Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

VRPs mandatory for VFR?

It has nothing to do with airlaw, and I understood the subject of this thread to be airlaw.

I think that this example, though not incorrect, is not relevant to the present discussion.

I disagree. The procedure is clearly stated in the AIP, as are all mandatory procedures for all airports within the Brussels FIR.
You can’t just pick the ones you like…

The procedures at EBGB are a compromis between Belgocontrol and RVG and they are VERY enforceable

EBST, Belgium

Yes and no.

YES: any pilot flying into EBGB will have to respect both airlaw and local regulations; and yes, all and any other behaviour will come to regrets. So that, from a practical point of view, you are absolutely right.

Then again, NO, because, as far as I know the original poster, the question was not primarily questioning practical situations, but rather the theoretical scope of airlaw.

IOW, if the AIP is kind enough to mention local rules, that doesn’t mean an infringement will automatically trigger court action.

The underlying question is, as I understand things, which authority will be prosecuting infringements: when violating airlaw, it will be the relevant CAA; and the level of prosecution would be “the state against pilot XYZ”; when violating an a/d’s local regulations, it will be that a/d, and the case would “only” be “citizen EBGB against citizen XYZ”.

Or still IOW: busting EBGB published procedures is obviously NOT the thing to do, but if it does happen, willingly or not, the punishment might be (much) less bad than for busting EBBR airspace, or such.

Last Edited by at 28 May 12:01
EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

There really is no difference. If you don’t apply the published regulations for EBGB and the “pleincommandant” reports this to the CAA, you will get a nice letter from the CAA.
If you don’t apply the published regulations for EBBR and Belgocontrol reports this to the CAA, you will get a nice letter. Court action has nothing to do with this, except when there is damage to property, loss of life or too much noise for the poor inhabitants of Brussels city…

EBST, Belgium

Hm. Again, you may well be right, but what is the net effect? How bad is the “nice letter”? As long as no court case follows, who cares? And when it does, it is VERY relevant before what court.

< local note >

’k Ben niet bang van de boze brieven, ’k ben niet bang, ’k ben niet bang

< / local note >

Damage to property and/or loss of life involve insurers, and they’ll be most happy to find any infringement of any rule for a reason to not pay out – which is one more reason to respect all of them, yes yes. But again, I take this not as the original subject of the present thread.

As regards the curious breed of "pleincommandanten"*: one has to know how to humour them, and for some of them that can take a lifelong study…

As regards certain “poor inhabitants” I think we understand each other, no need to say more.

  • “a/d commander”; I feel it might more or less correspond to the UK title of “Chief Instructor” equally void of formal responsability or power, except by local regulation
EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

I don’t think knowing non-mandatory, non-published VRPs can be made mandatory into law.

The way I see it is this. Airfields (both controlled and uncontrolled) have published VRPs and procedures on how to arrive and depart VFR. Obviously you are supposed to know the VRPs that make up the arrival and departure procedure. That’s just basic flight preparation. If you fly to EBGB and can’t find LONDI, you’ve just not done your homework properly.

For crossing a CTR and for arriving and departing a CTR via non-standard routes, you have to work with ATC. The more informal VRPs you know, and the more confident you are in pronouncing and finding them, the more reliable ATC will think you are. That means that more convenient and tighter routes are possible. But this also means that if you don’t sound confident, ATC will try to get you onto one of the standard arrivals and departures as soon as possible. Those are normally designed to give the lowest chance of conflict with other IFR and VFR traffic so even if you hash it up completely, there’s still a large margin of safety.

Or they’ll try to get rid of you altogether.

As long as no court case follows, who cares?

Don’t underestimate the CAA. They can revoke your license and YOU can try and get it back via the court. The CAA (in Belgium) are very reasonable and they will judge each case on its own.

They will, however, ask you for an explanation and my advice is “to care” about what you will tell them.

On another note, VRPs can be used by ATC (CAS of course) to apply lateral separation. Much needed when special VFR

EBST, Belgium

“Special VFR” does not apply to this humble microlighter – but it is obvious from your comments that you know what you are saying, comments noted… with gratitude…

I do am surprised though that our CAA could revoke my license without passing by court – will have to look into that. Are you aware of any precedents? Or IOW has this ever happened before?

EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

I’m going waaaaaaay off topic here, so this is my last post on the subject, but;
art 36 KB regeling luchtvaart

(§ 4. De Minister belast met het bestuur van de luchtvaart of zijn gemachtigde kan op ieder ogenblik aan Belgen het uitoefenen van de voorrechten verbonden aan hun vergunningen of bevoegdverklaringen, afgeleverd door een andere Staat, verbieden boven het grondgebied van het Rijk.) <KB 2000-05-14/46, art. 4, 007; Inwerkingtreding : 25-06-2000>

And another dozen lines stating that they can…

EBST, Belgium

OK, they can, or they could if they really would – though your example is only about revoking rights granted to Belgian pilots by non-Belgian authorities – but you do not give any factual example, and will no more post in this thread? Message taken, then.

Just the same, thanks for the warning. Will take care!

EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

VRPs are Visual Reporting Points. They are the visual version of IFR reporting points.

VRPs help many ATC units organise their traffic a lot better.

Pilots are typically expected to brief themselves on VRPs on the Visual Approach Chart so that they can navigate there when asked.
But if you’re unfamiliar you can try requesting for a vector for assistance.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top