I think the benefits of having all Austrian bird restricted areas in the ICAO map will benefit anyone – transport or leisure – who would otherwise infringe on them and get busted in turn.
And I also believe that some of these unofficial restricted areas may find that hey don’t hold up to scrutiny, that lower courts or local administration can’t make rules just as they see fit.
Basically it just points out that pilots aren’t required to look up multiple resources to find out what they are allowed to do. I would actually consider that common sense, but we’re trained in that submissive role so hard, that we even suffer this bovine excrement without reverting to pitchforks and torches…
Are these Austrian bird sanctuaries on aviation charts with marked limitations?
If so I don’t see why they need to be entered into the AIP.
When planning to go somewhere, the first thing I do is mark my route on the charts.
I then look for threats to my being able to fly that route.
So unless you are saying that they are not marked on aviation charts then what benefit are you getting if the Austrian authorities are forced to enter them in the AIP?
As they are bird sanctuaries I would quite understand if they were seasonal. In which case maybe this might be included in the AIP. Equally it could be the subject of a NOTAM issued before the season begins. That way they would automatically appear on things like FF and Skydemon.
But, really, to force the Austrian NAA to do something it does not want to do by EU regulation is IMO over the top.
Perhaps EASA should try persuasion first.
Regulation should be the last resort.
As I have already written this regulation will make those blue circles at airports like Toussus le Noble, even more of a problem.
Or the problems over the circle to land at Cannes. It will be a great excuse to make noise sensitive areas, restricted areas.
And instead of a polite but perhaps firm, you know you just busted a noise sensitive area please be careful, it is suddenly boosted to a new level of governance.
Are these Austrian bird sanctuaries on aviation charts with marked limitations?
No, that’s the issue.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Aviation is transport.
Only if you actually are transporting something for the purpose of transportation. The vast majority, 99.9% of private and individual GA, is recreation and sport and aerial work other than transport.
gallois wrote:
They are all parts of what makes France, France
So publishing restricted areas in the AIP should not be done because it will make France less France ? 
@LeSving I thlnk you have taken that comment out of context.
@Inkognito if these bird sanctuaries are not on the charts, how can Austrian NAA prove they exist?
And if they don’t exist, under EU law.you already can’t be prosecuted for overflying them.
But does it need a new EASA/EU regulation just for Austria and has the consequences for other countries been taken into account?
I wonder what has happened that caused attention to be drawn to this.
In my 22 years of flying there were always loads of things which were poorly published. In 2003 the DGAC tried to bust me for one of the nuclear ZITs – not on the charts, not in enroute notams, perhaps in some French publication? I posted details here previously; they didn’t look too great…
EU regulation or not, France is a big country, a dominant EU member country, and the bottom line is that it can do what it likes. The small countries also do what they like; because they are small Brussels can’t be too bothered because they can always sink the whole place if necessary (Greece). And small things (like this one) are also below the radar. As a result loads of EU regulations are blatently ignored.
The whole pilot briefing process is pretty poor actually. You have the AIP, notams, then what else?? Airport websites? National paper charts??
Peter wrote:
EU regulation or not, France is a big country, a dominant EU member country, and the bottom line is that it can do what it likes.
That’s not at all clear. both UK (while still an EU member) and Germany were forced to change national legislation which did not agree with EASA regs.
gallois wrote:
LeSving I thlnk you have taken that comment out of context.
Inkognito if these bird sanctuaries are not on the charts, how can Austrian NAA prove they exist?
And if they don’t exist, under EU law.you already can’t be prosecuted for overflying them.
But does it need a new EASA/EU regulation just for Austria and has the consequences for other countries been taken into account?
@gallois, sorry, trying to understand what are you objecting to?
If something must not be overflown, then it is either R,D or P area, so if it is already on the map, then fine, otherwise – it should be on the map.
If certain French cities cannot be overflown below xxxx ft AMSL, other than for reason of takeoff and landing, then it should be Restricted area, and everyone from all over the world will see it on the map.
What’s not to like?
both UK (while still an EU member) and Germany were forced to change national legislation which did not agree with EASA regs.
LeSving wrote:
Only if you actually are transporting something for the purpose of transportation. The vast majority, 99.9% of private and individual GA, is recreation and sport and aerial work other than transport.
What I meant (which given the context of the discussion should be clear) is that aviation falls under the “Transport” title of the EU treaty and thus the EU is empowered to issue regulations about aviation.
It would be unreasonable if an EU member state could ignore a regulation by simply redefining the activities being regulated. In the case of the French minimum altitudes, gallois’ interpretation would have the weird effect that commercial aviation could fly at 1000 feet over cities (being regulated by the EU) while sports aviation would have to fly at higher altitudes (being regulated by French national law).
Some views in this discussion begin to resemble the belief system of ‘sovereign citizens’ in the US who think they can free themselves from US state and federal law simply by declaring themselves “sovereign”.
