SERA.3145(a) states that Aircraft shall not be flown in a prohibited area, or in a restricted area, the particulars of which have been duly published
Some European countries have areas where flying is prohibited or restricted without being published in the AIP. (E.g. nature reserves.) This has been discussed in EuroGA from time to time as it exposes pilots to possible prosecution even if they have checked all available aeronautical information sources.
Now EASA has recognised this problem and is proposing a new AMC to SERA.3145(a): A prohibited area or restricted area is duly published only when it is published in the aeronautical information publication (AIP) of the responsible Member State and, when necessary, a relevant NOTAM has been issued in this respect.
In the rationale for this AMC they write
Indeed, the need for the introduction of a prohibition or a restriction of aircraft flight over certain areas may be the result of a variety of reasons, including of a non-aviation nature, such as protection of natural reserves. However, the mere adoption of measures by the responsible administration services of a State (e.g. an environmental protection authority), which intend to prohibit or restrict aircraft flight over certain areas (e.g. to protect wildlife), is not on its own sufficient for aviation purposes, nor in line with the provisions of the Chicago Convention.
They further point out that according to the existing EU regulation 2017/373, EASA member states already have an obligation to ensure that all defacto prohibited/restricted areas are in fact published as such in section ENR 5.1 of their AIP and that it is their responsibility to have procedures in place to accomplish this.
This is a positive move for GA and I will write a supporting comment. Anyone can comment on proposed EASA rulemaking here.
Actually, the French minimum flight altitudes over cities should also, by existing regulations, be published as R-areas.
A positive development for once !
I don’t want to be the guy who will create an R zone over each French town over 10,000 inhabitants 
Our maps will look awful.
There is a derogation for minimum altitudes over French towns and cities and is published in the AIP so no EU laws are infringed.
In practice it is very easy to avoid flying over a town or city below minimum allowed.
Much more difficult is altitude restrictions over a site like the Puy du Fou.
Indeed a welcoming enhancement of EASA rulemaking. Especially those Austrian nature reserve areas in the Tauern region, are still a real pain, as this area goes up to 16.500 ft and Austro Control refuses to publish these in the AIP as it’s not a national protected area, but only belongs to state rulemaking.
Italy and France also have plenty of nature-protected areas, but ‘only’ up to max. 3.300 ft AGL, in Italy often even with a lower limit. I’m however not sure how far these countries go in writing penalties. The Austrian states Salzburg and Tyrol were famous for prosecuting pilots who dared to penetrate the Tauern National Park, which is huge, with only two extremely small corridors (Felbertauern + Hochalpenstrasse).
gallois wrote:
There is a derogation for minimum altitudes over French towns and cities and is published in the AIP so no EU laws are infringed.
Where is it stated that such derogations are allowed?
Indeed good news!
How are pilots supposed to know about P and R areas without them published in the national AIP (and subsequently on charts) and/or by Notam?
Thanks for this, @Airborne_Again. I created an account and made a comment.
“Where is it stated that such derogations are allowed?”
IIRC all the laws that back up such things are quoted in th AIP.
However, there are places where blue circles have been added. If these blue circles became RAs it would be even more of an unmitigated disaster than it is now.
Just look at the busts around Toussus le Noble.
IMO EASA should butt out of areas like this.
We need to be cutting GA regulation not adding to it especially when nobody wants it.
gallois wrote:
IIRC all the laws that back up such things are quoted in th AIP.
Possibly, but as you claim there is a derogation, I’m asking you. As EU law trumps national law, such a derogation must be in EU law, and there is none in SERA.
We need to be cutting GA regulation not adding to it especially when nobody wants it.
This is not about adding regulation. It’s about clarifying “invisible” regulations that already exist.
How are pilots supposed to know about P and R areas without them published in the national AIP (and subsequently on charts) and/or by Notam?
That’s very funny isn’t it? 
I mean, pilots are supposed to be telepathic!
But this has been going on for ever. According to fairly reliable insider reports, countries intentionally withold a lot of data from Eurocontrol for the purposes of IFR route validation to protect ATC jobs, by maintaining ATC workload. It is hard to believe really but in the ATC union world you are talking about a completely different world.
The whole system needs a proper overhaul.
