That sounds completely insane… It seems the authorities want this airfield to be closed down. :-(
How is the Austrian CAA organized? Do they have one national department, like in Switzerland, or are they divided by state? You don’t hear much about it, as many things are delegated to Austro Control, but I guess airfield permissions/certifications are done by the CAA itself and not via a service company? Doesn’t the Tyrolean CAA just want to get rid of Reutte-Höfen?
There is finally an aviation expert opinion (Original German: luftfahrtsachverständige Stellungnahme) document published, with safety recommendations for further use of LOIR. It is currently available for download on the homepage of the aerodrome’s website in German. The following statement one page 7 didn’t surprise me:
Well, well… As expected, it’s not the CAA that restricts the use of LOIR to home-based pilots only, but it’s the clear proposal of the aerodrome operator. Even though there is still a “AD closed” NOTAM in place until the 10th of November, the main webpage reports: “!! ATTENTION !! our airfield is closed to non-local pilots. We therefore ask for your understanding if PPR inquiries are currently being denied.” Should we ban the aerodrome operator on other alpine airfields?! This is nuts…
Other mentioned measures might be seen as reasonable, for example, the requirement to publish an obstacle document. However, a so-called Flugplatzbetriebsleiter (aka “Flugleiter” in Germany) has to be on-site and be available on radio… for based pilots! Also at least 3 km of visibility is required, in order to beable to use the airport, regardless of less limited rules for airspace Golf. And if the weather is not nice, the “Flugleiter” can just close down the airport at his convenience. In other words… RIP Reutte-Höfen. :-(
The are clearly trying to escape from a total closure of the airfield. And they are talking about a 2-phase model. The one with the current restrictions is phase 1, so once the trees alongside the runway have been cut, they enter into phase 2 where I assume some of the restrictions will be lifted.
It is all very muddled though. In these docs, they speak about “familiarized” pilots only. On the website, they write about “homebased pilots only”… go figure.
I will try to get PPR maybe this October, maybe next spring.
It would be interesting to find out if the two crashes (the Cardinal in 2022 and the glider in 2023) were really caused by the lateral trees.
I for one would definitely sign up for a system where, if airports ban non-based pilots from flying to their airfield, then those aircraft based at said airfield should be banned from landing anywhere else – let’s see how they appreciate the restrictions their intransigence is causing. I’m particularly miffed by these sort of schemes because there’s an airfield near Holzkirchen, south Germany which would be ideal for me visiting customers there but I can’t use it because “the airport is only available for the 2 based aircraft”.
boscomantico wrote:
It would be interesting to find out if the two crashes (the Cardinal in 2022 and the glider in 2023) were really caused by the lateral trees.
Hans-Peter Zimmermann just did a video covering (amongst others) the 177B crash here, from the accounts Hans-Peter mentioned in his video, taking into account previous flight paths, bollocking from the Flugleiter on the way there and upon departure, the pilot didn’t believe in in-depth briefings, apparently and was possibly considered an accident waiting to happen; according to the investigators, the issue appeared to be caused by (eg) incorrect takeoff configuration (no flaps), density altitude and a lack of an aircraft performance briefing….
Steve6443 wrote:
Hans-Peter Zimmermann just did a video covering (amongst others) the 177B crash here, f
Do you have a link?
Steve6443 wrote:
I for one would definitely sign up for a system where, if airports ban non-based pilots from flying to their airfield, then those aircraft based at said airfield should be banned from landing anywhere else – let’s see how they appreciate the restrictions their intransigence is causing.Absolutely, I can’t agree more! The joke is that airfield operators often seem to wash their hands in innocence and let pilots believe, such restrictions are coming from the CAA or so. While this might be true sometimes, it’s often the airfield operator who invents these most weird and restrictive ‘rules’.
I’m particularly miffed by these sort of schemes because there’s an airfield near Holzkirchen, south Germany which would be ideal for me visiting customers there but I can’t use it because “the airport is only available for the 2 based aircraft”.Let me guess… Warngau? :-( Southern Bavaria is in general quite a GA-unfriendly region. Paterzell and Grabenstätt are also home-based only. Many glider fields like Agathazell, Füssen, and Unterwössen don’t accept non-based UL and TMG, even though it’s officially allowed. While Munich is also difficult to reach by GA, Oberschleissheim is great as long as you’re able to get one of the 500 PPR slots per year, but it’s in general not GA-friendly, as Oberpfaffenhofen and Munich Airport are also off-limits for GA below 2t MTOW. :-( Even though Reutte is located in Austria, their new home-base-only regime ‘fits’ somehow in this region. Kufstein (LOIK) is also extremely protective, they demand your full flight preparation, including take-off performance calculations upon PPR request.
The one with the current restrictions is phase 1, so once the trees alongside the runway have been cut, they enter into phase 2 where I assume some of the restrictions will be lifted.Let’s hope that scenario will come true… Once restrictions are in place and established, it’s often difficult to lift them later on. I’ll keep my fingers crossed for your PPR request. At least you’ve been there before, that might be a bonus.
I won’t even post a link to the video. That guy is an amateur, with rather limited flying experience. He doesn’t even fly any more! I will never understand how such people feel called to producing such accident analysis videos. Blancolirio is a different story.
I agree that it was likely simply pilot incompetence. A 177B with 2 POB, even without flaps, even in summer, will takeoff properly from Reutte. Unless of course you mess it up.
I have no idea how the expert opinion posted above can have anything to do with that. It must have to do with the glider accident, but then again, the opinion came out so shortly after the accident itself. Doesn’t make sense.
Steve6443 wrote:
Hans-Peter Zimmermann just did a video
I don’t like his videos at all. He is a former pilot who now dishes out dirt on fellow pilots who came to grief one way or the other. The videos I have seen made me really angry, how someone can be so self-righteous judging others. He is not doing any service to GA.
boscomantico wrote:
I will never understand how such people feel called to producing such accident analysis videos.
I fully agree. And the bad thing is that he has plenty of subscribers (don’t know if his channel is monetized or not) who believe the things he sais about his (former) fellow pilots.
Documentations about accidents should NEVER be judgemental but show the FACTS and what happened, in the spirit of Annex 13. Most documentaries do that rather well. His is one channel which explicitly does not adhere to the non-judgemental attitude but rather the opposite.
But anyway, what just happened in Reutte (closure, blocking airplanes there, e.t.c. ) are probably quite in that Zeitgeist: Whenever something bad happens there is a bunch of folks immediately asking to ban the said activity. Probably aided by NIMBY’s who hate the airfield anyhow. And as recent examples have shown, restrictions thus put in force unfortunately have a bad tendency to stick and become permanent.
