Thanks all!
So it seems that flying to an airfield in which the communication is held in German with a German PPL and a BZF E would be illegal, even if the pilot can handle the communication in (rudimentary) German.
For the fun of it maybe I’ll try to enquire with the German LBA and get some sort of official answer about the requirements in that scenario also in regard to pilot with an EASA license who do not have a formal proof of being able to communicate in German.
Malibuflyer wrote:
It is completely unclear to me how a call to someone at the airfield could change the fact that other pilots there need you to talk German.
In Germany we let pilots speaking only German fly to airports with mixed German/English frequencies. So it seems there is only a need to be able to talk to the Flugleiter. If the other pilots in the pattern do not understand you we seem to accept this (which obviously in not great but that is a different story).
In a can do attitude while the Flugleiter can not change some regulations the Flugleiter is the one person who might usually start legal action against you. So if you fly in total agreement with her/him the risk of legal trouble is very very small.
ophirmm wrote:
For the fun of it maybe I’ll try to enquire with the German LBA and get some sort of official answer about the requirements in that scenario also in regard to pilot with an EASA license who do not have a formal proof of being able to communicate in German.
If you do, I’d be interested to hear what they say. I enquired about getting French and German language proficiencies added to my EASA licence, but it was impossible as neither language was a language of the national aviation authority that issued my licence.
I also don’t know whether language proficiency on an ICAO compliant licence is considered as acceptable ‘proof’. (I have French on my Canadian licence)
MikeWhiskey wrote:
At these uncontrolled airfields the airfield operator is setting the rules (not discussing whether these makes sense).
Not right – at an uncontrolled airfield there is simply no-one who can overrule the AIP. That’s almost the definition of uncontrolled. The airfield owner (and its representatives) can only give directions within the frame of the AIP. So your situations only apply to airfields which do not have an AIP entry (and we have extremely few of them in Germany). If there is an AIP entry and if it says “German only” the lowest administration body who can authorize an exception is the oversight authority of the airfield which is typically the state aviation authority.
Sebastian_G wrote:
In a can do attitude while the Flugleiter can not change some regulations the Flugleiter is the one person who might usually start legal action against you. So if you fly in total agreement with her/him the risk of legal trouble is very very small.
A completely different point but yes: Your risk of getting caught breaking the law is much lower if you are aligned with the Flugleiter – esp. as if the Flugleiter created the illusion that he authorized your transgression he would be in for the consequences as well.
As I’m not aware of any case in Germany where a pilot for prosecuted for using the wrong language or not having the correct language certification, I can not judge if it is really so much smaller than “just flying there”, however.
MikeWhiskey wrote:
At these uncontrolled airfields the airfield operator is setting the rules (not discussing whether these makes sense).
Malibuflyer wrote:
Not right – at an uncontrolled airfield there is simply no-one who can overrule the AIP. That’s almost the definition of uncontrolled. The airfield owner (and its representatives) can only give directions within the frame of the AIP. So your situations only apply to airfields which do not have an AIP entry
I believe we are talking about different sort of uncontrolled airfields. I was referring to the smaller, mostly aeroclub-run airfields (such as Brilon, Paderborn-Haxterberg), not of the larger ones such as Egelsbach and the likes.
Although I am not aware of a larger uncontrolled airfield which is German-only (but haven’t checked for that neither).
The airfield operator (i.e. the aeroclubs) are defining whether they want to run their airfield as German-only or German/English, which will then be “approved” / registered with their supervising authority (“Bezirksregierung”), and then published, i.e. in the AIP.
But anyway, that’s far off-topic now as the OPs question seems got answered…
ophirmm wrote:
Thanks all!So it seems that flying to an airfield in which the communication is held in German with a German PPL and a BZF E would be illegal, even if the pilot can handle the communication in (rudimentary) German.
Approaching a “GE only” aerodrome with an aircraft seems not permissible. However, you could fly a microlight, if this was an option for you. As far as my knowledge is, a radio licence is no requirement at all when flying a microlight in Germany, however limitation is to stay out of airspace C and D. (anyway, you can enter any airspace C/D contacting ATC in english, so would be no restriction at all for you). So there are ways to what you want to achieve..
But in the end, contacting the responsible person per prior telephone call will typically solve the problem. And I would call that highly relevant, because any “GE only” aerodrome will most probably have glider (or any small aircraft) operation and chances are that there are youngsters who do not speak english. For example, position reports prior to land from gliders can sometimes be difficult to understand for anyone who is not local to the airfield, so your situational awareness might in fact be limited if you do not understand german.
MikeWhiskey wrote:
The airfield operator (i.e. the aeroclubs) are defining whether they want to run their airfield as German-only or German/English, which will then be “approved” / registered with their supervising authority (“Bezirksregierung”), and then published, i.e. in the AIP.
Absolutely. And perhaps this is actually the misunderstanding: The initial decision is absolutely made by the operator. After this has been approved and published, however, they can not decide differently for individual cases but they are bound to this approval. They can always apply for a recertification – but obviously are unlikely to do that for an individual flight.
Therefore the only way to get an exception for an individual flight is to get it approved by the authority.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Not right – at an uncontrolled airfield there is simply no-one who can overrule the AIP.
Is the AIP Law in Germany? In Ireland it certainly isn’t. It’s just a “handy summary” of the laws, plus additional reference information. It’s frequently out of date or just plain wrong, and much of the information it contains is not law anywhere.
Is this different in Germany?
I can’t believe that the AIP itself is law. Otherwise it would surely have to be freely available.
Is there really a law behind it specifying everything in the German AIP? Is there really a law listing which airports German must be spoken at, and which English can be spoken at? Is there a law specifying the opening hours listed in the AIP? Does it really require law changes to stay open later than normal on a Saturday to facility a flyin because the opening hours are listed in the AIP? Are laws really required to be changed because the airport discontinued its fax machine and the number is published in the AIP? If not, then presumably this is just info in the AIP and not law. That brings us back to the question “Is the language specified in the AIP Law or just handy info about that the airport normally accepts, but can change on a whim?”
It seems to me more likely that the airport can probably change many things in the AIP without needing legislative change nor NAA approval, but I’m not familar with German laws. I know you guys have a different way of doing things!
No, the AIP is not law by itself, but indirectly via the LuftVG and LuftVO.
Relevant to the topic is, among others, §29 LuftVO:
§ 29 Festlegungen im Funkverkehr
(1) Das Bundesaufsichtsamt für Flugsicherung ist zuständig für die Festlegung
1.
der Funkfrequenzen der Flugverkehrskontrollstellen und der Bodenfunkstellen für den Sprechfunkverkehr im Flugfunkdienst im Sinne der Anhänge SERA.8035, SERA.5005 Buchstabe i und SERA.5025 Buchstabe b der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 923/2012,
2.
der Sprechfunkverfahren und der Verfahren bei Ausfall der Funkverbindung.
(2) Der Funkverkehr wird als Sprechfunkverkehr im Flugfunkdienst durchgeführt. Hierbei sind die nach Absatz 1 Nummer 2 festgelegten Verfahren anzuwenden. Zur Teilnahme am Sprechfunkverkehr im Geltungsbereich dieser Verordnung bedarf es ausreichender Kenntnisse der im Sprechfunkverkehr im Flugfunkdienst verwendeten Sprache.
(my bold and my translation:)
To participate in radio-communications within the scope of this law, it is required to have sufficient knowledge of the language used in aviation radio-communications
My interpretation would be that which language (it’s singular!) is meant is determined further by the AIP…
This has come up before – examples. I reckon a competent lawyer would argue that a pilot’s duty is discharged by briefing from the AIP. To argue otherwise is to argue the AIP is worthless.
The real issue in all this is that almost no pilot is able to, or wants to, pay the very high cost of a competent lawyer. All national CAAs operate on the principle of bluster, scare tactics, FUD… it’s a part of the personality types which are drawn to work there.
The AIP being non free access in some countries is not relevant. For example many industrial standards documents (ISO etc) are not available for free and are actually very expensive.
