as long as they don’t try to impose it on others.
[Personal stuff removed]
@Airborne_Again: This is a common misunderstanding. A Flugleiter is not required by law in Germany. Someone who can call the emergency services in case of an accident is sufficient. This could be practically anyone.
At least there is one little positive thing about Flugleiter: You rarely need any PPR and go along flying knowing there should be one person at any airfield stating that you are welcome to land and no obstacles preventing. Also he may be helpful in other ways should you need assistance and you will not be stranded alone.
Once again, this job is not a law but the operator of the airfield sets his rules. But definitly you are not legal to land anywhere that is no dedicated airstrip.
