From here
The concession has to work both ways? Netherlands-Belgium day VFR should be OK
For someone who can’t speak English on radio, this is a very nice concession, I can understand why AOPA NL is after this? Belgian ATC & Dutch ATC are not allowed to speak “local language” (unlike France, Germany, Austria) and with LAPL people are allowed to fly “sub-ICAO and across borders in EASA” without having dreadful ELP printed on PPL !
No FPL, no RT…for international day VFR flight is very desirable concession in motor-gliding, microlight, homebuilts (they don’t talk to anyone) circles and it is very popular with controlled airspace ATC circles (they don’t want to talk to VFR OCAS)
The problem of identification (or people crashing for months without anyone noticing) was solved while ago by mandating ELT and ModeS as well as use of FMC frequencies in Golf airspace, this also solve the problem of airspace infringement
I am sure some ATC in Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg will come here to tell us how harsh they are with VFR pilots: they fry them alive, even more than UK CAA, for going into Charlie & Alpha without flight plan and airspace crossing clearance, this has to be obtained in English 
Ibra wrote:
and with LAPL people are allowed to fly “sub-ICAO and across borders in EASA” without having dreadful ELP printed on PPL !LAPL licenses do also contain language proficiency entries. Only national UL licenses don’t have them…
But the UL licence does have an R/T capable stamp.
I have been trying to work out where the ELP context is applicable to this thread.
It seems that the whole point of not wanting to file a flight plan is to enable “covert” cross-border flight without ELP, which is itself illegal in the EU in any airspace and any aircraft.
So your insurance is (in theory) void anyway.
Is it illegal to fly across borders without ELP.
It is in France, as it is to fly IFR but is it the same everywhere?
Eg Germany to Switzerland VFR is it a legal requirement to have ELP stamped on your licence?
I don’t even see a space on my ULM licence for ELP but there is an space for R/T and for the carriage of passengers. (A daft rule but not for this thread).
Right; that means ELP is of no relevance to flight plan requirement concessions for border crossing. Can someone explain this post:
For someone who can’t speak English on radio, this is a very nice concession, I can understand why AOPA NL is after this
I don’t think these flights are illegal? they are sub-ICAO: the pilot already fly cross border without ICAO Class2 medical, without RT contact and without flight plan. I don’t think having ICAO ELP matters?
FCL.055 allow sub-ICAO flying without ELP on local languages (during licence LAPL transfer you are not required to demonstrate ICAO compliance: ELP/RT, Class2 medical…)
Someone flying UL on LAPL from ULPlatz in Germany to ULPlatz in Austria with “Ge LP” is living the dream, same for Dutch/Belgian pilots who are probably very tankful to AOPA NL for this
Ibra wrote:
I don’t think having ICAO ELP matters?
Unless it’s a requirement for the airspace. There’s no mention of ELP in any flightplan forms, and not in the AOPA message either.
There’s no mention of ELP in any flightplan forms, and not in the AOPA message either.
The flight plan also does not require you to have a PPL 
ELP is an airspace requirement for the EU for border crossing.
Unless it’s a requirement for the airspace
For uncontrolled airspace without mandatory radio or flight plan, including border, these points are moot
Some countries like Belgium mandate ELP and RT when receiving ICAO services (control and info, aka when talking to ATC who manage controlled airspace). Some countries allow talking with “local language” including for border crossing…
ELP is an airspace requirement for the EU for border crossing
Do you have a legal text? it will be a show stopper for many of the sub-ICAO initiatives (EASA or bilateral) that are driven by some GA groups The stuff like LSA, VLA, LAPL, SFCL…don’t hang on ICAO compliance (they happen at lower levels)
