Flying without a flight controller - from the exception to the new normal?

Objectives of the reform - theory and practice

The regulation had four main objectives:

1. Improve accessibility of aerodromes - Aerodromes should be easier to use and unnecessary hurdles for pilots should be removed.
2. Take international standards into account - Approaches and operating procedures should be adapted to internationally established practices.
3. Reduce bureaucracy - Administrative effort and documentation requirements should be reduced.
4. Simplify regulation - Instead of detailed specifications, target-based rules should be introduced that give aerodrome operators more flexibility.

The big question now is: Have these goals actually been achieved?

Initial practical experience

Airports show great interest

Since the introduction of the new regulation, numerous aerodromes have submitted applications for Operation without flight controller and some have already received authorisation. This is an important first step towards better accessibility. Nevertheless, many places are still in a Test phase and operate only with limited Prior Permission Required (PPR)-times. Many operators hope that further liberalisation will take place after the first full flying season, which will also allow for General PPR issue and opening for guest aircraft made possible.

Different implementation by authorities

While some federal states such as North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony and Hesse act as pioneers and issue authorisations quickly, other regions are more restrictive.

• Positive developments:
  • The Pioneering federal states have developed their own guidelines, which the aerodromes Maximum flexibility enable.
  • The authorities of these federal states expressly emphasise in their handouts that flying without a flight controller is considered Normal state and is not regarded as a special case.
  • This procedure corresponds to the target-based regulations of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and shows that a practical approach is possible.
• Problems in other federal states:
  • Some authorities demand daily railway inspectionseven at aerodromes with Concrete slopesThe reason given for this is to prevent damage caused by wild boar. In many cases, this does not seem very practical.
  • Other authorities categorically exclude guest aircraftas they continue to regard flying without a flight director as an exception.
  • In some cases, only Temporary authorisations issued or even the Mixed operation of aircraft at aerodromes with only one runway is prohibited.
  • Particularly curious: while some authorities Expressly in favour of school operationsbecause student pilots should learn how to use the system, others completely prohibit school operations without a flight instructor.

These divergent interpretations show that there is still much Need for improvement in particular to ensure standardised, appropriate implementation.

Bureaucracy reduction falls short of expectations

Another major goal of the reform was to reduce bureaucratic hurdles. In reality, however, it is clear that the desired simplifications have so far only been partially realised:

• Obligation to provide evidence for railway inspections continue to exist - regardless of whether they make sense in every case.
• Main flight logs and operating concepts must continue to be managed, although the digital documentation has long offered alternatives.
• The legitimate question arises: Why is a centralised logbook not required for road traffic, while airports are still subject to comprehensive documentation requirements?

There is still a considerable need for action here in order to Making regulations more practical.

What needs to be improved?

The analysis shows that the reform of flight operations without a flight controller in positive effects in some areas has, but in others still Need for optimisation.

1. Better availability of aerodromes
   • After the pilot phase, the PPR regulations should be relaxed so that more aerodromes can be used without restrictions.
2. Acceptance of the new processes
   • Pilots and aerodrome operators have to get used to it, Carry out traffic coordination independentlywithout relying on a flight director.
3. Less bureaucracy
   • Documentation obligations should be limited to the really essential be reduced.
4. Standardised implementation by the authorities
   • Authorities must comply with comply with NfL 2024-1-3106 and must not undermine the spirit of the reform through restrictive special regulations.
   • It needs a Clearer communicationthat flying without a flight director is the Normal case and not the exception.
5. More trust in the aerodrome operators
   • Those responsible on site know itself bestwhat risks exist and how they can be appropriately managed. Authorities should focus on Target-orientated specifications instead of creating excessively detailed regulations.

Conclusion

The introduction of the new regulation for flying without a flight controller was a Important step in the direction of a modern and flexible aviation regulation. Initial experience shows that many airports are making use of this option and the first positive effects are already becoming apparent. However, there are still considerable Regional differences in implementation, which slow down progress.

While some federal states see the new regulation as Opportunity for practical aviation development While some companies are beginning to realise the benefits of the new technology, others are clinging to old structures and creating unnecessary complications through additional hurdles.

The coming months will show whether the continue positive developments and whether the authorities have the necessary Make adjustmentsto really consider flying without a flight controller as Standard model to be established. The hope remains that the original objectives of the reform will be consistently implemented - for the benefit of pilots, aerodromes and general aviation as a whole.

---

Source references:
AOPA