@Peter this looks like a thread twist, you could separate this out. New title could be “Flying IFR directs: airspace separation responsibility of the pilot?”
Emir wrote:
It’s just nonsense, he’s obviously clueless how this works.
Well, no, sadly enough, he is not. Whenever you file a direct between waypoints you are responsible for the flightpath. As such, to not enter restricted airspace.
Flying VFR things are easy, if you do not enter the airspace obviously you do not get accused. But flying IFR the argument of the Luftfahrtbundesamt was that as you filed direct between two waypoints in case of lost comm you would have had to fly that very route, so you got accused of flying so. Even when in the air you never touched that airspace. I don’t know whether LBA is still following this, however my last chat about this is only days old.
hazek wrote:
But PIC is still ultimately responsible to enaure a clearance, one way or another, was obtained for every airspace.
I don’t think it is in SERA, but most countries explicitly state in their AIP that a clearance that takes you through an R-area implies permission to cross it.
@hazek yes I too was curious about it now.
Litigation of such cases is based in NfL I/2022-20 (a German regulation).
I found an article from the “Pilot und Flugzeug” magazine that puts it spot on:
It is German only, but most browsers will translate it directly in your preferred language.
However, I do remember when learning for the CB-IR examination that I learned the same, so there must be a regulation not only valid in Germany. That whenever you file a direct you’re responsible, but when you file an ATC route (or any published route or procedure) you’re fine qua definitionem.
Whenever you file a direct between waypoints you are responsible for the flightpath
Hmmm, no. Not unless OCAS, and then ATC are supposed to warn you.
In fact the only time ATC is not responsible for your obstacle clearance is on a DCT. In reality the practice of never vectoring below the MRVA takes care of that, too.
I am not debating with Hazek.
In lost comms, you are supposed to revert to the filed route ASAP. But this gets vague in the case of lost comms when off the filed route. The system works because lost comms almost never happens, and when it does, 99.9% it is due to the aircraft flying out of range of the last unit (because somebody forgot).
VFR is different.
a clearance that takes you through an R-area implies permission to cross it.
It has to be like that otherwise CAT would not work. Looks at the EGKK/EGLL inbounds from the east. They cross D138 etc. I talked to ATC about this once when London Control routed me thus.
Re the German reg
The Federal Air Traffic Control Supervisory Office (BAF) has sent numerous letters in the last few weeks in which pilots are punished with a warning fine because they fly an IFR -had submitted a flight plan that would have led through an ED-R. Not flown through, just filed. That’s enough for a sanction. If you take a closer look at the process, you will see that this was only possible because the DFS had not correctly transmitted the necessary data to Brussels. But the pilots are punished. The process is exemplary of the completely inadequate safety culture in the relationship between air traffic control and airspace users in Germany. Because of the high interest in the topic and the significant number of those affected, we are putting our article from the 2021/12 issue online here.
That is obviously a load of BS which somebody who never planned an IFR flight, let alone flew a plane in the system, came up with. It shows a total disconnect between different people in the system.
It is what I said earlier: DFS are deliberately witholding data from IFPS, in order to maintain ATC function and thus ATC jobs.
I think any pilots who are fined this way should involve legal counsel and aggressively defend themselves. One possibility might be to charge DFS with neglect of duty by not provding Eurocontrol with obliged information. In Switzerland, this might even end up with an organization like DFS being charged with „Störung des öffentlich Verkehr“ (disruption of public transportation). 
This is the kind of bagatelle that should be covered by legal protection insurance.
I increasingly see a fading stability of the political system in Germany, finally resulting in a ‘no chance to predict verdict of a court any longer’ from a fellow lawyer. When Justice becomes Gambling, Mafia structures build up. It is always strange to see what German citizen allow their politicians to do to them and I fear for historical reasons on the outcome …
I think any pilots who are fined this way should involve legal counsel and aggressively defend themselves
I totally agree.
FWIW, in the UK, this could never happen (anytime in the last 40 or so years). Too many steps in the system would need to fall apart. And since the prosecution would be done by the CAA itself (not by the “UK govt” which is how criminal stuff is mostly done) they would not even try it.
Maybe the German issue is because the prosecution is done by a group of people not connected to aviation. Not by the LBA or the DFS.
Again, a brief period where these fines happened. For all we know, it did not happen again afterwards.
Surely the “lost comms” procedure is the same as ICAO and depends on whether or not you are in radar contact. I can’t remember the exact timings but isn’t it something like “if off planned route but under radar contact you continue for 7 minutes then rejoin planned route if not in radar contact carry on with the clearance you have for 20min before rejoining planned route. At the IAF of the destination airport hold until your ETA on your flight plan then commence the approach”.
I’ve let it all go out of my head in the last 12 months since I stopped flying IFR.
