BTW this is the Ramp away from all GA jets that needs traffic cones. Proper EU PC H&S BS.
I was at EDDL last month, but I doubt I’ll go back. I needed a technical stop to fuel and have lunch. The bill (no handling) was 250 euros for 2 hours, including the ridiculous safety cone fee. They charge both landing & takeoff fee, and coming in a DA42 (which apparently has a high noise rating) there were noise fees for more than 50 euros both for landing and take-off. Ouch!
Those same cones were put around me at Nuernberg. No charge.
Go figure.
Fairly simple
EDDL believes GA should land in EDLE or EDLN and set charges accordingly.
EDDN is welcoming to GA and set their charges accordingly
;-)
And the respective authorities approve everything, if put on paper with any calculation in an excel table…
ch.ess wrote:
Fairly simple
EDDL believes GA should land in EDLE or EDLN and set charges accordingly.
EDDN is welcoming to GA and set their charges accordingly
;-)
And the respective authorities approve everything, if put on paper with any calculation in an excel table…
Then it does what Barcelona does. It does not make a mockery of people financially, it’s as clear and simple as that.
I am just waiting for someone breaking a wrist stumbling over one of them and falling during the walkaround.
What then? Maybe more safety cones around safety cones? Mandatory cone chaperones to watch you while around the aircraft?
Cobalt wrote:
I am just waiting for someone breaking a wrist stumbling over one of them and falling during the walkaround.
Indeed. A lawyer might suggest that because of the clear and present danger of aircraft with moving propeller etc, it’s imperative that people on the apron keep their eyes up and looking about rather than down at the ground. They might demonstrate that the airport recognised this risk themselves by mandating high vis jackets! So why did they then create an obstacle at foot level! It was obvious or should have been that someone would have eventually tripped over them and suffer injury, because they were doing the right thing of keeping their eyes up and about. 
The list goes on, prop strike? FOD thrown by wind or prop wash? people falling off?
Leaving joking aside, this is likely driven by the desire to prevent liability from their own drivers bumping their equipment into wings. Charging the customers a fee to protect yourself – great business if you can get it; all pricing practices here are only possible because of handlers and airports are local monopolies.
Having safety cones at ground level to prevent drivers from driving under wings or under the sides of large jet fuselages and doing damage with the top of their truck is actually quite sensible. Extending that to having cones around aircraft with wings at or below eye level is the usual stupid application of large-aircraft rules and procedures to light GA.
Ibra wrote:
The list goes on, prop strike?
Already happened. A few colleagues recently had to replace a prop on a PC12 after it hit one of these cones in the GA parking area.
