@arj1 what I am objecting to is unnecessary introduction of new,or changes to regulation at a European level.
I agree with you totally that it should be on the map. With regard to French towns and cities which cannot be overflown below a certain altitude. These are marked on the map in different colours (shades of yellow and orange) and there is an accompanying key on the chart as minimum overflight heights. I don’t want these areas replaced by RAs. Not only would there be a typical increase in the size of the limitation, which always seems to accompany such changes, but also the AIP and the VFR complimentaire would be huge.
Secondly there is at the moment a huge debate about the legal status of blue circles such as found at Toussus le Noble LFPN.
The DSAC north are treating infringements of these already as RA infringments. A group of Nimbys are reporting aircraft which even slightly enter those blue circles.Something which is difficult to do in certain weather conditions let alone occasionally making it unsafe to avoid.
Finally when we learn to fly, we learn to be good neighbours to think of others. We avoid if possible doing circuits that pass over villages especially if the aircraft is a bit noisy. We just make a slight diversion to go round them. It costs us nothing to think of others. We have seen far too often noise sensitive areas taking on more relevance.
I would rather think I will try to avoid flying directly over that area so as not to annoy people dining in their garden on a warm evening than face the neighbours pushing for an RA or worse a PA around that village.
We have experience of what putting things into regulation leads to.
The AIP carries advice for flying in France eg fly above 1500’. Why? Because there are a lot of fast jets flying below that altitude, all over France..
Flying above the mountains there is advice to keep a good look out for rather large birds that tend to inhabit these areas.
Imagine if this advice was to start being turned into regulation by deeming them to be RAs PAs or even DAs.
IMO EASA and EU should only deal with things that really do need regulation across the board or even cutting it where possible.
There are many things that EASA could be looking at, rather than this.
However, @Inkognito informed me that there were these areas in Austria which are not on the map. If that is the case then Austria should be asked to include them on aviation maps. Otherwise the EU commission should point out to Austria that any prosecutions for overflying these areas would conflict with EU law and any decisions reversed and Austria prosecuted by the European Court of Justice.
Airborne_Again wrote:
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.
Still, Private GA is for most parts NOT transport, so gallois do have a very valid point (why he objects to this particular regulation is a bit of a mystery though 
) EASA LSA (Light Sport Aircraft) will per def not fall under the “transport” category, so why are they regulated by EASA at all? Then we have all of Annex I (which is not EASA).
When the new US LSA starts to gain momentum, something will eventually have to be done in Europe also. There are plenty of manufacturers of ULs that want to have a piece of that cake. It’s clearly sport aircraft first, then airwork second (having looked at the regulations). They are definitely not transport (which is the whole point of that class), so how is this going to be? From a European perspective they are big and heavy ULs. Will EASA include this in the LSA category? I think people will start to object to that, starting with France But then, France don’t want heavy ULs either so who knows.
gallois wrote:
I agree with you totally that it should be on the map. With regard to French towns and cities which cannot be overflown below a certain altitude. These are marked on the map in different colours (shades of yellow and orange) and there is an accompanying key on the chart as minimum overflight heights. I don’t want these areas replaced by RAs. Not only would there be a typical increase in the size of the limitation, which always seems to accompany such changes, but also the AIP and the VFR complimentaire would be huge.
Right now the problem for me is that wouldn’t buy a spearate set of maps for France, and on SkyDemon I don’t see any special colouring. Either I’m looking at the wrong cities or SkyDemon doesn’t show the colouring because it is not in AIP.
Yes, I know, I’d usually fly at IFR MSA+ for the enroute phase of flight even when flying VFR, so not a problem(?) for me, but unless you use some internationally accepted way of marking things on charts, people will miss those things in their EFB.
arj1 wrote:
SkyDemon doesn’t show the colouring because it is not in AIP
They are all there in Skydemon for Norway as well as in the official ICAO map. They are not actually in the AIP, but they are explicitly referred to and a link is given where they can all be seen.
LeSving wrote:
arj1 wrote: SkyDemon doesn’t show the colouring because it is not in AIPThey are all there in Skydemon for Norway as well as in the official ICAO map. They are not actually in the AIP, but they are explicitly referred to and a link is given where they can all be seen.
You mean the nature reserves / sanctuaries? Yes they are, but what are the rules? Are you allowed to fly there as you please or if there are any restrictions there?
RA doesn’t mean you cannot fly somewhere, it mean that there are flight restrictions, and the areas differ from plain Class G.
I will admit that the colouring differentation of towns and cities does appear not as
clear as it perhaps might be in Skydemon, neither is there a key. But how is new regulation going to change this? Other than perhaps adding more lines on the chart.
Avoiding infringing the rules regarding overflying town and city centres are quite obvious from the air if you are flying too low.
Also SIA have no say in how Skydemon charts are produced.
However, Skydemon do identify nature areas with a broken green line. All you need to do is hold your finger on it to bring up, what’s here and look for what it says for that sector.
gallois wrote:
Avoiding infringing the rules regarding overflying town and city centres are quite obvious from the air if you are flying too low.
Wll, I think that is the point? You need be able glide clear of residential areas, unless you are taking off or landing. That rule is kind of always on for SEPs. What about MEPs?
gallois wrote:
Also SIA have no say in how Skydemon charts are produced.
They do! Unless the area is RA, DA or PA – you could not be prosecuted for flynig in it (you’ll be frown upon, especially if you are local). For example, in the UK you have sometimes open-air concerts, they are just NOTAMed. It is legal for you to enter those areas, but they asked you nicely not to. :)
SIA could also mark some areas as “exercises”? I’m not sure what are the ICAO options for marking things on the maps (actually, in AIP – that is where all the information is stored before it is visualised on the charts).
arj1 wrote:
Are you allowed to fly there as you please or if there are any restrictions there?
min 1000 feet AGL (300m to be exact). That data is also in SD. It’s not an aviation restriction. It’s not something the CAA has any saying in.
That’s my point. The height limitations above towns and cities are dependent on size as explained in the AIP and marked and detailed on charts.
If you are flying over them you can see what is the centre of a town and what is an out of town shopping centre or industrial area.
You can fly over the shopping centre or industrial area. You do need of course to obey ICAO and EASA altitude restrictions.
It is very easy to divert around the centre of town.
So what is to be gained by having an RA around each town instead?
In the current situation somebody in the street might complain and the authorities may feel the need to look into it.
In the new way the city becomes an RA which will more than likely also cover out of town shopping centres and industrial areas and you will be spotted on radar committing an infringement and could be prosecuted.
MEPs have higher height restrictions again as mentioned in the AIP.
What we have now is pilot’s responsibility common sense. Not people who shout “look at me I’m a great pilot and can buzz the roof of your cathedral upside down and my aircraft makes a great noise doing it. I’m a superstar and you are lucky to have me in your area.”
Pilot responsibility is the key and that isn’t helped by more restricted areas.
LeSving wrote:
min 1000 feet AGL (300m to be exact). That data is also in SD. It’s not an aviation restriction. It’s not something the CAA has any saying in.
Did you mean aviation is not affected by this restriction?
