Peter wrote:
Don’t know how current this requirement is but it was not enforced for Croatia.
It’s not implemented yet because Croatia (as well as Romania and Bulgaria) hasn’t fulfilled prerequisites and it can’t be enforced before that but it’s mandatory for these EU countries to continuosly work on these requirements.
And the Channel Islands are also EU, but not Schengen, AFAIK.
The Channel Islands are definately not part of the EU.
Others like Portugal obviously do but appear to choose not to honour Schengen.
So are they part of Schengen but impliment policies that are contrary to it (then a complaint could be made)
Or are they not part of Schengen because they haven’t yet met the conditions necessary? (Then no complaint could be made)
I thought that everyone on EuroGA knew every detail on this topic after so many discussions about customs & immigration, free movement of goods and people
Yes, but they’re not in Schengen. That’s the point.
According to this
Schengen Countries
Portugal is part of the Schengen agreement.
The Channel Islands are definately not part of the EU.
You are right, but they belong to the EU customs union.
Peter wrote:
However, Euro membership is also mandatory for new members.
Both euro and Schengen memberships, though theoretically mandatory, have no time limits attached – they are merely subject to certain conditions, and some new members are intentionally dragging their feet on meeting them.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
as a matter of fact it is not mandatory for EU membership either.
AFAIU it is mandatory (except for Ireland and the UK), but like with the Euro, a member must meet some obligations first.
Update, letter from IOPA to Portuguese Government.
To
Mr Pedro Marques
Ministro do Planeamento e das Infraestruturas
Avenida Barbosa du Bocage, 5, 2º -
1049-039 Lisboa
Senior Vice President
Dr. Michael Erb
Flugplatz Haus 10
D – 63329 Egelsbach
Tel: 49 6103 42081
E-Mail: [email protected]
Egelsbach, 26 June 2017
Restrictions for International Flights from and to Portuguese Aerodromes
Dear Sir
IAOPA is an international organisation representing General Aviation all over the world, and namely in Europe, through its regional structures and its national associations, such as, in your country, AOPA-Portugal. The number of pilots and owners of aircrafts represented by IAOPA is presently in excess of 450,000 persons.
We wish to express our serious concern about a Notam issued at the end of May 2017 (number A1919/17 or DO296/17) through which pilots were informed that General Aviation aerodromes in Portugal as Cascais, Coimbra, or Portimão and many others, are only authorised to operate Schengen flights if a previous authorisation was obtained from ANAC.
“ SCHENGEN FLIGHTS AT LPCR, LPBG, LPVR, LPJB, LPDA, LPLO, LPMB, LPMZ,
LPSA, LPCS, LPCH, LPCO, LPEV, LPVZ, LPSO, LPPM, LPVL, LPFE, LPMC,
LPCB, LPFL, LPPI, LPGR AND LPSJ ARE SUBJECT TO PRIOR AUTHORISATION
FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE AERODROME AND ANAC, AND PRIOR NOTICE THE
BORDER AND IMMIGRATION SERVICE”
Until such Notam was issued, the Portuguese AIP expressed no restriction, at all, for international flights in such General Aviation aerodromes, when originated from or destinated to Schengen countries, and many pilots were flying regularly, mainly to Cascais, Portimão or Coimbra, from Spain, France or the Netherlands, or reciprocally.
IAOPA Member Associations In the European Region in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.
World Wide in Australia, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, Liberia, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, USA, Venezuela.
We understand that the new regimen derives from Decree law 55/2010 dated 31st May (as changed by Decree law 186/2007 dated 10 May) and that under its provisions, based on national security considerations, only international airports such as Lisboa, Porto and Faro are exempted from such regimen. Such airports are however not accessible to General Aviation due to their high tariffs and intense commercial traffic.
However, the generalized practice in Schengen countries is to offer General Aviation freedom of flying between aerodromes of such countries, under the understanding that such regimen is a consequence of freedom of circulation of persons guaranteed by Schengen Treaty.
We understand that reasons of national security may require that pilots of non-commercial flights should send beforehand, by email, all required information concerning the identity of travelling persons, matriculation and insurance of aircraft, as it is presently required by ANAC, but the need of a prior formal authorisation by ANAC (closed after 6pm and at weekend), seems an unnecessary burden, which seriously compromises the viability of many flights, which are decided at very short notice.
We understand that presently our affiliate AOPA-Portugal is requesting to meet with ANAC in order to propose a practical solution which would avoid or reduce such burden, and we trust that the Portuguese Government would favour a solution which would allow to accommodate your legitimate security requirements with the principles of the Schengen Agreement, thus permitting that Portugal would continue being a popular destination to pilots flying their aircraft from Schengen countries.
We remain Dear Sir
Yours faithfully,
Dr. Michael Erb
Senior Vice President IAOPA
Am I the only one reading that letter and thinking (sarcastically) “Well that’s telling them!”
My reading of it says:
1. They spend a lot fo time telling the minister how big AOPA is
2. They tell the minister what they believe the current situation is
3. They say that they trust that the minister would like to meet with AOPA Portugal.
They don’t actually ask for anything or any changes nor assert any right.
If I was the minister and read that, I’d think “Thanks for letting me know what’s going through your mind. But since you’re not asking me to do anything, I can neatly file it away under the ‘noted’ file.”
Yes; the letter is verbose but useless.
What is the Portuguese equivalent of the process used that got the illegal restriction on cost sharing imposed by the French regulator thrown out?
Peter wrote:
Yes; the letter is verbose but useless.
I have long had questions regarding the utility of a AOPA membership.
Question answered ;-) toothless tiger springs to mind…
