Ibra wrote:
nothing in national law or AIP yet, l’arrêté 2017 is being edited as we speak with the new EU regulation…
Maybe we shall even be alive to see such a time when everyone not only got the memo but has eventually decided that they have to follow it. It takes away quite a few harassment competences from certain people who will not be happy.
Ibra wrote:
This only applies for Switzerland & Norway, without goods to declare including the aircraft,
Yes. in other words to Schengen countries which are not EU members. It has nothing to do with the UK, that may be worth stressing. Yet it also re-enforces (as if that were neccessary but apparently France needs a reminder) that Flights between ANY Schengen country should be harassment free and allowed from anywhere to anywhere without AOE requirements.
It might also be time to remind the Greeks that their old customs law regarding GA entrys into Greece is a ballant violation of EU legislation regarding free circulation of goods. But apparently nobody cares.
Peter wrote:
Well, yes, but the general flying patterns around Europe mean that almost nobody from Sweden (where most activity is aeroclub based and thus mostly local-flying) flies to France, whereas a lot of Brits do, and quite a few of the German “regular tourers” do too.
I don’t see how Sweden got into this discussion. It was just as cumbersome for a German who wanted to make international flights before 1990. (Yes, I know that there were some groups of countries that already had abandoned passport checks between them.)
Airborne_Again wrote:
It was just as cumbersome for a German who wanted to make international flights before 1990.
Was it really. Most small to mid sized airfields had AOE status in some way. I recall flying in the 1980ties and early 1990ties to France, Germany, Spain, elsewhere. No PPR anywhere. No PNR for customs anywhere, they were just there. All my destinations of that time had customs and immigration during opening hours. Some smaller ones had them as they have today.
Apart: You could just turn up at almost all large airports, land, park there for a couple of days and go again. My record of the time show places like Frankfurt (yes EDDF), Girona, Avignon, Nice, Lyon Bron, Chambery, Geneva, Cléremont Ferrand (Aulnat), Vienna and many more, ALL of them took GA absolutely hassle free, with full customs and immigration, some H24, others 0600-2200LT. Most of those mentioned above are today outpricing GA or ask ridiculous PNR/PPR conditions to be used as AOE. There was no Schengen/No Schengen difference, if you could reach it with your range, you just did it.
Night flying? Aulnat, Chambery, St.Yan, Avignon were open 24 hours without any PPR/PNR, and that is just some I recall.
Yea, you could not fly between some small grass fields, but most of the others had AOE in some capacity. It was hardly a subject at the time, Botlang Airfield directory, customs yes, GO. 2 mins. Today? PPR, mails back and forth, busted for having not read note 23 on the website. Yea right. Schengen was a great idea but for GA, in many cases, it made life not easier but a LOT more difficult. Yes, I realize that GA bans and outpricing at many of those airports I listened would have come anyway and that then makes a huge difference, but with the conditions we had then, I’ll have those times back today if you would please. I’d rather carry passports or ID everywhere (which I do anyway) than play the PNR/PPR game and rely on bureaucrats who mostly think of us as waste of space.
Nostalgia? You bet.
Back in the 90’s La Rochelle was a porta cabin and Nantes wasn’t much more. Nice had very little CAT traffic.
Schengen might not be so good for those outside of it and the EU but it is pretty good most of the time for GA within it.
It has also meant that there is no necessity for those airfields that used to have C+I to have it anymore.
You can’t really blame the countries within EU and Schengen for not catering to those who do not wish to be members.
The topic of this thread is Schengen suspension, so being in Schengen and/or being in the EU is of precisely zero help with say La Rochelle which simply does not want foreigners of any sort going there. Well, they can go there, with considerable extra hassle and cost.
For all the discussion, we still have no idea why this has happened. It looks like local police internal politics. You get that in every “regulatory” body, especially if it is a powerful one. Here in the UK, every Home Secretary who tried to assert some sort of control over the police has been booed and shouted down at the conferences, but still the UK police would not dare to “do a La Rochelle”. They limit themselves to “interpreting the Terrorism Act” in the form of producing ever weirder GAR forms…
@Peter can you explain your additional cost remark.
I understand the PN48 hrs is an annoyance, however AFAIU the cost has remained the same.
In the case of LFBH it is a local thing, not set at a National level.
AIUI this short term action by NOTAM has had no effect on the traffic (numbers) coming to LFBH.
Again AFAIUI from people at the AeroClub the management of LFBH consider their position, halfway down the west coast of France as not really being what might be considered a suitable PoE, especially with Nantes just to the North and Bordeaux Mérignac, just to the south, with both having permanent border force.
This of course might be different when it comes to the holiday season, July and August. They think that during these months that Ryan Air might increase its Stansted connection, that EasyJet will restart its Bristol service. New Flybe have so far not announced any services from La Rochelle AFAIK. Ryan Air seem also to have stopped most of not all of its services to Portugal and to Norway. Whether they will restart I don’t know.
This might mean that the PN will be able to revert to it’s original timing for July and August.
Why intra Schengen was included, no one seems to know. The management at LFBH don’t know or are not saying. Again through club members they say that one should ask bse.
It seems the Airport need to pay for a border force service if the airport management call them in. No one seems to know who pays if the airport management do not call them in. This is not surprising as the people I have been talking with are more interested in flying in France and don’t really run into problems with the 48hr PN.
Most are baffled by the idea it needs a 48hr PN for intra Schengen or who is responsible for that decision. Suggestions, have been a hang over from Covid to Surete or Security.
Where this decision lies might remain an unsolved mystery, but I will keep asking anyone who I think might know.
can you explain your additional cost remark.
A foreigner arriving has to first land at another French airport.
Otherwise, the 48hr PN introduces wx risks, etc. It degrades safety because it introduces a “must fly on the PN’s date/time” factor, plus any approach and departure is an extra risk. In fact an approach and a departure can be a huge hazard if you have to go down and back up in icing conditions. It is pretty hopeless to organise a fly-in to a 48hr PN airport; most simply won’t turn up.
As the LR 48hr PN thread shows, the whole thing is a p1sstake anyway by the police because nobody turns up!
Most are baffled by the idea it needs a 48hr PN for intra Schengen or who is responsible for that decision. Suggestions, have been a hang over from Covid to Surete or Security.
Indeed. The police should provide a service to the State and the State economy, not run their own private empire.
They should also not charge the airport because border control is a standard State function, for which the police are already paid salaries, etc, by the general taxpayer.
Peter wrote:-“They should also not charge the airport because border control is a standard State function, for which the police are already paid salaries, etc, by the general taxpayer.”
That assumes that the police are normally paid to just hang around with no other duties to attend to, otherwise more officers will be needed or existing officers would need to do more hours.
Why would taxpayers want their hard earned taxes used to pay for a customs and immigration service at an airfield where there seems to be no good business case for that service?
Why would taxpayers finance a road they don’t use themselves?
Or street lighting when they don’t go out after dark?
There is no business case for any of this, especially not the street lighting.
Roads, street lamps, and even LFBH airfield are available for the benefit of the citizens of France and the local community in particular ie the people.who pay the taxes.
Paying for a border force at La Rochelle for GA is mostly for the benefit of citizens of other countries.
I have my own thoughts on why the 48PN exists for LFBH. They are not the same as yours or those of several others on here.
However my thoughts are based on certain assumptions and I have no clear evidence, so I would just be guessing. Better, therefore, not to voice them until they are confirmed as fact.
