I don’t blame anyone for double checking if receiving different conflicting advice from different sources but don’t forget the DGAC actually has a note saying that the SIA is the only official source of information. This of course would include Notams and SUP Notams.
I wish it wasn’t the case that practically everything I see on EuroGA makes me feel less and less like persevering with flying in Europe.
This is a perfect case – not only are the rules ridiculous and incomprehensible, but no two authorities even agree on what they are.
In general I do not agree with the thread title “mostly not for the better”. I don’t share that perspective. I’m writing here due to the thread drift regarding this specific requirement in Annecy. Just to make that clear.
My view from my 22 years would be
I would also say there is a big rise in nationalism in Europe (which impinges on my points #2 and #3 above) but that is for the political thread; anyone is welcome to start one there.
I would add that (English) radio communications has become easier and ATS support better, partly as a result. Especially for VFR traffic, many countries‘ FIS has much better English, in some cases due to FIS personell being integrated into ATC. Good examples of improved English are France and Italy.
Thanks @gallois.
A definitive statement for France similar to the one issued by German customs last year would be most useful for those of us coming from Switzerland. I fly regularly from CH to Amboise LFEF and the technical stop in Tours LFOT only 10 nm away is a real pain and time-waster.
I do however think, that these examples come about in a circular fashion. And Ive seen this myself in various areas of regulatory life since Ive been living in France and working all over the world. Its way easier if the person you speak to isnt 100% sure, for them to just say “yes, jump through this hoop because if you dont need to, then it doesn’t matter that you had to jump, and if you do need to jump, then I can’t be blamed for telling you you didn’t need to jump”. And it’s more likely to happen if you load the initial question by saying “Im calling because I’ve heard I might need to jump through hoops…”. At the end of the day no official is going to complain if you jump through hoops you don’t need to fir them.
And as has been said, any language barrier can easily lead to further confusion.
@chflyer wrote:- re post 63, I suspect that French customs would claim to only recognize information received directly from them.
The SIA – AIP is correct and as far as the French Government is concerned it is information on the legalities of flying in France
And where to find the appropriate legislation which backs that up.
In the cases we are debating re;-La Rochelle and Annecy we are dealing in both occasions with a customs matter as both PNs are to contact a customs office. I realise that douaniers in France has traditionally been a cover all for both police (PEF) and customs, but now in AIP GEN 1 it actually separates out the 2 forces in terms of contact information. You will note (from a different thread) that Belgium requires a GENDEC sent to both Police and customs. This IMO is the same reasoning.
So if we accept we are dealing with customs, we now have a situation where within the EU and under EU legislation, there is free movement of goods, people and services. But as has been said here and is stated in legislation there can be random customs checks.
So as @lionel posted the customs information office say that there is no necessity to give pre advice PN for goods/merchandise crossing borders within the EU.
But the kicker is another phrase from customs information which refers to checks .
ie “in case of a custom check you should co-operate with the customs agent effecting the control”
Now any lawyer for GA would read that as the only time you have to comply with this is if you are actually stopped randomly.
Whereas lawyers for the customs authority might well argue that demanding PN at a particular airport is a part of those random checks like pulling someone over on the side of the road.
The DGAC are very clear Schengen EU to Schengen EU, any airport needs only a flight plan no pre advice to customs or police (I believe that is unless you are carrying €10,000 or more in cash.)
What needs to happen is that airports like La Rochelle and Annecy need to be told by the DGAC that in the case of their website, Annecy has got it wrong and in the case of La Rochelle they are putting false information in their AIP entry.
As for the PN, where they are justified, the time of advance notice is set by regional authorities.
If anyone knows the full story of the Dutch pilot who was fined €1500 and what AOPAs argument was that had this reduced or scrapped.I am very surprised (unless I have missed it) that this case has not featured in one of the French aviation magazines as it is surely good publicity for French AOPA.
In the case of the reply given by douaniers for the flight from Germany to Annecy and return requiring PN. I cannot find any justification for the reply received and can only think its either been written by someone who has not been trained properly or that the bureau is abusing its power. If you would like to PM me the details I will contact the office concerned and see if I can get clarification.
Well done @gallois. That is very clear and I hope clears up any confusion.
My own view as alluded to above is that these instances are down to a combination of lack of knowledge combined with language misunderstandings “to be on the safe side” as opposed to abuse of power – at least I hope so.
