Exactly. It does not matter what the text of that e-mail is. It has no value.
As long as it doesn’t say “it’s forbidden because I’m the police and decide what is forbidden” but refers to law text, court decisions, etc. it can be very useful.
Our codified multi-tier legal system is complex with regulations spread across a zillion of sources. It’s easy to miss something because you’re looking in the wrong place.
stevelup and boscomantico can ignore this. All I can say is that this is the current interpretation of the enforcement authorities here. It can, of course, be challenged in a court of law.
hierbij de door u gevraagde info mbt het aan boord moeten hebben van een (recente) vliegkaart:
Geen vliegkaart aanwezig – Wetgeving
1) de verplichting tot het aan boord van een vliegtuig hebben tijdens een vlucht van een recente vliegkaart staat omschreven in bijlage II van het Verdrag inzake de internationale burgerluchtvaart en via de Wet Luchtvaart strafbaar gesteld in de Wet Economische Delicten.
2)de verplichting om kennis te nemen van alle gegevens en inlichtingen voor aanvang van iedere vlucht (vluchtvoorbereiding) staat omschreven in artikel 5.8 Wet Luchtvaart en staat ook strafbaar gesteld in de Wet Luchtvaart.
Ad1)
Artikel 4.6 lid 1 Wet Luchtvaart : bij of krachtens AMVB kunnen regels worden gesteld met betrekking tot vluchtuitvoering (…)
Artikel 4.6 lid 2 :Het is verboden vluchten uit te voeren in strijd met de bij of krachtens het eerste lid gestelde regels.
Hierop is het Besluit vluchtuitvoering gebaseerd, wat vervolgens de basis van de Regeling vluchtuitvoering is.
Besluit Vluchtuitvoering:
Artikel 7:
-lid 1: Bij ministeriele regeling kunnen regels worden gesteld met betrekking tot de uitvoering van een vlucht niet door een luchtvaartmaatschappij dan wel niet tegen vergoeding;
-lid 2: Een vlucht wordt uitgevoerd met inachtneming van de ministeriele regeling
Artikel 8:
Handelen in strijd met (…) artikel 7 tweede lid, is een strafbaar feit.
Regeling Vluchtuitvoering:
Artikel 3 lid 1 Regeling vluchtuitvoering:
Een vlucht met een vliegtuig of een helikopter wordt uitgevoerd met inachtneming van de volgende onderdelen van bijlage 6 bij het Verdrag:
-in geval van een vliegtuig: de voorschriften van deel II (…)
Uit bijlage 6 deel II van het Verdrag inzake de internationale burgerluchtvaart:
2.4.2: Vliegtuigen op alle vluchten:
2.4.2.2: Een vliegtuig dient uitgerust te zijn met:
d) de navolgende vlieghandboeken, kaarten en informatie:
2)geldige en geschikte kaarten voor de voorgenomen vlucht en van alle routes waarlangs het redelijkerwijs te verwachten is dat daar naar kan worden uitgeweken.
via de Wet Luchtvaart strafbaar gesteld in de Wet Economische Delicten is the important bit. Dutch law has yet to catch up with the electronic age. 2) refers to the need to be informed of current affairs which may affect the flight which of course may be electronic – met and NOTAMS for example.
Peter_Mundy wrote:
geldige en geschikte kaarten voor de voorgenomen vlucht en van alle routes waarlangs het redelijkerwijs te verwachten is dat daar naar kan worden uitgeweken.
Where do you see that a reference to “paper” is made? That paragraph is pretty much what German law says: “valid and suitable maps”. The dutch word “kaart” is equivalent to the German word “Karte” which is “map” in English and does not imply paper.
I can’t see anything that would rule out e.g. SkyDemon on my phone. Nor do I see anything that would be different to e.g. German law.
I may be dense and I don’t speak dutch, but where does that say that the maps need to be available as a paper copy? Why should say a PDF map not be acceptable?
I think that might be what’s called a storm in a teacup!
Peter_Mundy wrote:
2)geldige en geschikte kaarten voor de voorgenomen vlucht en van alle routes waarlangs het redelijkerwijs te verwachten is dat daar naar kan worden uitgeweken.
This is indeed the part I referred to. It doesn’t say paper anywhere. I’ve had this discussion with several people in the past and so far nobody has pointed me to a law or rule that indicates otherwise.
Airborne_Again wrote:
GM to part-NCO says that electronic charts are acceptable!
Indeed, this is what part-NCO says:
AMC1 NCO.GEN.135(a)(10) Documents, manuals and information to be carried
CURRENT AND SUITABLE AERONAUTICAL CHARTS
(a) The aeronautical charts carried should contain data appropriate to the applicable air traffic
regulations, rules of the air, flight altitudes, area/route and nature of the operation. Due
consideration should be given to carriage of textual and graphic representations of:
(1) aeronautical data, including, as appropriate for the nature of the operation:
(i) airspace structure;
(ii) significant points, navigation aids (navaids) and air traffic services (ATS) routes;
(iii) navigation and communication frequencies;
(iv) prohibited, restricted and danger areas; and
(v) sites of other relevant activities that may hazard the flight; and
(2) topographical data, including terrain and obstacle data.
(b) A combination of different charts and textual data may be used to provide adequate and
current data.
(c) The aeronautical data should be appropriate for the current aeronautical information
regulation and control (AIRAC) cycle.
(d) The topographical data should be reasonably recent, having regard to the nature of the
planned operation.
GM1 NCO.GEN.135 Documents, manuals and information to be carried
GENERAL
(a) In case of loss or theft of documents specified in NCO.GEN.135, the operation may continue
until the flight reaches the base or a place where a replacement document can be provided.
(b) The documents, manuals and information may be available in a form other than on printed
paper. An electronic storage medium is acceptable if accessibility, usability and reliability can
be assured
Peter,
I can’t find anything that states the “vliegkaart” has to be a paper one.
He speaks about " A " vliegkaart which has to be recent.
Thereafter is a lot of blabla about where to find the legality of all this. But nothing from which I can derive that an electronic one is different than “A” vliegkaart, let alone be a “recent” one.
Of course one can discuss about the number and sources of backup(s) being electronic ones.
I am not a lawyer. I do not pretend to be a lawyer. I have no legal training. That was the information given to me from the enforcers. They interpret the law as requiring paper and enforce it accordingly. If people don’t like it they can challenge the warning/fine in the courts. For myself, as long as they insist (rightly or wrongly) on a paper chart in NL I will carry one – in addition to an iPad, iPhone and Garmin 795 running Garmin Pilot and SkyDemon and Jeppesen Mobile Flight Deck VFR.
Police are part of the executive branch, they’re the muscle, not the brains. If they believe you are breaking the law, they write a report and it goes to the state attorney who has a law degree and who decides about charging. This is the level where the brains come into play and it gets dismissed. If not, you appeal and it goes to a court and there I would bet a lot of money on winning the case.
I will continue to fly to/inside Holland without any paper besides the one I use to clean the oil dipstick. The same holds true for airlines and bizjet AOCs with paperless cockpits. What I get out of the email you quoted is that the law in Holland is the same as elsewhere and there is not even the slightest hint that paper might be favored over electronic maps.
Personally I do buy the argument that having only one mobile electronic device is in conflict with the requirement “suitable”. The chance of the device malfunctioning is considerably higher than losing paper so an adequate measure is to carry a 2nd device (mobile phone). I would also argue that a paper map is not “suitable” because you do not have good and reliable means of determining your position and there is no good way of keeping them up to date. As much as a sextant was “suitable” navigation equipment some time ago and now Eurocontrol airspace requires B-RNAV, a paper map will one day be considered to be not “suitable”.
