LeSving wrote:
Making these areas prohibited, which is the only thing they can become in aviation terms, will for most of it only create a whole lot of bureaucracy and nuisance and confusion, for minimal or no gain whatsoever.
Why is “prohibited” the only thing they can become in aviation terms? In Sweden, national parks are not prohibited but restricted. This is what a typical restriction looks like:
National Park. Special permission by Swedish Transport Agency is required, except for operators specified in ENR 5.1 para 2.4.1, aircraft used by the County Administrative Board in Norrbotten, or for reindeer husbandry according to the Reindeer Husbandry Act (1971:437).
ENR 5.1 para 2.4.1 states that “flight may be conducted if carried out by Swedish military aircraft or by Swedish aircraft operated by Swedish Armed Forces, local Police Department, Swedish Security Service, Swedish Coast Guard, Swedish Maritime Administration, LFV [national ANSP], Swedish Transport Agency, Swedish Customs Administration, National Land Survey Office, Geological Survey of Sweden, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute or Affärsverket Svenska Kraftnät [the agency that operates the backbone electrical transmission lines] , ambulance transport with high medical priority or by aircraft engaged in rescue operations in accordance with Civil Protection Act (2003:778).”
I don’t see where the nuisance and confusion comes in. On the contrary, this makes it crystal clear for everyone what rules apply.
So what is the point of the change?
If it is already protected and on the map and in the AIP what benefit are you going to get by changing it to a restricted area?
I can only see costs and downsides in this unnecessary change.
gallois wrote:
If it is already protected and on the map and in the AIP what benefit are you going to get by changing it to a restricted area?
The point is that “it” frequently is not on the map! And what map?
The aviation maps or charts that we use to navigate by.
I would agree if something is not on the map/chart in use then it should be.
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.
At present we have broken green lines surrounding the protected area.
It is quite clear on the aviation charts what the limits are in this area. Press on Skydemon to see “What’s here” and you have all the details you need.
If they are not there then EASA could and should point this out to appropriate delegating authority.
It’s surely in that authorities best interest to mark it on the charts with details. After all it is they who wish to protect the area in the best way possible.
If their NAA wishes to designate the area an RA well so be it and I wouldn’t argue with that. But if it doesn’t IMO that’s okay also.
As an EASA regulation and an EU law I have to ask why?
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.
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.
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.
@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:
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?
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.
