Airborne_Again wrote:
I don’t see where the nuisance and confusion comes in. On the contrary, this makes it crystal clear for everyone what rules apply.
Perhaps, but:
Airborne_Again wrote:
National Park. Special permission by Swedish Transport Agency is required, except – [lots of bla bla bla]
In Norway you can multiply that with 1000 approximately, because each restricted area has it’s own separate regulation/law, and there are lots of them, perhaps more than 1000 for all I know. They are called protected areas. Some are national parks, others are not, but equally protected. Some have 300 mAGL limit, others only have restriction for landing only. The basic principle according to the law is flying below 300 m is prohibited (for the places where it is prohibited). In general it is 100% prohibited. Then there are exceptions, and they are not general in nature. They vary from area to area, and within areas they may vary depending on date.
Thinking about it now, the way it works today is just fine. Good enough for Skydemon to figure out. If all that information is to be inserted somehow into the AIP, who will benefit from that? What use would this be for the GA pilot? 99% of those flying in Norway are Norwegian, and we know how this works (more or less 
). The intension is good, but in practice it will be a true PITA for everyone, benefitting no one. It works well today.
According to ICAO (I think, just googled)
Prohibited area:
Airspace designated within which no person
may operate an aircraft without permission
of the using agency.
Designated when necessary to prohibit
flight over an area on the surface in the
interest of national security/welfare.
Restricted area:
Airspace designated
wherein flight, while not
wholly prohibited, is
subject to restriction.
Designated when
necessary to confine or
segregate activities
considered hazardous to
nonparticipating aircraft.
Restricted, prohibited, danger – These areas are none of those. They are protected areas, and as such are per default prohibited, but with varying strings attached. Those strings are way out of the jurisdiction of LT, even outside of reach of the military in most cases (in peace time at least). Not to speak of EASA which is way out of any legal jurisdiction whatsoever in this matter.
Good intensions. But, will it ever be implemented in Norway? Not in any conceivable future IMO due to several reasons.
The blue circles you are talking about are not the result of “measures by the responsible administration services of a State”, are they?
Well someone put them in the AIP and DSAC North which is the DGAC department responsible for Toussus Le Noble LFPN seem.to be the enforcing body.
DSAC = Intertegional Directorate for Civil Aviation Safety.
gallois wrote:
Now if all these areas, which as is likely under the new regulation, will eventually become RAs.
I don’t at all understand why that is likely.
Again, the whole of the new regulation (well, AMC actually) is “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.”
The rationale (which quoted in my very first post) talks about "adoption of measures by the responsible administration services of a State, which intend to prohibit or restrict aircraft flight "
The blue circles you are talking about are not the result of “measures by the responsible administration services of a State”, are they?
You are right Peter things just work and the old phrase “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” comes to mind.
But we have already seen how regulators use airspace sometimes totally wrongly.
The DAs off the south coast of England are quasi RAs and that does have an effect on flying in this area.
Here you fly over a zone marked at the moment as an area where you may disturb others, especially if you fly a loud aircraft.
So take the little villages of Fontaine and Mareuil which are at the beginning or end of the downwind leg, depending on runway in use, here at LFFK. During our training here we try to avoid flying directly over the village, it is the neighbourly and responsible thing to do. We take care to do so by a slight detour which cuts through the space between the 2 villages. It possibly adds about 200 metres if that to the circuit distance. You don’t need a map to do so you can see the gap. If someone does actually fly a little too near one of the villages especially in a noisy aircraft when residents are enjoying their garden you might get a complaint or the mayors office does. In turn the complaint is passed to the aeroclub president who sends an apology to the resident and possibly sticks a note up in the club reminding everyone to try not to fly over the villages. Generally speaking it all happens quickly and everyone is happy.
We are lucky we don’t get too many complaints unless there is a week or 2 of aerobatics either on the airfield or by the military whose RA starts at 3000ft.
Other airfields with more traffic have been forced to put blue circles around the villages. Again flying over might well cause complaints but the pilot has not committed an infraction. S/he has “just” upset some people who have in turn made complaints and if it keeps happening want something done about it.
This is the norm except at LFPN where to transgress one of the blue circles almost immediately means a call from the DSAC North and a request to write a return on experience or in some cases a CRESAG.
There is a lot of fight back against the DSAC North’s attitude regarding this. Believing it to be too strong arm considering it is not an RA.
Now if all these areas, which as is likely under the new regulation, will eventually become RAs. The 2 villages on the downwind of LFFK will.probably be joined as one RA and one will have to make a further detour. Not only that but if you inadvertantly enter one of these areas you have now committed an infringement and all that entails.
But does it stop there. LeSving might be right. Why would they be RAs? Most RAs can be flown through with permission. But the RAs you would be creating here would basically be impenetrable to ga. In which case, surely they should be PAs not RAs and inadvertantly penetrating one of them in France attracts serious consequences from the air police.
And do remember action for not avoiding overflying a viilage as at present is triggered by a complaint.
Whereas infringing an RA without permission will be seen on radar and could (I put it no stronger than that ) automatically trigger an action within the ATS.
The law of inadvertant consequences.
Many areas which are currently please avoid will become must avoid.
You have just underlined one of my not exactly infrequent comments on the way things run down there: if you speak French, especially natively, a lot of stuff “just works”. That’s fine for private life – as you said, “you will never change French culture” and culture is variously opaque across the world, is pretty opaque across the various European country borders – but is not fine for aviation because a lot of errors carry a huge criminal risk. And the official briefing is AIP + NOTAM, plus a VFR chart if any part of the flight is OCAS and thus out of ATC control.
gallois wrote:
Many areas which are currently please avoid will become must avoid.
If they are “please avoid”, there’s no necessity to make them restricted areas, is there?
@Peter very few VFR pilots in France pay 100/year for a Satnav app. Most use free apps like SDVFR and Airmate.
As expressed IMO this regulation is going to make VFR flying in France will become much more difficult if forced to accept these new regulations.
Many areas which are currently please avoid will become must avoid.
Still we will see what the future holds.
Radar will be watching.
gallois wrote:
The aviation maps or charts that we use to navigate by. (…) It is quite clear on the aviation charts what the limits are in this area. (…) As an EASA regulation and an EU law I have to ask why?
Well, the rule is that drawings on one particular paper / PDF map published by one particular publisher do not suffice. They have to be published defined by aviation-known points (which can be latlongs, FIR borders, …), so that they can be integrated by other mapmakers (Jean Bossy, DFS, Rogers Data, … all make VFR maps/charts for France, and Jeppesen used to up to 2013). The way to publish them is in the AIP.
gallois wrote:
However, it is marking them as restricted areas that I don’t see the point of. In France if the nature areas were to become restricted areas, they would have to be allocated a number Rxxx. This would then have to be included in the AIP which many would argue is already too wordy to read before crossing all borders. It would then have to be included in the VFR Complimentaire with the details of the restriction, when operational, frequency to call to find out its current state, the complimentaire would need to be twice the size it is now. Then there are Notams which would have to be issued if there is any change, which is unlikely to be other than maybe daylight changes, seasonal changes etc.
gallois, ANY area must be present in AIP – that is the primary source of data; from the AIP the info is mapped on the charts (if needed), but the primary one is in the text format in the AIP.
One issue is that France published several VFR charts. Some use one, some use another. And one should not be expected to pay 100/year for a satnav app showing key flight information. Especially as, while French ATC normally clears you through CAS, they generally don’t take care of you with regard to “restricted” areas.
I suspect something happened somewhere to drive this.
