we can ignore the AIP?
Of course not, because for the most part, the AIP simply recites laws.
huv wrote:
AIP is not really law, but information from the national authority. That, and national regulation, cannot overrule EASA-regs, which are EU-regs.
So, hypothetically we can ignore the AIP? What happens then.
NAAs have to accept the AMC method, but they can also accept different methods of equivalent safety.
An NAA can propose an alternative means of compliance to an Acceptable Means of Compliance, but that alternative needs to be authorised by EASA.
The AMC’s and Guidance are indeed non-binding, but they serve the purpose of indicating what is likely to be acceptable to EASA allowing some flexibility to Member States. These are intended to reflect world-wide, state of the art and best practices (Basic Regulation Article 19(2)). As it is non-binding, it is intended to reflect the fact that not all organisations or approaches are built up the same across the Union. We see that with many other instances of EU legislation. Notwithstanding, it makes sense to take into account their non-binding interpretation and as you say, EASA cannot disallow an NAA practice if it aligns with the AMC.
although EASA-regs officially take priority, the national authorities are often reluctant to accept, or understand, this – if they even realise there is a conflict.
There is also every indication that the national CAAs of most small countries in Europe cannot read the regs either.
Apart from the non-binding AMC’s and Guidance, Regulation’s are directly enforceable which means that if a Member State is not correctly applying it, then an individual or (better due to time and cost) a representative body such as IOPA, can bring a claim in the Courts to rectify this. Alternatively, the Commission may bring an enforcement action to force the Member State to comply, but it has to be quite serious for them to do so (and takes years) and ultimately, is not always done, e.g. budget deficits of France and other Member States. That is the law, the practical reality is inconvenience or outright “injustice” to individuals.
The number of people I know who know where to look for a particular EASA regulatory area can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and it doesn’t include me…
There is also every indication that the national CAAs of most small countries in Europe cannot read the regs either.
LeSving wrote:
As I understand it (at least from before EASA) is that the rules of the air, today called SERA, is the backbone for all aviation activities. The rest are more specialized areas, licenses, operations and so on.
No, as the chart you posted shows, SERA is also a specialised area – traffic rules.
No, it cannot get more restrictive than the AMC, NAAs have to accept the AMC method, but they can also accept different methods of equivalent safety.
I Am Not A Lawyer ??
AMC- can be amended by the national authorities
AFAIK (IANAL) it can only be amended to be less restrictive. AMC is acceptable means of compliance, if you comply with the AMC, the authorities have no basis for disallowing it.
GM is guidance material, it isn’t law at all, just the way the agency interprets the law.
My 10 eurocents:
The basic regulation is the rule that basically says EASA can make other, more detailed rules. To GA pilots, the 3 most important rule sets are
Within each Part there is hard law (EU-regulation), and soft law (AMC and GM). Soft law – AMC- can be amended by the national authorities. Pilots are required to observe both hard and soft law.
This http://easa.europa.eu/regulations is a useful entrance if you really want to venture.
AIP is not really law, but information from the national authority. That, and national regulation, cannot overrule EASA-regs, which are EU-regs. However, there are many contradictions between EASA-regs and national regs, and although EASA-regs officially take priority, the national authorities are often reluctant to accept, or understand, this – if they even realise there is a conflict.
