LSZH, worst airport in Europe?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the Blue Planet
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LSZH, worst airport in Europe?
ZRH:
- has the worst runway layout, 3 of 'em, crossing each other, e.g. only 1 usable at a time (statistically only a matter of time till...)
- is in a location prone to fog
- has some absurd security measures for crew on one side, but almost free entry (no scanning, etc) for catering and technical staff through other entrance gates on the other side
- suffers from Swiss and German strangulating restrictions
- provides stiff ATC
- spent zillions of taxpayers money to build the mid-field terminal E, and now uses terminal B as a fun fair
- uses some ridiculous spacing during approaches, specially into rwy 34
- suffers from the unwillingness of ATC to give vectors ("reach ODINA FL270" etc)
- experiences some strange failures (see for example http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=213250)
- gets less traffic flow than most airports with only 1 runway do, example Gatwick
- has the highest security and landing fees (ask Easy, now in LFSB)
- is unable to cope with snow, lenghty, late and overdone runways and taxiways clearing (what a nice show, this morning)
- provides a "braking action unreliable" on the ATIS whenever contamination is present, probably to release the airport from any legal responsiblility
- experiences some strong windshears, some due to the close proximity of the ever growing buidings around the airport
- has some very conservative missed approach or take-off separation procedures, again restricting any increase in traffic flow (but again lessening the amount of work ATC has to provide, call it passive separation)
- will probably close within the next 20 years thanks to the ever growing pressure of political lobby groups, real estate developments, and the closeness of BSL, MUC and STR
- uses outdated speed restriction procedures (ever flown into EHAM on a busy day, usually opening a tap wider also gives you more flow)
- pretends to be the best, but is well... at most, unique
- has the worst runway layout, 3 of 'em, crossing each other, e.g. only 1 usable at a time (statistically only a matter of time till...)
- is in a location prone to fog
- has some absurd security measures for crew on one side, but almost free entry (no scanning, etc) for catering and technical staff through other entrance gates on the other side
- suffers from Swiss and German strangulating restrictions
- provides stiff ATC
- spent zillions of taxpayers money to build the mid-field terminal E, and now uses terminal B as a fun fair
- uses some ridiculous spacing during approaches, specially into rwy 34
- suffers from the unwillingness of ATC to give vectors ("reach ODINA FL270" etc)
- experiences some strange failures (see for example http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=213250)
- gets less traffic flow than most airports with only 1 runway do, example Gatwick
- has the highest security and landing fees (ask Easy, now in LFSB)
- is unable to cope with snow, lenghty, late and overdone runways and taxiways clearing (what a nice show, this morning)
- provides a "braking action unreliable" on the ATIS whenever contamination is present, probably to release the airport from any legal responsiblility
- experiences some strong windshears, some due to the close proximity of the ever growing buidings around the airport
- has some very conservative missed approach or take-off separation procedures, again restricting any increase in traffic flow (but again lessening the amount of work ATC has to provide, call it passive separation)
- will probably close within the next 20 years thanks to the ever growing pressure of political lobby groups, real estate developments, and the closeness of BSL, MUC and STR
- uses outdated speed restriction procedures (ever flown into EHAM on a busy day, usually opening a tap wider also gives you more flow)
- pretends to be the best, but is well... at most, unique
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand, what has lead you to post this. You obviously have an axe to grind over something. In my experience LSZH is one of the best run and most organised airfield in the world. It's user friendly to the pilot, I find the security very practical. ATC is excellent. Recently I was asked to fill in a questionaire I was pleased to state that anywhere in Switzerland offers the best ATC in Europe. I find the formality of the Swiss most appropriate when it comes to ATC. I simply don't understand what's behind your post, sorry.
Guest
Posts: n/a
silly polemic, cornwallis. While I myself am not a friend of swiss ATC simply based on their unfriendlyness, their strict adherence to phraseology has something going for itself. Damn germs, bloody french, italians and spaniards, they each speak whatever's on their mind, mostly in their own native tongue. very instructive when trying to avoid metal on metal based on hearsay, because atc won't tell you where what is...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F4f, has it ever crossed your mind that:
the worst runway layout, 3 of 'em, crossing each other, e.g. only 1 usable at a time (statistically only a matter of time till...)
- and a location prone to fog
plus the suffering from Swiss and German strangulating restrictions
could lead to
using some ridiculous spacing during approaches, specially into rwy 34
and
unwillingness of ATC to give vectors
what some would think is providing stiff ATC...Iīm there quite often and I always thought their atc is real good...
Canīt comment on the terminals, since Iīm executive, but the airport suffers clearly from its location...but switzerland is small, where should they build another airport ? As for security, there are loads of airports in europe with security measures that donīt deserve that title...
I think LSZH is not ideal but okay...
@cornwallis: not funny
@zeedoktor: Damn germs, bloody french, italians and spaniards, they each speak whatever's on their mind, mostly in their own native tongue
try to be german and then go to, say london centre and try to figure out what that scuutisch cotrula told ya right noaw...
-
- suffers from the " etc)
the worst runway layout, 3 of 'em, crossing each other, e.g. only 1 usable at a time (statistically only a matter of time till...)
- and a location prone to fog
plus the suffering from Swiss and German strangulating restrictions
could lead to
using some ridiculous spacing during approaches, specially into rwy 34
and
unwillingness of ATC to give vectors
what some would think is providing stiff ATC...Iīm there quite often and I always thought their atc is real good...
Canīt comment on the terminals, since Iīm executive, but the airport suffers clearly from its location...but switzerland is small, where should they build another airport ? As for security, there are loads of airports in europe with security measures that donīt deserve that title...
I think LSZH is not ideal but okay...
@cornwallis: not funny
@zeedoktor: Damn germs, bloody french, italians and spaniards, they each speak whatever's on their mind, mostly in their own native tongue
try to be german and then go to, say london centre and try to figure out what that scuutisch cotrula told ya right noaw...
-
- suffers from the " etc)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never had a problem with LSZH, the only thing that I can think of to comment on is the policy of NP approches due to noise abatment but I think that this has been adressed.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The frequency jungle
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
suffers from the unwillingness of ATC to give vectors ("reach ODINA FL270" etc)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North of London
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Max:
Swiss ATC the best in the world? Are you serious? Maybe the DHL crew who crashed due to being run into by a Russian aircraft due to Swiss negligence may feel othersise!!!
CK.
Swiss ATC the best in the world? Are you serious? Maybe the DHL crew who crashed due to being run into by a Russian aircraft due to Swiss negligence may feel othersise!!!
CK.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Home base ZRH
ZRH used to be my home base for 25 years.
In that time (and the years since) traffic has grown out of all recognition. Noise opponents have multiplied out of all recognition. people as far away as the Black Forest (where I have a holiday place) complain about a light whistling and are treated as seriously as the poor folk who live on short final RW 34 and after T/O RW 28.
RW 14, originally not there was built at a time when everyone had a lobbyist and the "committee" result was the inverted V runway system (14 and 16) that it is now stuck with. These runways do not cross each other. This has a knock on effect however with approach paths 14 and 16 which do cross on short final.
RW 28, crosses RW 16 only - so one intersection - quite a common feature at other airports of course.
When I started out at ZRH, holdings were unthinkable - now they are the norm. This is due to the political background - trying to keep everyone happy all of the time. The best DEP / APP rates for ages were acheived at ZRH when RW28 was closed for some months to build the tunnel to Teminal 3. Why? Because temporary measures had to be introduced, disregarding political noise considerations - direct departures and turn-outs were introduced and eveyone pulled his finger out.
Now, with one runway more, things are back to foot dragging tempo again.
De-Icing; I was once in a position where I could make an input on this subject, during the planning phase. I made a strong case for a dedicated de-icing pad short of the RW, with stereo de-icing such as is done in CPH. This is much cheaper and much more efficient than the ridiculous gantries in MUC and CDG. I offered to take the planners with me in the cockpit to CPH so they could see how well it works.
Well as usual, if you have a committee, everyone knows better and ZRH now has the mess it has. However, this could still be improved upon.
ATC: These guys, taking into account the impossible circumstances they have to work under (Noise restrictions, politics, aiport layout, terrain) do a great job. They may not always have time to be cheery on the RT but everything they do is for a good reason, which would take ages to explain each time by radio.
I once had a pretty complicated emergency in Switzerland culminating in an emergency landing at ZRH and ATC were just great.
The fog situation; this makes me smile, as just about all airfields I have used seem to be planted there where fog often forms. In the case of ZRH, there is the Neeracher Ried - a swampy nature reserve - a mile or two to the north of the field. If there is going to be fog, it will form there first. Then if there is a light north component to the W/V it drifts south and triggers any radiation fog which was thinking of forming!
The new terminal was planned and built in a fever of Swissair (remember them?) expansion and optimism. Now there is overcapacity at the airport, so the terminals have to be used as best they can.
Braking action "unreliable" is the correct reading in conditions of aquaplaning or deep wet deposit on the RW. It has been this way for years.
After a lot of time spent flying away from ZRH I flew there very often again just before retirement and I have to say things which used to run in oil seemed to be running in treacle.
The worst airport in Europe? No.
The most frustrating one to operate through/from? Very possibly.
But again - don't shoot the piano player - shoot the politicians and lawyers,
who now have the airport they deserve.
FC.
In that time (and the years since) traffic has grown out of all recognition. Noise opponents have multiplied out of all recognition. people as far away as the Black Forest (where I have a holiday place) complain about a light whistling and are treated as seriously as the poor folk who live on short final RW 34 and after T/O RW 28.
RW 14, originally not there was built at a time when everyone had a lobbyist and the "committee" result was the inverted V runway system (14 and 16) that it is now stuck with. These runways do not cross each other. This has a knock on effect however with approach paths 14 and 16 which do cross on short final.
RW 28, crosses RW 16 only - so one intersection - quite a common feature at other airports of course.
When I started out at ZRH, holdings were unthinkable - now they are the norm. This is due to the political background - trying to keep everyone happy all of the time. The best DEP / APP rates for ages were acheived at ZRH when RW28 was closed for some months to build the tunnel to Teminal 3. Why? Because temporary measures had to be introduced, disregarding political noise considerations - direct departures and turn-outs were introduced and eveyone pulled his finger out.
Now, with one runway more, things are back to foot dragging tempo again.
De-Icing; I was once in a position where I could make an input on this subject, during the planning phase. I made a strong case for a dedicated de-icing pad short of the RW, with stereo de-icing such as is done in CPH. This is much cheaper and much more efficient than the ridiculous gantries in MUC and CDG. I offered to take the planners with me in the cockpit to CPH so they could see how well it works.
Well as usual, if you have a committee, everyone knows better and ZRH now has the mess it has. However, this could still be improved upon.
ATC: These guys, taking into account the impossible circumstances they have to work under (Noise restrictions, politics, aiport layout, terrain) do a great job. They may not always have time to be cheery on the RT but everything they do is for a good reason, which would take ages to explain each time by radio.
I once had a pretty complicated emergency in Switzerland culminating in an emergency landing at ZRH and ATC were just great.
The fog situation; this makes me smile, as just about all airfields I have used seem to be planted there where fog often forms. In the case of ZRH, there is the Neeracher Ried - a swampy nature reserve - a mile or two to the north of the field. If there is going to be fog, it will form there first. Then if there is a light north component to the W/V it drifts south and triggers any radiation fog which was thinking of forming!
The new terminal was planned and built in a fever of Swissair (remember them?) expansion and optimism. Now there is overcapacity at the airport, so the terminals have to be used as best they can.
Braking action "unreliable" is the correct reading in conditions of aquaplaning or deep wet deposit on the RW. It has been this way for years.
After a lot of time spent flying away from ZRH I flew there very often again just before retirement and I have to say things which used to run in oil seemed to be running in treacle.
The worst airport in Europe? No.
The most frustrating one to operate through/from? Very possibly.
But again - don't shoot the piano player - shoot the politicians and lawyers,
who now have the airport they deserve.
FC.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't say ZRH is the worst a/p in Europe, but it certainly appears on top of the list. But I agree with Few Cloudy, political considerations made the situation worse than it should be. Part of it was the way the swiss authorities mishandled absurd requests from the Germans to please a few hundred peasants. I think they had a strong case: a choice between low overflying of a 1 million people conurbation or overflying at a higher altitude a sparsely populated area. Anyway, the Germans prevailed and the situation is now even worse than it was.
Having said that, there one thing at least that I can't stand, it's the typical arrogance of the people from Zurich: how stupid can you be to name your airport "Unique"...
Having said that, there one thing at least that I can't stand, it's the typical arrogance of the people from Zurich: how stupid can you be to name your airport "Unique"...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by speech
Part of it was the way the swiss authorities mishandled absurd requests from the Germans to please a few hundred peasants. I think they had a strong case: a choice between low overflying of a 1 million people conurbation or overflying at a higher altitude a sparsely populated area.
At least ZRH now has ILS approaches that they can use to 28 and 34. As for the noise that the burgers of ZRH have to endure, well it's their airport, they want to fly from it why should the Germans have to put up with the noise.
NIMBYism or what.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the noise that the burgers of ZRH have to endure, well it's their airport, they want to fly from it why should the Germans have to put up with the noise.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by speech
Do you really think that the people living in Germany 25km from ZRH are travelling to STR, 170km away or MUC, 350km away to take an airplane?????