Dear Mr. Kneepkens, thank you for your deliberate answer dated ...

Bahnstraße 37 47877 Willich
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Herrn Jules Kneepkens
Ottoplatz 1
50679 Köln
Willich, 02.10.2012
Hauptsitz
Bahnstr.37
47877 Willich
Telefon 02154/9209 - 70
Telefax 02154/9209 -
900
Handelsregister
Amtsgericht Krefeld
HRB 10340
Vorstand
Matthias Albrecht
Dirk Franzmeyer
Marco Marty
Dirk Werner
Classification of small turboprops and jets
as “complex aircraft” and the corresponding proposed
regulation Part-NCC, Part-ORO and Part-SPA
Vors. des
Aufsichtsrates
Stefan H. Tarach
www.xcom.de
Dear Mr. Kneepkens,
thank you for your deliberate answer dated August 27 th 2012 to our inquiry dated
August 7 th 2012. I admit, that I had to read it and the referenced documents several
times before I understood the relevance to our aviation life.
1. Core problem – basic regulation 216/2008
1.1 What I understood
As you quoted, the core of all impacts to our operation of a twin-engine turboprop –
and light jets - for company travel is:
"... that the definition of a complex aeroplane SLIGHTLY deviates from the ICAO
definition of a large aeroplane insofar as the complex aeroplane includes a
multi-engine turboprop aeroplane with a maximum take-off mass at OR BELOW 5,7 t.
Under ICAO SARPS such an aeroplane is classified as a small aeroplane."
Furthermore you point out, that "this difference in scope was a deliberate choice of
the European legislators, the European Parliament and the Council, when adopting
basic regulation."
Seite 1 von 38

1.2 Request for clarification
I have to admit that these fine differences are out of scope of the comprehension of
the ordinary non-flying citizen – and probably legislator. Could you please lay out
for me how this rule making process was governed and by whom to come to
this conclusion? I assume that EASA (or its predecessor) was consulted and was a
part of that rule making.
We understand that all rule making impacting turboprops and small jets below 5,7
tons (max take-off mass) such as Part-NCC, Part-ORO and Part-SPA is only a
consequence of this initial decision and would not be relevant, if the European Union
would apply the standard ICAO classification which has served well for many years.
We understand that the rule making makes sense for large aircraft – and severely
doubt that it will help to increase any safety for small aircraft. It will actually drive
users from more safe twin engine (either turboprop or jet) to less safe single-engine
aircraft to avoid this regulation. And it will hurt the European economy and airport
infrastructure.
To visualize which kinds of aircraft are now proposed to be regulated under the same
set of rules, here a picture of a “big” turboprop under 5,7 tons, a Piaggio Avanti P180
with 5,2 tons, next to a middle-sized commercial airliner, a Boeing 757:
Seite 2 von 38

Independently of the clarification requested regarding the genesis of the
Basic Regulation and accepting it the way it is, could you please explain how
the Basic Regulation constitutes a necessity to regulate non-commercial
operation of complex aeroplanes any more than in the past?
1.3 Request for change
Please consider to propose to the European legislators to change the basic regulation
to go back to the ICAO SARPS definition and call twin engine turboprops and small jets
"complex aircraft" above a max take-off mass of 5,7 tons. What can we do to promote
this proposal? To whom do we have to talk to? Can EASA make this proposal to the
legislator by itself?
2. Impact Study as a basis for Part-NCC et al.
2.1 What I understood
In your answer you wrote:
“Finally, I would like to comment to some of your econonomic argumements against
the application of NCC.POL.125. Let me assure you that the Agency takes economic
consideration duly into account when developing its safety rules. However, economic
considerations have to be assessed against any undue negative impact on safety. It
would not be acceptable to compromise safety solely on the fact that some
aerodrome operators with shorter runways are in financial difficulties. Nor can the
Agency accept to rewrite safety rules to accommodate specific individual cases.”
Let me assure you that safety of operation is a major concern for corporate air travel.
After all, the company is transporting its most valuable good – the value producing
employee. And that is the reason why we invested and invest heavily into suitable
aircraft and training of the pilots.
2.2 Request for clarification
Your answer triggered our wish to understand how he Agency “takes economic
consideration duly into account when developing its safety rules”. The only
consideration available to me is a document labled NPA 2009-02g and named
“Implementing Rules for Air Operations of Community Operators”
G. Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Supplementing Measures for Air
Operations(per Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008)
Seite 3 von 38

Reading this document brings up three distinct questions relevant to Part-NCC, Part-
ORO and Part-SPA:
• Are there any safety problems which make more regulation of corporate and
owner-operated operations of aeroplanes necessary?
• Independent of that answer, have all economical impacts been “duly taken into
account”?
• Since that “Regulatory Impact Assessment” was made in 2009 and therefore
well ahead in time of the proposed Part-NCC, Part-ORO and Part-SPA, there us
surely a new “Regulatory Impact Assessment” covering all economical impacts
of the proposed regulations. Could you please supply me with an
electronic copy of that newer “Regulatory Impact Assessment”?
2.2.1 Are there any safety problems which make more regulation of
corporate and owner-operated operations of aeroplanes necessary?
NPA 2009-02g describes the methodology, how the study is done, then goes over the
safety levels in Europe and then discusses the impact of different levels of regulation
for the various branches which use aircraft. Using your terminology, three branches of
aircraft-use relate to our problem:
• Air Taxi – commercial operators using complex aircraft below and above 5,7
tons MTOM to transport people or goods – already under the strict
regulation of national Air Operator Certificates (“AOC”) - which are the
blueprint for the proposed Part-NCC and Part-ORO regulation
• Corporate – private operators using complex aircraft below and above 5,7 tons
MTOM to transport people or goods – currently under no regulation comparable
to AOCs
• Owner-operated: using complex aircraft below and above 5,7 tons MTOM to
transport people or goods – currently under no regulation comparable to AOCs
Please let me quote from your document:
“According to the EUROCONTROL report on “Business Aviation in Europe in 2007”36,
about 764,000 IFR flights have been carried out in Europe in 2007 by business
aviation. Assuming 800,000 flights/year and using the data in table 9 above, the
following figures are estimated: ”
Seite 4 von 38

Let me direct your attention to the line which states “Accident rate (per 100,000
hours):
• Air Taxi (currently strictly regulated): 2.08
• Corporte (currently not regulated that strictly): 0.15
• Owner operated (currently not regulated that strictly): 1.7
These numbers show that the strict regulations for Air Taxi operators lead to a
significantly higher accident rate than for the currently less-strictly regulated
Corporate and Owner-operated aircraft use of complex aeroplanes. The accident
rate of Air Taxi operators is 22 % higher than that of the Owner-operated
aeroplanes and almost 14 times (!) higher than that of Corporate aeroplane
use.
One would probably be cynical to propose to drop the strict regulations for Air Taxi
operators to improve their safety record. But certainly questions should be raised –
especially by EASA.
In your document you have discussed three options how to potentially regulated noncommercial
operations by complex motor-powered aircraft:
• 3A: all organisations managing one or more complex motor-powered aircraft
shall hold an Air Operator Certificate (AOC), based on the same process
applicable to commercial operations
• 3B: all organisations managing one or more complex motor-powered aircraft
shall be certified, however based on rules proportionate to the size and
performance of the aircraft, as well as the volume and complexity of operations;
Seite 5 von 38

• 3C: Declaration signed by the natural or legal person managing the aircraft and
endorsed by the owner(s), based on proportionate rules.
In the course of evaluating the different options, you heavily discuss the need to
regulate “fractional ownerships” which are now neither clearly commercial or private.
This perspective seems – and the wish to regulate more heavily - to influence the rest
of the discussion. Let me again quote your document, since it already answers the
question I raised:
In case of options 3A and 3B, the owner will be assured by the AOC process that the
operator possesses sufficient organisation and competence. However, also in case of
option 3C this confidence will be reached since the proposed declaration, which has
legal value, contains all the elements (including the name of the accountable manager
or responsible natural person) necessary to demonstrate that the organisation
managing the operations on behalf of the owners is taking operational control.
Furthermore, non-commercial operations of complex motor-powered aircraft are not
driven by competitive pressures and the operational safety standards are to a
significant degree under the control of the owners, which unavoidably take
care for themselves and their invited passengers. In this case then the
power (ownership) and interest (himself/herself is a passenger) of the owner
can be a powerful tool to maintain sufficient levels of safety, even in the
presence of the declaration instead of the certificate.
Well, as you describe here, caring for your own life and that of your valued passengers
makes a better safety incentive than heavy regulation – and it clearly shows in the
numbers. From there the argument of the Agency continues:
In fact, the data summarised in paragraph 2.3.2.5 on the safety of business
aviation clearly shows that the rate of yearly accidents in the EASA 27 + 4
for air taxi (i.e. 5/year), corporate (i.e. 0.7/year) and owner-operated
business aviation (i.e. 1.9/year) are lower than the rate for commercial air
transport by large aeroplanes (i.e. 20.5).
This safety record for corporate operations is at least equivalent to large scheduled
airline operations and demonstrates the industry’s long term voluntary application of
good safety practices. Given this safety record, there is no evidence that a
more stringent certification scheme, in addition to the good practices
already applied by the industry itself through its codes of practice, will lead
to a substantial increase of the safety levels.
Well, I have to say it flatters me to have confirmed by your Agency that we (corporate
and owner-operated operators) have a better safety record than commercial air
transport by large aeroplanes. I think this is worth pointing out to the public media
since the common perception is certainly different. But what is really remarkable is,
that you concede that “there is no evidence a more stringent certification
scheme … will lead to a substantial increase of the safety levels.” It could not
have been said any better.
Seite 6 von 38

And let us not go into the question why all the regulations do not produce a better
safety record for commercial air transport by large aeroplanes and which responsibility
EASA has for this.
Looking at your document, would you please explain how you come to the
conclusion in your letter that there is a safety issue which might be
improved by stricter regulation and that we are proposing to endanger
safety by requesting to not applay Part-NCC to aircraft below 5,7 tons – as
the rest of the ICAO world does it?
2.2.2 Have all economical impacts been “duly taken into account”?
NPA 2009-02g does consider the economic impact. The following categories are
discussed:
• Rulemaking and standardisation costs
• Oversight costs
• Regulatory costs for the operators
• Additional demand (e. g. for consultants under option 3B)
Very clearly, the impact on airport operators have not been taken into
account in this study. Unless there is another impact study – which we assume –
this impacts has not been taken into account. Besides the economical impact on
airport operators there is certainly an economical impart on the usability of
light jets for the operators once they are not able to use small airports any
more. Let me repeat: we do not propose to jeopardize safety. The current regulations
allow the use of small airports and your agency has confirmed “that there is no
evidence … that a stricter regulation will lead to a substantial increase of the safety
levels”.
So I have to sum up that not all economical impacts have been duly taken into
account in NAP 2009-02g and it thus is not a sufficient basis for Part-NCC, Part-ORO
and Part-SPA.
But before we continue, we would like to comment on the economical impact on the
operator which is evaluated at EUR 90k per year for the small corporate and owneroperated
owner in 2007 number (which are now certainly higher). (“Cost of labour
inside this organisation is assumed to be in the range of 60 k€ (2009)/year. Cost of
consultants is assumed to be 90 k€ (2007)/year. ”) We would like to elaborate on two
perspectives:
• To which percentage is the use of small aircraft increase by this costs?
• What do we estimate as future costs for operators?
For the interested non-flying reader, we have given picture examples of typical aircraft
below 5,7 tons in the appendix. Since our argument related to the impact of your
regulation on operating cost, we first want to give the interested reader an estimate
Seite 7 von 38

for all-in operation costs (depreciation, maintenance, insurance, hangar, fuel, airway
fees, etc.). Without the cost for a pilot per flight hour we estimate:
Aircraft Type
Operation cost all in per flight hour
Single-engine piston EUR 150 to EUR 300
Multi-engine piston EUR 400 to EUR 800
Single-engine turboprop < 5,7 to EUR 1.000 to EUR 2.000
Multi-engine turboprop < 5,7 to EUR 1.000 to EUR 3.000
Small twin-engine jet < 5,7 to EUR 1.800 to EUR 3.000
Bigger twin-engine jet > 5,7 to
EUR 3.000 to “unlimited”
Part-ORO will require the operator in the future (once it has passed legislation)
amongst other things to:
• significant runway length for all aircraft with a V1 specified in the manual, which
is probably the case for all jets and no turboprops, but which will rule 90 % of all
German airfields out for these small jets (see NCC.POL.125 (b))
• develop an operations manual (ORO.GEN.110)
• apply for air operator certificate and get it granted (ORO.GEN.115)
• develop and maintain a management system (incl. safety management system)
(ORO.GEN.200)
• record keeping (ORO.GEN.220)
• regular auditing (ORO.GEN.135)
In contrast to NPA 2009-02g we estimate that for the operation of a single aircraft for
personal use or company travel this will require additional 2 employees. At total cost
of EUR 100.000 per employee this will increase the cost of operating a small twinengine
turboprop or jet by EUR 200.000 per year. So in the past a small turboprop was
operated for e. g. 200 hours * EUR 1.000 per hour = EUR 200.000 per year. Your
additional requirements thus double the cost of operating that aircraft.
Now let us look at the safety benefits: Your regulations still allow to fly these aircraft
with one appropriately trained and rated pilot (see ORO.FC.100). This pilot has been
licensed under JAR FCL rules – and thus this pilot is competent to safely
operate the aircraft. Since he or she is already competent to safely operate
the aircraft, he or she will not gain any additional safety from your new
regulations.
In our example we are looking at a safety-aware pilot flying either for personal use or
for company travel, he or she has already invested into a twin-engine turboprop. Your
new regulations now either force this operator to tolerate twice the cost he
or she previously incurred without gaining any additional safety or the
operator will go to a less safe “non-complex” aircraft such as a single-engine
turboprop.
Seite 8 von 38

Independent of the impact on operators there is certainly an infacstructural impact
which has not been covered by NPA 2009-02g. We would like to point out which
consequences this will have in Germany and assume that similar effects will applay in
the other 26+4 countries. We will leave it to e. g. IAOPA to show the effects on
complete Europe.
Besides the impact on operation costs for turboprops there is the impact on future
runway length necessary to operate small jets in accordance with NCC.POL.125 (b).
We have identified a runway length of 1.400 m to operate a small jet at max take-off
weight at 30 degrees Celsius as being a reasonable assumption. Out of 398 airfields in
Germany, 26 have a runway length longer than 1.400 m. See the list of airfields as
appendix 3. But you will notice that the airfields are either major international airports
– not having the capacity to cope with additional jet traffic – or former military bases in
the former Eastern Germany. Thus German companies will have problems operating
jets to German airfields – and international visitors will have problems finding an
appropriate airfield next to their destination. We did not check other European
countries but assume that the consequences will be comparable.
Here is that map of available airports (besides the international airports, which in
general do not have an appropriate capacity for General Aviation traffic or the
handling at these airports make them less attractive than smaller airports):
Seite 9 von 38

Since you have surely made a study on the impact of your basic rule making of
considering small jets under 5,7 tons as complex aircraft for the airfield infrastructure
in Europe, could we please have that study? Could you please name all European
airfields with runways greater 1.400 m so that the legislators we will approach can
judge what this will do to their business infrastrure?
As appendices please find pictures of general aviation aircraft below 5,7 tons (except
for the “big” jet) and a visual comparision of our company's aircraft to a 757, so that
the non-flying reader understands to which size of aircraft you want to apply the same
regulations as for a Boeing 747 or an Airbus A380, the text of your proposed
regulation
Seite 10 von 38

2.2.3 Appropriate Impact study for Part-NCC, Part-ORO and Part-SPA
Since that “Regulatory Impact Assessment” was made in 2009 and therefore well
ahead in time of the proposed Part-NCC, Part-ORO and Part-SPA, there us surely a new
“Regulatory Impact Assessment” covering all missing economical impacts of the
proposed regulations. Could you please supply me with an electronic copy of
that newer “Regulatory Impact Assessment”?
2.3 Request for change
Since your own “Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Supplementing Measures for
Air Operations(per Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008) ” (NPA 2009-02g)
states
Given this safety record, there is no evidence that a more stringent
certification scheme, in addition to the good practices already applied by
the industry itself through its codes of practice, will lead to a substantial
increase of the safety levels.
we request that you change EASA's position to adopt option 3C of your Assessment,
namely
• 3C: Declaration signed by the natural or legal person managing the aircraft and
endorsed by the owner(s), based on proportionate rules.
This will lead to the same safety level of today - which is much better than commercial
operations – and avoid all the negative impacts.
4. Our petition
If you accept that companies use aircraft despite the resulting high cost because
their business models require it, the decision to treat any twin engine turboprop and
small jet as a "large and complex aircraft" and to make it subject to theses regulations
either drives the users to smaller - and inherently less safe - aircraft or significantly
increases the cost of this valuable business tool without any gain in safety. Please
consider to propose to the European legislators to change the basic
regulation to go back to the ICAO SARPS definition and call twin engine
turboprops and small jets "complex aircraft" above a max take-off mass of
5,7 tons.
And please consider to regulate NCC operations with “Declaration signed by
the natural or legal person managing the aircraft and endorsed by the
owner(s), based on proportionate rules. ” to keep non-commercial operators
flying multi-engine aeroplanes and not force them into single-engine aircraft. And in
the interest of Europe to keep the resulting income for all the small airport.
Seite 11 von 38

We understand, that your position regarding Part-NCC has left EASA and has been
submitted to the Commission and is therefore out of your hands. Nevertheless we
would kindly ask that you reconsider your position and – if possible – modify the
statements sent out to the Commission.
Sincerely yours,
XCOM Aktiengesellschaft
Matthias Albrecht
Seite 12 von 38

Appendix 1: Types of small aircraft and comparision to big aircraft
To visualize the aircraft this discussion is about, we show pictures of the difference
classes of General Aviation aircraft. And we show a comparision between a big small
General Aviation aircraft (Piaggio P180) to an average airliner (neither 747 nor A380).
Comparision of a “big small aircraft” and a “large aircraft”
ICAO classifies aircraft up to 5,7 tons as small. See the following picture of a big small
aircraft (MTOW 5,2 tons) against a large to put things into perspective first. In front,
you see a 757 and in the left hand corner find the “big” small aircraft operated by our
company (Piaggio P180). Picture taken in Keflavik when ferrying the aircraft from the
US to Europe. EASA now wants to regulate the small aircraft on the left the same as
the big one.
Seite 13 von 38

Single engine piston aircraft
Ranging from 2 to 6 seats, typically used for training and personal flying, such as the
Cessna 172.
If the engine quits on this aircraft, it becomes a glider. These aircraft are rarely used
for regular company travel due to missing de-icing capabilities etc.
Seite 14 von 38

Multi (twin) engine piston
Ranging from 4 to 10 seats, typically used for personal flying for the safety aware pilot
(with more financial means) and entry-level company travel, such as the plane I have
flown for more than 500 hours, a Piper Seneca II.
This is the smallest aircraft class which can be used for regular company travel from
our perspective.
Seite 15 von 38

Single-engine turboprops
Ranging from 6 to 10 seats, which fly faster and the turbine driving the prop is much
more reliable than the piston engines, used for high-end personal flying and company
travel .
If the engine quits on this aircraft, it becomes a glider. It is thus less safe than a twinengine
aircraft which by design can still fly home (or at least to the next airport) on
the remaining engine. Aside from this these aircraft are capable of conducting regular
company travels.
Nevertheless we have operated such an aircraft for more than 1.000 hours before we
upgraded to the twin-engine turboprop.
Seite 16 von 38

Multi-engine turboprops
Ranging from 6 to 19 seats, either small ones used for high-end personal flying or or
slightly bigger ones used for company travel
or
Seite 17 von 38

This is our company's aircraft which is at the upper end of “small” aircraft below 5,7
tons (Piaggio P180):
These aircraft offer more or less the same flying capabilities as commercial commuter
aircraft.
Seite 18 von 38

Small twin engine jet
Ranging from 6 to 8 seats, either small ones used for high-end personal flying or used
for company travel
Seite 19 von 38

Bigger "small" twin engine jets
Ranging from 8 to 12 seats, used for high-end personal flying or used for company
travel (here an aircraft which is heavier than 5,7 tons)
Seite 20 von 38

Appendix 2: Text of proposed rule making from the published proposals – as
quoted in the letter above
NCC.POL.125 Take-off — aeroplanes
(a) When determining the maximum take-off mass, the pilot-in-command shall take
the
following into account:
(1) the calculated take-off distance shall not exceed the take-off distance available
with a clearway distance not exceeding half of the take-off run available;
(2) the calculated take-off run shall not exceed the take-off run available;
(3) a single value of V1 shall be used for the rejected and continued take-off, where
a V1 is specified in the AFM; and
(4) on a wet or contaminated runway, the take-off mass shall not exceed that
permitted for a take-off on a dry runway under the same conditions.
Annex VI ‘Part-NCC’
Page 34 of 63
(b) In the event of an engine failure during take-off, the pilot-in-command shall ensure
that:
(1) for the aeroplane where a V1 is specified in the AFM, the aeroplane shall be able
to discontinue the take-off and stop within the accelerate-stop distance
available; and
(2) for the aeroplane where a net take-off flight path is specified in the AFM, the
aeroplane shall be able to continue the take-off and clear all obstacles along the
flight path by an adequate margin until the aeroplane is in a position to comply
with NCC.POL.130.
ORO.GEN.005 Scope
This Part establishes requirements to be followed by an air operator conducting:
(a) Non-commercial operations with complex motor-powered aircraft; or
...
ORO.GEN.110 Operator responsibilities
(a) The operator is responsible for the operation of the aircraft in accordance with
Annex IV to
Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, the relevant requirements of this Part and its
declaration or
certificate.
(b) Every flight shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the operations
manual.
(c) The operator shall establish and maintain a system for exercising operational
control over any
flight operated under the terms of its declaration or certificate.
(d) The operator shall ensure that its aircraft are equipped and its crews are qualified
as required
for the area and type of operation.
(e) The operator shall ensure that all personnel assigned to, or directly involved in,
ground and
flight operations are properly instructed, have demonstrated their abilities in their
Seite 21 von 38

particular
duties and are aware of their responsibilities and the relationship of such duties to the
operation as a whole.
(f) The operator shall establish procedures and instructions for the safe operation of
each aircraft
type, containing ground staff and crew member duties and responsibilities for all types
of
operation on the ground and in flight. These procedures shall not require crew
members to
perform any activities during critical phases of flight other than those required for the
safe
operation of the aircraft.
(g) The operator shall ensure that all personnel are made aware that they shall comply
with the
laws, regulations and procedures of those States in which operations are conducted
and that
are pertinent to the performance of their duties.
(h) The operator shall establish a checklist system for each aircraft type to be used by
crew
members in all phases of flight under normal, abnormal and emergency conditions to
ensure
that the operating procedures in the operations manual are followed. The design and
utilisation of checklists shall observe human factors principles and take into account
the latest
relevant documentation from the aircraft manufacturer.
(i) The operator shall specify flight planning procedures to provide for the safe conduct
of the
flight based on considerations of aircraft performance, other operating limitations and
relevant
expected conditions on the route to be followed and at the aerodromes or operating
sites
concerned. These procedures shall be included in the operations manual.
(j) The operator shall establish and maintain personnel training programmes as
required by the
Technical Instructions. Training programmes shall be commensurate with the
responsibilities
of personnel.
ORO.GEN.115 Application for an operator certificate
(a) The application for an operator certificate or an amendment to an existing
certificate shall be
made in a form and manner established by the competent authority, taking into
account the
applicable requirements of Regulation (EC) No 216/20081 and its Implementing Rules.
(b) Applicants for an initial certificate shall provide the competent authority with
documentation
demonstrating how they will comply with the requirements established in Regulation
(EC) No
216/2008 and its Implementing Rules. Such documentation shall include a procedure
Seite 22 von 38

describing how changes not requiring prior approval will be managed and notified to
the
competent authority.
ORO.GEN.135 Continued validity
(a) The operator’s certificate shall remain valid subject to:
(1) the operator remaining in compliance with the relevant requirements of Regulation
(EC)
No 216/2008 and its Implementing Rules, taking into account the provisions related to
the handling of findings as specified under ORO.GEN.150;
(2) the competent authority being granted access to the operator as defined in
ORO.GEN.140 to determine continued compliance with the relevant requirements of
Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its Implementing Rules; and
(3) the certificate not being surrendered or revoked.
(b) Upon revocation or surrender the certificate shall be returned to the competent
authority
without delay.
ORO.GEN.200 Management system
(a) The operator shall establish, implement and maintain a management system that
includes:
(1) clearly defined lines of responsibility and accountability throughout the operator,
including a direct safety accountability of the accountable manager;
(2) a description of the overall philosophies and principles of the operator with regard
to
safety, referred to as the safety policy;
(3) the identification of aviation safety hazards entailed by the activities of the
operator,
their evaluation and the management of associated risks, including taking actions to
mitigate the risk and verify their effectiveness;
(4) maintaining personnel trained and competent to perform their tasks;
(5) documentation of all management system key processes, including a process for
making
personnel aware of their responsibilities and the procedure for amending this
documentation;
(6) a function to monitor compliance of the operator with the relevant requirements.
Compliance monitoring shall include a feedback system of findings to the accountable
manager to ensure effective implementation of corrective actions as necessary; and
(7) any additional requirements that are prescribed in the relevant subparts of this
Part or
other applicable Parts.
(b) The management system shall correspond to the size of the operator and the
nature and
complexity of its activities, taking into account the hazards and associated risks
inherent in
these activities.
ORO.GEN.220 Record-keeping
(a) The operator shall establish a system of record–keeping that allows adequate
Seite 23 von 38

storage and
reliable traceability of all activities developed, covering in particular all the elements
indicated in ORO.GEN.200.
(b) The format of the records shall be specified in the operator’s procedures.
(c) Records shall be stored in a manner that ensures protection from damage,
alteration and theft.
ORO.FC.100 Composition of flight crew
(a) The composition of the flight crew and the number of flight crew members at
designated crew
stations shall be not less than the minimum specified in the aircraft flight manual or
operating
limitations prescribed for the aircraft.
Seite 24 von 38

Appendix 3
Map and list of German airfields with a runway of 1.400 m or more out of 398 airfields
in Germany besides the regional and international airports. There are 39 regional and
international airports and 23 remaining smaller airports – out of approx 360 total field.
These are the airfields depicted above. As one can see the majority are former military
airfields in former Eastern Germany. This results in no relevant coverage for relevant
parts of Germany for small jets.
Altenburg EDAC 2435m
Augsburg EDMA 1595m
Bautzen EDAB 2200m
Bitburg EDRB 3056m
Seite 25 von 38

Brandenburg EDUB 1499m
Bremgarten EDTG 1650m
Cottbus EDCD 2484m
Eberswalde EDAV 2520m
Eisenach EDGE 1720m
Egelsbach EDFE 1400m
Giebelstadt EDQG 2135m
Großenhain EDAK 2400m
Hof EDQM 1480m
Wilhelmshave
n EDWI 1459m
Kassel EDVK 1500m
Mengen EDTM 1566m
Neuhardenber
g EDON 2400m
Obermehler EDCO 1400m
Peenemünde EDCP 2400m
Lärz EDAX 2380m
Rothenburg EDBR 2500m
Trebbin EDAZ 1510m
Schwäbisch
Hall EDTY 1540m
Welzow EDCY 2000m
Stendal EDOV 1997m
Demmin EDUW 2200m
Werneuchen EDBW 1499m
And here is the list of all current airfields: (VLP – Verkehrslandeplatz, SLP -
Sonderlandeplatz)
Bundesland
Höhe Bahn
Name des Flugplatzes Ort
Klass. ICAO (m)
(m)
Aachen-Merzbrück Aachen NW VLP EDKA 190 520×20
1000×25
Aalen-Heidenheim/Elchingen Aalen BW VLP EDPA 584 1000×30
Achmer Bramsche NI SLP EDXA 54 940×30
Ahrenlohe Tornesch SH SLP EDHO 10 600×15
Ailertchen Ailertchen RP VLP EDGA 470 550×50
Albstadt-Degerfeld Albstadt BW SLP EDSA 878 960×30
Allendorf/Eder Allendorf HE VLP EDFQ 353 1240×30
Allstedt Allstedt ST SLP EDBT 284 1200×30
Altdorf-Wallburg Altdorf BW SLP EDSW 190 840×30
Altena-Hegenscheid Altena NW VLP EDKD 473 600×30
Leipzig-Altenburg Altenburg TH VLP EDAC 195 2435x45
Ampfing-Waldkraiburg Ampfing BY SLP EDNA 415 890×40
1000×20
Anklam Anklam MV VLP EDCA 5 900×40
Ansbach-Petersdorf Ansbach BY VLP EDQF 418 780×30
Seite 26 von 38

Anspach/Taunus Anspach HE SLP EDFA 336 640×30
Arnbruck Arnbruck BY SLP EDNB 523 610×10
Arnsberg-Menden
Neheim-
Hüsten NW VLP EDLA 242 920×20
Arnstadt-Alkersleben
Wülfershause
n TH VLP EDBA 349 870x23
840×20
Aschaffenburg
Aschaffenbur
g BY VLP EDFC 125 800×25
Aschersleben Aschersleben ST SLP EDCQ 160 1050×50
Attendorn-Finnentrop Finnentrop NW SLP EDKU 317 560×30
Auerbach
Auerbach/Vo
gtl. SN VLP EDOA 573 800×23
Augsburg Augsburg BY VLP EDMA 462 1594×30
Babenhausen Babenhausen HE SLP EDEF 283 674×18
Backnang-Heiningen Backnang BW SLP EDSH 294 500×30
Bad Berka Bad Berka TH SLP EDOB 305 700x40
Bad Ditzenbach
Bad
Ditzenbach BW SLP EDPB 720 600×30
Bad Dürkheim
Bad
Dürkheim RP VLP EDRF 107 600×20
Bad Frankenhausen
Bad
Frankenhaus
en TH SLP EDOF 232 650x30
Bad Gandersheim
Bad
Gandersheim NI VLP EDVA 241 725×30
Bad Kissingen
Bad
Kissingen BY SLP EDFK 199 805×30
Bad Langensalza
Bad
Langensalza TH SLP EDEB 198 800x40
Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler
Bad
Neuenahr RP SLP EDRA 205 500×15
Bad Neustadt/Saale-
Grasberg
Bad Neustadt
a.d.Saale BY SLP EDFD 304 600×15
600×30
Bad Sobernheim-Domberg
Bad
Sobernheim RP VLP EDRS 247 700×30
Bad Windsheim
Bad
Windsheim BY SLP EDQB 372 690×30
Bad Wörishofen-Nord
Bad
Wörishofen BY SLP EDNH 620 805×30
Baden-Oos Baden-Baden BW SLP EDTB 123 790×30
685×30
Ballenstedt Ballenstedt ST VLP EDCB 163 560×30
Baltrum Baltrum NI SLP EDWZ 2 360×15
Bamberg-Breitenau[2] Bamberg BY SLP ETEJ 255 1290×15
Barßel Barßel NI SLP EDXL 3 770×30
Bartholomä-Amalienhof Bartholomä BW SLP EDPU 300 900×30
2200×50
Bautzen Bautzen SN VLP EDAB 173 1000×40
Bayreuth Bayreuth BY VLP EDQD 488 1082×30
Beilngries Beilngries BY SLP EDNC 369 600×25
Berching Berching BY SLP EDNI 386 850×25
Seite 27 von 38

Bergneustadt/Auf dem
Dümpel Bergneustadt NW SLP EDKF 489 600×30
Betzdorf-Kirchen Betzdorf RP VLP EDKI 343 500×30
Biberach a.d. Riß
Biberach an
der Riß BW VLP EDMB 580 980×23
Bielefeld Bielefeld NW VLP EDLI 132 1256×20
Bienenfarm Nauen BB SLP EDOI 40 850×40
Binningen
Binningen
(Hilzingen) BW SLP EDSI 486 860×30
Bitburg Bitburg RP VLP EDRB 372 3056×45
Blaubeuren Blaubeuren BW SLP EDMC 676 871×30
Blomberg-Borkhausen Blomberg NW SLP EDVF 163 595×30
Blumberg Blumberg BW SLP EDSL 698 780×30
950×40
Böhlen Böhlen SN VLP EDOE 131 800×40
Bohmte-Bad Essen Bohmte NI SLP EDXD 45 580×30
Bonn-Hangelar Bonn NW VLP EDKB 60 800×30
Bopfingen Bopfingen BW SLP EDNQ 618
465×15
(620×30)
Bordelum Bredstedt SH SLP EDWA 1 550×25
Borkenberge Dülmen NW VLP EDLB 48 671×15
Borken-Hoxfeld Borken NW SLP EDLY 48 740×30
1000×20
870×40
Borkum Borkum NI VLP EDWR 1 810×40
Bottenhorn Bottenhorn HE SLP EDGT 505 525×30
Brandenburg
Brandenburg-Briest
an der Havel BB SLP EDUB 31 1499×30
Brandenburg
Brandenburg-Mühlenfeld an der Havel BB SLP EDBE 30 730×40
785×15
(900×30)
Breitscheid Breitscheid HE VLP EDGB 559
Bremerhaven Bremerhaven HB VLP EDWB 3
900×30
1200×30
658×19
1650×45
Bremgarten Bremgarten BW SLP EDTG 212 600×30
Brilon/Hochsauerlandkreis Brilon NW SLP EDKO 460 750×15
880×40
Bronkow Bronkow BB SLP EDBQ 129 900×40
Bruchsal Bruchsal BW SLP EDTC 111 500×30
Burg Burg ST SLP EDBG 53 850×30
973×15
Burg Feuerstein
Ebermannsta
dt BY VLP EDQE 510 650×30
Celle-Arloh Celle NI VLP EDVC 63 900×40
Seite 28 von 38

900×20
Chemnitz/Jahnsdorf Chemnitz SN VLP EDCJ 365 880×30
Coburg-Brandensteinsebene Coburg BY VLP EDQC 454 860×20
Coburg-Steinrücken Coburg BY SLP EDQY 361 700×25
2484×45
Cottbus-Drewitz Cottbus BB VLP EDCD 83 2000×50
Dachau-Gröbenried Dachau BY SLP EDMD 490 625×30
Dahlemer Binz Dahlem NW VLP EDKV 578 1070×30
Damme Damme NI VLP EDWC 46 700×20
Deggendorf Deggendorf BY SLP EDMW 314 550×15
Dessau Dessau ST VLP EDAD 57 1000×25
Donzdorf Donzdorf BW SLP EDPM 693
600×10
(600×30)
Ebern-Sendelbach Ebern BY SLP EDQR 252 522×25
Finow Eberswalde BB VLP EDAV 37 2520×50
Eggenfelden Eggenfelden BY VLP EDME 409 1160×23
Eggersdorf Eggersdorf BB VLP EDCE 68 2230×40
Eichstätt Eichstätt BY SLP EDPE 522 715×35
Eisenach-Kindel Eisenach TH VLP EDGE 339 1720x55
Eisenhüttenstadt
Eisenhüttenst
adt BB VLP EDAE 44 1170×23
Ellwangen Ellwangen BW SLP EDPY 503 785×30
Limburg an
600×6
Elz
der Lahn HE SLP EDFY 213 (750×20)
Emden Emden NI VLP EDWE 1 1300×30
Detmold Detmold NW SLP EDLJ 198
510×9
(360×18)
Diepholz[3] Diepholz NI VLP ETND 39 1283×45
Dierdorf-Wienau Dierdorf RP SLP EDRW 290 580×10
Dingolfing Dingolfing BY SLP EDPD 355 660×30
Dinkelsbühl-Sinbronn Dinkelsbühl BY SLP EDND 487 700×30
Dinslaken/Schwarze Heide
Bottrop-
Kirchhellen NW VLP EDLD 66 900×30
Donaueschingen-Villingen
Donaueschin
gen BW VLP EDTD 680 1290×30
Donauwörth-Genderkingen Donauwörth BY SLP EDMQ 400 700×20
Emmel Airfield Dedelow Prenzlau BB SLP EDBD 65
315×10
(866×30)
Erbach Erbach BW SLP EDNE 475 650×30
Falkenberg-Lönnewitz
Uebigau-
Wahrenbrück BB SLP EDUF 95 1200×30
Finsterwalde/Heinrichsruh Finsterwalde BB SLP EDAS 117 1000×40
1200×30
Finsterwalde/Schacksdorf Finsterwalde BB SLP EDUS 117
885×40
1220×30
1200×60
Flensburg-Schäferhaus Flensburg SH VLP EDXF 40
700×45
Seite 29 von 38

1400×25
Frankfurt-Egelsbach Egelsbach HE VLP EDFE 117 670×30
Freiburg im
Freiburg i. Br.
Breisgau BW VLP EDTF 244 1240×30
Friedersdorf Friedersdorf BB SLP EDCF 35 900x??
Fritzlar[4] Fritzlar HE MFP ETHF 410 1043×30
Fulda-Jossa Fulda HE SLP EDGF 475 588×30
Fürstenfeldbr
Fürstenfeldbruck[5]
uck BY MFP ETSF 519 2744×46
Fürstenzell Fürstenzell BY SLP EDMF 410 485×12
Ganderkesee Atlas Airfield Ganderkesee NI VLP EDWQ 29 836×22
Gardelegen Gardelegen ST SLP EDOC 70 550×40
Gelnhausen Gelnhausen HE VLP EDFG 136 840×25
Gera-Leumnitz Gera TH VLP EDAJ 309 750x24
Gerstetten Gerstetten BW SLP EDPT 602 530×30
Giebelstadt[6] Giebelstadt BY VLP EDQG 299 2135×30
Giengen an
Giengen/Brenz
der Brenz BW VLP EDNG 517 550×15
Gießen-Lützellinden Gießen HE SLP EDFL 230 716×16
Gießen-Reiskirchen Gießen HE SLP EDGR 214 440×20
Goch-Asperden Goch NW SLP EDLG 16 750×30
Görlitz Görlitz SN VLP EDBX 237 750×40
Gotha-Ost Gotha TH SLP EDEG 302 810x30
Grabenstette
Grabenstetten
n BW SLP EDSG 710 1100×30
Grefrath-Niershorst Grefrath NW VLP EDLF 32 575×40
Greiz-Obergrochlitz Greiz TH SLP EDOT 386 500x30
Griesau Pfatter BY SLP EDPG 323 475×20
Großenhain Großenhain SN VLP EDAK 127 2400×48
Großrückerswalde Marienberg SN VLP EDAG 670 1000×40
Grube Grube SH SLP EDHB 2 500×30
Gundelfingen
Gundelfingen
a.d.Donau BY SLP EDMU 441 480×30
Günzburg-Donauried Günzburg BY SLP EDMG 444 580×30
Gunzenhause
Gunzenhausen-Reutberg n BY SLP EDMH 485 725×15
Güstrow Güstrow MV SLP EDCU 14 700×40
Halle-Oppin Oppin ST VLP EDAQ 106 1120×30
Hamburg-Finkenwerder Hamburg HH SLP EDHI 7 3183×45
Hameln-Pyrmont Bad Pyrmont NI SLP EDVW 359
600×15
600×30
Hamm-Lippewiesen Hamm NW SLP EDLH 58
620×20
(900×30)
Harle Harlesiel NI SLP EDXP 2 510×20
Hartenholm Hasenmoor SH VLP EDHM 33 761×15
Haßfurt-Schweinfurt Haßfurt BY VLP EDQT 219 1100×20
Heide-Büsum Büsum SH VLP EDXB 2 720×23
Heilbad Heiligenstadt
Heilbad
Heiligenstadt TH SLP EDHD 363
700×15
700×30
Seite 30 von 38

480×30
371×20
Helgoland-Düne Helgoland SH VLP EDXH 2
258×12
1101×40
Heppenheim Heppenheim HE SLP EDEP 110 1047×40
Herrenteich Hockenheim BW SLP EDEH 94 635×30
Herten-Rheinfelden Rheinfelden BW SLP EDTR 282 730×30
Herzogenaur
Herzogenaurach
ach BY VLP EDQH 326 700×20
Hettstadt Hettstadt BY SLP EDGH 320 550×30
Hetzleser Berg
Neunkirchen
am Brand BY SLP EDQX 538
608×7
(608×30)
Heubach Heubach BW VLP EDTH 434 750×20
Hildesheim Hildesheim NI SLP EDVM 89 1220×23
Hirzenhain Hirzenhain HE SLP EDFI 520 650×30
Hockenheim Hockenheim BW SLP EDFX 96 840×30
Hodenhagen Hodenhagen NI VLP EDVH 24 900×40
Hof-Plauen Hof BY VLP EDQM 597 1480×30
Hölleberg Trendelburg HE SLP EDVL 255 520×30
670×21
Hoppstädten-Weiersbach
Hoppstädten-
Weiersbach RP SLP EDRH 333 1000×30
Höxter-Holzminden Höxter NW VLP EDVI 385 814×20
Hünsborn Wenden NW SLP EDKH 398 950×30
Husum-Schwesing Husum SH VLP EDXJ 19 1450×30
Hüttenbusch Hüttenbusch NI SLP EDXU 3 450×30
Idar-Oberstein/Göttschied
Idar-
Oberstein RP VLP EDRG 480 650×50
Illertissen Illertissen BY SLP EDMI 512 540×30
Ingelfingen-Bühlhof Ingelfingen BW SLP EDGI 419 480×10
500×30
(1040×30)
Itzehoe/Hungriger Wolf Itzehoe SH VLP EDHF 27
JadeWeserAirport
Wilhelmshav
en NI VLP EDWI 5
708×100
1459×30
615×15
1170x23
Jena-Schöngleina Jena TH VLP EDBJ 380 620x30
Jesenwang Jesenwang BY SLP EDMJ 567 408×12
700×20
475×30
500×30
Juist Juist NI VLP EDWJ 2
428×30
Seite 31 von 38

1100×28
Kamenz Kamenz SN VLP EDCM 151 1100×40
Kamp-Lintfort Rheinberg NW SLP EDLC 26 790×30
Karlshöfen Karlshöfen NI SLP EDWK 6 700×15
1500×30
Kassel-Calden Kassel HE VLP EDVK 277 700×30
Kehl-Sundheim Kehl BW SLP EDSK 138 685×30
850×30
Kempten-Durach Kempten BY VLP EDMK 713
900×30
1260×30
Kiel-Holtenau Kiel SH VLP EDHK 31 450×35
Kirchdorf am
Kirchdorf/Inn
Inn BY SLP EDNK 347 670×30
Klein Mühlingen Calbe ST SLP EDOM 52 470×30
Klietz/Scharlibbe Scharlibbe ST SLP EDCL 29 610×25
Klix Bautzen SN SLP EDCI 148 880×50
Koblenz-Winningen Koblenz RP VLP EDRK 195 1175×20
Konstanz Konstanz BW VLP EDTZ 397 760×50
Korbach Korbach HE SLP EDGK 390 600×25
Köthen Köthen ST SLP EDCK 93 800×15
Krefeld-Egelsberg Krefeld NW SLP EDLK 43 640×30
Kührstedt-Bederkesa Kührstedt NI SLP EDXZ 8 580×30
Kulmbach Kulmbach BY VLP EDQK 506 719×30
1000×23
Kyritz Kyritz BB VLP EDBK 40 1000×30
Neustadt an
der
Lachen-Speyerdorf
Weinstraße RP VLP EDRL 120 1000×30
Lager Hammelburg Hammelburg BY SLP EDFJ 345
553×10
(553×53)
522×8
Laichingen Laichingen BW SLP EDPJ 742 730×30
Landshut Landshut BY VLP EDML 400 900×20
Langenlonsh
Langenlonsheim
eim RP SLP EDEL 90 450×30
Langeoog Langeoog NI VLP EDWL 2 600×15
Langhennersdorf Freiberg SN SLP EDOH 386 900×30
Laucha an
Laucha
der Unstrut ST SLP EDBL 225 720×30
Lauenbrück Lauenbrück NI SLP EDHU 30 600×25
450×8
(450×30)
Lauf-Lillinghof Schnaittach BY SLP EDQI 545 450×30
Lauterbach Lauterbach HE SLP EDFT 369 680×30
Leck Leck SH SLP EDXK 7 820×30
Leer-Papenburg Leer NI VLP EDWF 1 1200×20
Seite 32 von 38

Leutkirch-Unterzeil Leutkirch BW VLP EDNL 640 1020×20
Leverkusen Leverkusen NW SLP EDKL 48 925×30
Lichtenfels Lichtenfels BY VLP EDQL 260 700×30
Linkenheim Linkenheim BW SLP EDRI 99 740×30
Locktow Locktow BB SLP – 65 400×30
Lüchow-Rehbeck Lüchow NI VLP EDHC 15
475×10
(650×30)
Lüneburg Lüneburg NI SLP EDHG 49 980×30
Lüsse Lüsse BB SLP EDOJ 66 1020×40
1000×30
Magdeburg Magdeburg ST VLP EDBM 79 700×30
Mainbullau Miltenberg BY VLP EDFU 458 703×11
1000×22
Mainz-Finthen Mainz RP VLP EDFZ 232
1000×80
1066×25
Mannheim-City Mannheim BW VLP EDFM 94 700×30
Marburg-Schönstadt Marburg HE VLP EDFN 254 750×30
Marl-Loemühle Marl NW VLP EDLM 73 830×20
Meinerzhage
Meinerzhagen
n NW SLP EDKZ 472 1170×20
Melle-Grönegau Melle NI SLP EDXG 72 768×15
Mengen-Hohentengen Mengen BW VLP EDTM 554 1566×30
Mengeringha
Mengeringhausen
usen HE SLP EDVG 363 540×30
Merseburg Merseburg ST SLP EDAM 104 1140×30
Meschede-Schüren Meschede NW VLP EDKM 437 900×30
Michelstadt/Odw. Michelstadt HE SLP EDFO 348 604×15
Mindelheim-Mattsies Mindelheim BY SLP EDMN 566 1149×20
Mönchenglad
Mönchengladbach
bach NW VLP EDLN 38 1200×30
Mosbach-Lohrbach Mosbach BW VLP EDGM 554 615×20
Mosenberg Homberg HE SLP EDEM 395 511×20
Mühldorf
Mühldorf am
Inn BY SLP EDMY 404
852×20
(1102×20)
Mühlhausen Mühlhausen TH SLP EDEQ 248
400×6
(900x30)
Münster-Telgte Telgte NW VLP EDLT 54 680×20
Nabern/Teck Nabern BW SLP EDTN 370 570×30
Nannhausen Simmern RP SLP EDRN 373 560×30
Nardt Hoyerswerda SN SLP EDAT 117 950×40
Neuburg-Egweil
Neuburg an
der Donau BY SLP EDNJ 410 640×30
Neuhardenberg
Neuhardenbe
rg BB SLP EDON 12 2400×50
Neuhausen
Neuhausen/S
pree BB VLP EDAP 85 1080×40
Neuhausen ob Eck
Neuhausen
ob Eck BW SLP EDSN 804 1248×30
Neumagen-Dhron Neumagen RP SLP EDRD 268 750×30
Seite 33 von 38

Neumarkt/Obf.
Neumarkt in
der Oberpfalz BY SLP EDPO 425
716×11
(716×31)
600×15
Neumünster Neumünster SH VLP EDHN 22 485×40
Neustadt an
Neustadt/Aisch
der Aisch BY SLP EDQN 365 600×15
1200×40
Neustadt-Glewe
Neustadt-
Glewe MV VLP EDAN 35 900×40
Niederstetten[8] Niederstetten BW VLP ETHN 408 1012×30
Nienburg-Holzbalge
Nienburg/We
ser NI SLP EDXI 25 850×30
Nittenau-Bruck Nittenau BY SLP EDNM 354 554×10
Norden-Norddeich Norddeich NI SLP EDWS 1 720×20
Norderney Norderney NI VLP EDWY 2 1000×20
Nordhausen Nordhausen TH SLP EDAO 210 895x30
Nordholz-Spieka Cuxhaven NI SLP EDXN 22 875×30
Nordhorn-Lingen Klausheide NI VLP EDWN 27 900×20
Nördlingen Nördlingen BY SLP EDNO 422 750×15
Northeim Northeim NI VLP EDVN 123 685×30
Obermehler-Schlotheim Obermehler TH SLP EDCO 277 1450x30
Ober-Mörlen Ober-Mörlen HE SLP EDFP 248 860×30
Oberrissdorf
Lutherstadt
Eisleben ST SLP EDUO 225 500×25
Oberschleißheim
Oberschleißh
eim BY SLP EDNX 486 808×16
Ochsenfurt Ochsenfurt BY SLP EDGJ 248 512×20
850×20
Oehna Zellendorf BB VLP EDBO 88 600×30
Oerlinghause
Oerlinghausen
n NW SLP EDLO 170 600×20
Offenburg Offenburg BW SLP EDTO 155 910×20
Oldenburg-Hatten Oldenburg NI VLP EDWH 8 778×30
Oppenheim Oppenheim RP SLP EDGP 85 800×30
Oschatz Oschatz SN SLP EDOQ 153 830×40
Oschersleben Oschersleben ST SLP EDOL 105 600×35
Osnabrück-Atterheide Osnabrück NI VLP EDWO 87 800×20
Ottengrüner Heide Helmbrechts BY SLP EDQO 573
650×13
(650×30)
Paderborn-Haxterberg Paderborn NW SLP EDLR 244
600×18
(1090×30)
Pasewalk Pasewalk MV SLP EDCV 22 900×23
Pattonville Pattonville BW SLP EDTQ 280 672×20
Peenemünde Peenemünde MV SLP EDCP 2 2400×60
Pegnitz-Zipser Berg Pegnitz BY SLP EDQZ 546 884×25
Peine-Eddesse Peine NI VLP EDVP 76 900×30
Pellworm Pellworm SH SLP EDHP 1 680×30
Pennewitz Pennewitz TH SLP EDOS 459 900x30
Pfarrkirchen Pfarrkirchen BY SLP EDNP 386 700×25
Pfullendorf Pfullendorf BW VLP EDTP 702 609×30
Seite 34 von 38

800×40
Pinnow Pinnow MV SLP EDBP 44 500×40
Pirmasens Pirmasens RP VLP EDRP 380 800×20
Pirna-Pratzschwitz Pirna SN SLP EDAR 122 900×40
Plettenberg-Hüinghausen Plettenberg NW SLP EDKP 299 430×30
Bad
Porta Westfalica
Oeynhausen NW VLP EDVY 45 860×15
Pritzwalk-Sommersberg Pritzwalk BB SLP EDBU 88 830×30
Purkshof Rostock MV SLP EDCX 20 1100×40
Radolfzell-Stahringen Radolfzell BW SLP EDSR 435 710×30
Rechlin-Lärz Lärz MV VLP EDAX 67 2380×50
Regensburg-Oberhub Regensburg BY VLP EDNR 396 645×15
1300×23
Reichelsheim Reichelsheim HE VLP EDFB 121 250×30
Reinsdorf Reinsdorf BB SLP EDOD 102 1280×40
960×30
Rendsburg-Schachtholm Rendsburg SH VLP EDXR 7 600×30
Renneritz Sandersdorf ST SLP EDOX 94 1000×30
Rerik-Zweedorf Rerik MV SLP EDCR 9 640×40
Rheine-Eschendorf Rheine NW VLP EDXE 40 920×30
Riesa-Göhlis Riesa SN VLP EDAU 98
1000×23
600×30
Rinteln Rinteln NI VLP EDVR 55
600×10
(600×30)
Roitzschjora
Löbnitz-
Roitzschjora SN VLP EDAW 88 1200×40
Rosenthal-Field Plössen Speichersdorf BY SLP EDQP 456 750×20
Rotenburg (Wümme)
Rothenburg o. d. T.
806×30
Rotenburg
(Wümme) NI VLP EDXQ 30 750×40
Rothenburg
ob der
Tauber BY VLP EDFR 399 950×20
2500×45
Rothenburg/Görlitz
Rothenburg/
Oberlausitz SN VLP EDBR 158 1220×40
Rottweil-Zepfenhahn Rottweil BW SLP EDSZ 745 803×20
Rudolstadt-Groschwitz Rudolstadt TH SLP EDOK 468 800x30
Rügen Rügen MV VLP EDCG 21 900×20
Ruppiner Land Fehrbellin BB VLP EDBF 42 905×23
Saarlouis-Düren Saarlouis SL VLP EDRJ 341 800×20
Saarmund Saarmund BB SLP EDCS 53 1000×30
Salzgitter-Drütte Salzgitter NI VLP EDVS 100 636×20
Salzgitter-Schäferstuhl Salzgitter NI SLP EDVJ 226 950×50
Saulgau Bad Saulgau BW SLP EDTU 581 450×15
Schameder Schameder NW SLP EDGQ 545 750×30
Schleswig-Kropp Schleswig SH SLP EDXC 16 825×32
Schlierstadt-Seligenberg Schlierstadt BW SLP 338 620×30
Seite 35 von 38

Schmallenberg-Rennefeld
Schmallenber
g NW SLP EDKR 466 900×30
Schmidgaden Schmidgaden BY SLP EDPQ 380
520×10
(520×20)
Schmoldow Schmoldow MV SLP EDBY 32 900×50
Schönberg Seebruck BY SLP EDPK 593 450×30
Schönebeck-Zackmünde Schönebeck ST SLP EDOZ 51 800×40
1510×23
700×18
Schönhagen Trebbin BB VLP EDAZ 40 760×40
Schwabach-Heidenberg Schwabach BY SLP EDPH 360 530×15
1540×30
Schwäbisch Hall
Schwäbisch
Hall BW VLP EDTY 396 750×30
Schwäbisch Hall-Weckrieden
Schwäbisch
Hall BW VLP EDTX 396 550×30
Schwabmünchen
Schwabmünc
hen BY SLP EDNS 550 850×30
Schwandorf Schwandorf BY SLP EDPF 387 840×30
850×50
Schwarzheide/Schipkau Schwarzheide BB SLP EDBZ 101 800×40
Schweighofe
Schweighofen
n RP SLP EDRO 150 620×30
Schweinfurt-Süd Schweinfurt BY SLP EDFS 209 980×30
Villingen-
Schwenninge
Schwenningen am Neckar n BW VLP EDTS 661 804×20
Seedorf Seedorf NI SLP EDXS 22 450×30
Segeletz Neustadt BB SLP EDAI 43 925×40
Sierksdorf/Hof-Altona Sierksdorf SH SLP EDXT 24 500×30
Bad
Soest/Bad Sassendorf Sassendorf NW SLP EDLZ 120 820×30
Sömmerda-Dermsdorf Kölleda TH VLP EDBS 138 925x40
Sonnen Waldkirchen BY SLP EDPS 815
650×10
(650×25)
1226×30
Speyer Speyer RP VLP EDRY 95 1000×30
Spremberg-Welzow Welzow BB VLP EDCY 114 2000×30
Sprossen Rehmsdorf ST SLP EDCH 205 740x30
Sankt
Michaelisdon
St. Michaelisdonn
n SH VLP EDXM 38 700×18
Sankt Peter-
St. Peter-Ording
Ording SH VLP EDXO 2 670×30
Stade Stade NI SLP EDHS 19 650×15
Stadtlohn-Vreden Stadtlohn NW VLP EDLS 48 1200×30
Stechow-
Stechow-Ferchesar
Ferchesar BB SLP EDUA 45 490×30
1997×52
Stendal-Borstel Stendal ST VLP EDOV 56
700×40
Seite 36 von 38

Stölln/Rhinow Rhinow BB SLP EDOR 42 840×40
Stralsund Stralsund MV SLP EDBV 15 900×40
Straubing Straubing BY VLP EDMS 319 1350×30
Strausberg Strausberg BB VLP EDAY 80 1200×28
Suhl-Goldlauter
Goldlauter-
Heidersbach TH SLP EDQS 586 570x30
Tannheim Tannheim BW VLP EDMT 580 1022×30
Taucha Taucha SN SLP EDCT 150 600×30
Templin/Groß Dölln Templin BB SLP EDUT 62 1000×30
Thalmässing-Waizenhofen Thalmässing BY SLP EDPW 577 412×30
Thannhausen Thannhausen BY SLP EDNU 491 500×30
Torgau-Beilrode Torgau SN SLP EDOG 90 800×30
Traben-Trarbach/Mont Royal
Traben-
Trarbach RP VLP EDRM 280 750×30
Treuchtlingen-Bubenheim Treuchtlingen BY SLP EDNT 410 645×30
Trier-Föhren[9] Trier RP MZP EDRT 203 1200×30
2200×60
Tutow Demmin MV VLP EDUW 8 500×30
Uelzen Uelzen NI VLP EDVU 75 800×20
Uetersen/Heist Uetersen SH VLP EDHE 7 1100×40
Unterschüpf Unterschüpf BW SLP EDGU 352 670×30
Varrelbusch Cloppenburg NI VLP EDWU 39 930×32
Verden-Scharnhorst Verden (Aller) NI VLP EDWV 44 510×30
Vilsbiburg Vilsbiburg BY SLP EDMP 442 450×20
Vilshofen Vilshofen BY VLP EDMV 302 1138×20
Vogtareuth Vogtareuth BY SLP EDNV 468 500×15
Wahlstedt Wahlstedt SH SLP EDHW 39 800×30
Walldorf Walldorf BW SLP EDGX 105 505×30
Walldürn Walldürn BW VLP EDEW 400 820×20
850×20
Wangerooge Wangerooge NI VLP EDWG 2 500×30
Waren-Vielist Waren MV SLP EDOW 86 800×40
Wasserkuppe Gersfeld HE SLP EDER 901
670×15
(820×30)
Weiden/Opf.
Weiden in der
Oberpfalz BY VLP EDQW 405 570×11
Weimar-Umpferstedt Weimar TH SLP EDOU 300
400×9
(670x30)
Weinheim/Bergstraße Weinheim BW SLP EDGZ 97 775×30
Weißenhorn Weißenhorn BY SLP EDNW 501 650×30
1499×200
Welzow-Sedlitzer See[10] Welzow BB WLP EDUY 110 1499×200
Werdohl-Küntrop Werdohl NW SLP EDKW 316 810×30
Werneuchen Werneuchen BB SLP EDBW 80 1499×80
Wershofen/Eifel Wershofen RP SLP EDRV 482 630×30
Wesel-Römerwardt Wesel NW SLP EDLX 22 720×30
Rotenburg
Weser-Wümme
(Wümme) NI VLP EDWM 18 850×30
Westerstede-Felde Westerstede NI SLP EDWX 9 570×15
Seite 37 von 38

Wiefelstede/Conneforde Wiefelstede NI SLP EDWP 10 650×30
Winzeln-Schramberg Schramberg BW SLP EDTW 704 704×15
Wipperfürth-Neye Wipperfürth NW SLP EDKN 263 600×25
Wismar Wismar MV VLP EDCW 13 640×40
Wolfhagen „Graner Berg“ Wolfhagen HE SLP EDGW 313 500×30
800×23
Worms Worms RP VLP EDFV 90 920×30
Würzburg-Schenkenturm Würzburg BY VLP EDFW 302 670×21
660×40
Wyk auf Föhr Wyk auf Föhr SH VLP EDXY 8
Zell im
Fichtelgebirg
Zell-Haidberg
e BY SLP EDNZ 635
605×40
600×10
(800×30)
360×30
Zerbst Zerbst/Anhalt ST SLP EDUZ 88 460×50
Zwickau Zwickau SN VLP EDBI 320 800×30
Seite 38 von 38