Ibra wrote:
That is what I meant, if you bust that zone you will have to deal with Owner or local Police not the local CAA
and angry “outdoor people” in this context 
(I won’t say environmentalists, they are a different breed). I’m one of those “outdoor people” myself You can also end up in media. Busting the usual airspace, you will only get an angry ATC on the radio there and then, and that’s it. They will report it, and you will become part of the statistics, but nothing more will happen (not usually). Busting those protected areas is another cup of tea altogether, if you get caught.
The ATC couldn’t care less, but LT (CAA) and “backend” AVINOR, not the ATC branch, do care. They have:
Even the military care and have these areas in their maps.
I think the main question here is if the manufacturers of moving maps navigation software should care about this? That’s entirely up to them IMO. I think maps for VFR flying is not complete without it. It’s information that all VFR pilots should know. Without that information, life could become “difficult” under the right circumstance. They are not obliged to do it, as they are not obliged to do anything really. And again, AVINOR and LT (the official sources) are obliged to do it, and they do.
I fully agree but how do you want PIC/CAA to ever know about this without putting it in the AIP? let alone Jeppsen, SkyDemon, ForeFlight?
For instance, in UK this zone is not in AIP as prohibited area when they are firing even with a law that is no longer applicable…
Ibra wrote:
I fully agree but how do you want PIC/CAA to ever know about this without putting it in the AIP? let alone Jeppsen, SkyDemon, ForeFlight?
Interesting question. It really is all about the quality of the software, the quality of the underlying data. What do a pilot want vs what do a pilot need. Do most pilots have a clue either way? What is a pilot willing to pay for. What if such apps became compulsory? This is the very reason why there exist industry standards, and possibly also processes of third party validation (certification) to make sure the industry standards are met. A “living and breathing” industry standard would eventually resolve these “problems”. The other option is open source, where a continuous stream of feedback and modification eventually would resolve all of it. It would become an ad hoc standard of it’s own.
I think we perhaps are better off leaving it as it is. These apps are tools for increased “situational awareness” and nothing more. There are no promises intended or implicit, unless of course they lead to situational confusion Then it’s up to the PIC to gather the information he actually need.
LeSving wrote:
The point here is that you aren’t breaking any “laws of the air” (or perhaps you are?). With these protected areas you are breaking the laws about nature, which is a different set of regulations altogether.
While it is probably not constitutionally forbidden to put that kind of rules in another place than “laws of the air”, it is very poor quality of legislation. It would be like putting a speed limit, or making a certain kind of road forbidden to cars that have only 2 wheel drive, in any other place than “laws of the road”.
Unfortunately there are plenty of laws like that. For example in the UK, it’s legal to cycle in some parks but not others – and if you want to find out which, then you need to look at local byelaws rather than national legislation. In the flying world, the obvious equivalent would be whether it’s legal to fly in a danger area or not – again, it’s down to local byelaws.
It shouldn’t actually matter where the legislation is, so long as there is a reliable and accessible reference to get the information you need, and a little grace in the system if it wasn’t as obvious as it should have been.
And not to mention customs…
kwlf wrote:
It shouldn’t actually matter where the legislation is, so long as there is a reliable and accessible reference to get the information you need, and a little grace in the system if it wasn’t as obvious as it should have been.
That and signs and drawings on maps. Today it is easy for anyone with a minimum of programming skills to make moving maps and put some airspaces and airfields on them. What is not equally easy is to find all the legal quirks. This has never been easy, and it’s probably not even doable today either without contact with someone who has local knowledge. You won’t find what you are not looking for if you have no clue even exists. Ignorance has never been an excuse for breaking a law however.
It boils down to the quality of data. For instance, flying in Norway can be done exclusively with VFR Norway. It gives you pointers to everything you need, and it’s all online. What it don’t give you is an online moving map, but with quality data at hand, any moving map will do. In that respect you will also run into quality issues, and you get what you pay for, mostly. I haven’t found anything better than SD, but I have found much cheaper stuff that will do the job.
In Norway weather is always a big deal (except perhaps the SE region), and we can use the excellent online camera network that the rescue helicopter organisation has set up. Unfortunately this system is not easily accessible for foreigners. This is indeed unfortunate, because this system has saved my day more than once.
What I mean is that quality data is out there, and it is readily available. Data that may save your a$$. As an international community, we should perhaps be better at giving pointers to that data instead of discussing all the hopeless “legal” stuff that we cannot change anyway 
I agree: a quality map is a good and accessible source of data.
I once bought a 1/1,000,000 map of the UK and found one or two anomalies on it compared to the ‘official’ VFR maps (e.g. RAF Boulmer wasn’t marked, though it still appeared on the half mil charts). I never dared fly with it on the grounds that if I infringed something that wasn’t marked on an official map I would probably get in less trouble than if I infringed something that was only missed on an ‘unofficial’ map.
When it comes to map choice, it’s easy: you go with the official one. A moving map is much harder because there is no official one (perhaps the Airspace Aware counted?).
kwlf wrote:
When it comes to map choice, it’s easy: you go with the official one.
As long as you are aware that the regulations make no reference at all to maps being “official” or not. They only say maps should be “current and suitable.” Ref. NCO.OP.135(a)(10).
Maybe, but it’s an argument I would prefer not to have.
Indeed; if the CAA busts you, the man in charge of the policy is judge jury and executioner, and license suspensions are designated “provisional” which removes any right of appeal. Pretty neat, really…
