Airborne_Again wrote:
The point is that PPR is an official abbreviation and that it means “Prior Permission Required” and nothing else.
Maybe, but only according to ICAO, and ICAO is only relevant for airports where ICAO is used as reference. This excludes most smaller fields, which indeed are are “PPR” 
LeSving wrote:
Maybe, but only according to ICAO, and ICAO is only relevant for airports where ICAO is used as reference. This excludes most smaller fields, which indeed are are “PPR”
No, not only according to ICAO but also according to the US FAA (as I have shown) and the Norwegian CAA (as you can easily check for yourself) — so I’ll end this discussion now.
LeSving wrote:
Maybe, but only according to ICAO, and ICAO is only relevant for airports where ICAO is used as reference. This excludes most smaller fields, which indeed are are “PPR”
You got that very wrong and it may cost you a load of money one day if you persist in these misbeliefs.
Generally whatever ICAO sais is valid everywhere unless the country has declared a deviation from ICAO provisions. Obviously, that is the case where local authorities like FAA, EASA or whichever local authority make something else up, but then they have to declare that deviation. So airfields which have not declared specifically that they are not following ICAO phraseology (and I doubt the local competent authority would allow them to do that) or are under the rules of a local competent authority, then ICAO wording is what is used. So actually quite the opposite of what you claim.
PPR means exactly tat: Prior permission required. Everywhere. Whoever sais differently is mistaken any may find himself in a very expensive spot very fast.
Saying ICAO makes the rules in a given country is the same as saying that industry organizations manage individual businesses. However, ICAO ‘club’ membership requires that countries maintain documents that describe their national level of alignment with ICAO recommendations, similar to how (for example) Textron might have a few people that manage the relationship with NBAA. That doesn’t mean a Cessna owner needs to know anything about NBAA, or even if it exists. Likewise, pilots do not follow ICAO recommendations, they follow national laws.
This is important, and relates to the proper role of government. As I’ve mentioned twice before in this thread, the acronym PPR is not a term listed by FAA in the document that explicitly describes that airport related terminology. The word used is Private, and I’m sure like most things FAA it was well thought out: FAA is a federal agency with its own public airports to manage, and does not want to be involved in defending or negotiating the property rights of private individuals – because it is not their proper business to do so. How other countries may inappropriately mix public and private concerns, confuse the role of international organizations with that of law makers and so on is likewise not an FAA concern, not an ICAO responsibility and not relevant to pilots flying in the US or other properly regulated countries.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Generally whatever ICAO says is valid everywhere unless the country has declared a deviation from ICAO provisions
ICAO = International Civil Aviation Organisation, it’s not the law. It’s only applicable where the AIP say it is applicable (implicitly, and explicitly through exceptions)
Airborne_Again wrote:
Norwegian CAA (as you can easily check for yourself)
Norwegian CAA don’t make laws, but they do make regulations (or suggestions that has to be ratified in the parliament). There is no mention of PPR in the laws or in the regulations. PPR is not a Norwegian word, and it’s not a good translation for what the laws/regulations actually say. The only reference to PPR is in the AIP (if any).
The law mainly speak in general terms, and also specifies where the departments can supply with detailed regulations. The definition is “landingsplass” (landing site). Regarding foreign aircraft, it say that public landing sites shall be open to those aircraft on the same terms as Norwegian aircraft in international flights, if a treaty about this is made with the corresponding foreign country (no mention of ICAO)
This means that only public airports have any connections whatsoever with international treaties (still, no mention of ICAO). All other airports are under national law exclusively. In the AIP, you will only find those airports that are public according to the law.
Then on to the regulations. There are three kinds of landing sites; Natural, private and public (or non-public and public). The general terms of using a landing site is by agreement with the owner of the land, or someone in charge of the land. However, this is really only applicable “as is” for natural landing sites (a field of grass or a lake). The sea and fjords are not owned by anyone, thus no permission is needed from anyone.
For public landing sites, the permission is granted in the law/regulation, but only during the public opening hours. Outside the opening hours and also for non-public landing sites, the regulation say a special permission is needed (not prior). For the public landing sites (by Avinor), this means a special card you can apply for. With that card you can use the site as much as you want also outside the public opening hours. You will not in general be permitted to use the site without that card, you will not be given any prior permission.
In the regulations about the pilot usage of landing sites (by pilots), a slightly different wording is used. These regulations are older. Here it say that the usage of non-public landing sites and public sites outside opening hours has to be agreed upon up front, either in general or for each individual flight.
Then there are military sites where the usage is up to the military unit in charge. It’s very much like a non-public (private) site.
Putting all this together we have several options:
There is also a fifth option, and that is public airports that are so busy with scheduled flights that you cannot simply come and go unexpected. You will need a prior permission. This is the only time ICAO is (remotely) into the picture regarding PPR.
In practice, the way it works is all non-public airports simply say: “come and go as you want, but it would be nice if you used MyPPR, or give us a phone call in case the field needs to be plowed for snow or something”. The general requirement for using those fields is that you have read and agreed upon the terms of usage of the particular airport, and many don’t have any, thus – this is special permission, not prior permission. The public airports say “come and go as you want (if we can slot you in), but outside opening ours you need this special card, and don’t expect the field to be plowed for snow, or plowing may be in progress when you arrive”.
Anyway, when speaking of PPR, we usually mean you need explicit permission to land for each individual flight. This is not the case anywhere in Norway except a couple of very busy public airports, where general usage is granted by law. The prior requirement is to be able to slot you in. Then there are some military airports where they want a call up front. They are in no obligation to grant you access, and the whole reason for calling is to prevent you access if this will disturb the military activities.
For public fields (a couple), PPR may be needed to effectively slot you in. This is for every flight.
For non public fields and public fields outside opening hours, “PPR” means use the airport freely, if you agree to the terms of usage. This is in essence a contract which will grant you free usage, not a permission like the one above.
For natural fields “PPR” has no meaning whatsoever.
For military fields PPR means you can come if we allow you. This is for every flight.
What ICAO means about this is very much irrelevant.
@LeSving, is it really true that the sea and Fjords of Norway don’t belong to anyone?Do you mean that the state has relinquished its ownership of the Fjords and the twelve mile boundary out to sea as set out in International maritime law and under ICAO agreement as set out under the Chicago Convention?
Here are some news from yesterday‘s NZZ newspaper about the consultations of the national council‘s environmental commission‘s consultations on the CO2 bill to which the 500 CHF proposal had been added by a 18 – 16 majority:
Erster Härtetest nach der «Klimawahl»
Die Umweltkommission des Nationalrats entscheidet über die Revision des CO2-Gesetzes
Hansueli Schöchli
Grün war die Gewinnerfarbe bei den Nationalratswahlen vor Wochenfrist. Konkrete Folgen für die Gesetzesarbeit könnten sich schon Anfang nächster Woche zeigen. Dann beugt sich die Umweltkommission des Nationalrats über die Revision des CO2-Gesetzes. Die Parlamentskommissionen tagen bis Ende November noch in alter Besetzung, doch das Parlament wird seine nächste Session im Dezember in der neuen Zusammensetzung bestreiten.
…
Im neuen Nationalrat dürfte die Gesetzesvorlage des Ständerats in der Stossrichtung gute Chancen haben. Interessant wird vor allem die Haltung der FDP sein, die in diesem Jahr einen Kurswechsel zugunsten einer verstärkten Umweltpolitik angekündigt hatte. Er werde die Vorlage des Ständerats «nicht einfach durchwinken», betont der Berner Nationalrat Christian Wasserfallen, der für die FDP in der Umweltkommission sitzt. Die Vorlage hat laut Wasserfallen noch «mehrere Baustellen». Als Stichworte erwähnt er die CO2-Grenzwerte für Gebäude und Nutzfahrzeuge, die Flugticketabgabe und die Privatflugabgabe.
Doch will die FDP dabei wahrgenommen werden, wie sie kurz nach Verkündung ihres Kurswechsels in der Umweltpolitik und dem Wahlerfolg der Grünen und Grünliberalen auf eine Lockerung der Revision zum CO2-Gesetz drängt? «Ich betrachte die Vorlage nicht mit der parteipolitischen Brille», betont Wasserfallen. Er wolle Lösungen, welche ökologisch, wirtschaftlich sinnvoll und sozialverträglich seien.
Jenseits der Inhalte geben auch verfassungsrechtliche Zweifel zu reden. Dies betrifft die vorgeschlagene Flugticketabgabe, die pro Jahr gegen 1 Mrd. Fr. ausmachen könnte. Das klingt wie eine neue Steuer. Für jede Steuer braucht es eine konkrete Verfassungsgrundlage. Die Bundesverfassung gibt zwar dem Gesetzgeber die Kompetenz, einen Zuschlag auf der Verbrauchssteuer auf allen Treibstoffen zu erheben, aber gleich danach folgt die Einschränkung: «ausser den Flugtreibstoffen».
Rückverteilung muss sein
Doch gilt die geplante Flugticketabgabe im verfassungsrechtlichen Sinn als «Steuer»? Laut dem bekannten St. Galler Kommentar zur Bundesverfassung (2014) vertritt die Lehre mehrheitlich die Auffassung, dass der Bund eine Kompetenz für die Erhebung von Umweltlenkungsabgaben habe, aber dafür strenge Voraussetzungen gälten. Nach Auffassung des erwähnten Verfassungskommentars müssten die Erträge der Abgaben vollständig rückverteilt werden, damit die Abgabe nicht als Steuer gelte; in dieser Lesart sei schon die geltende Teilzweckbindung der Erträge der CO2-Abgabe verfassungswidrig.
…
Aus dem NZZ-E-Paper vom 26.10.2019
Translation: the last word hasn’t been spoken on this.
gallois wrote:
is it really true that the sea and Fjords of Norway don’t belong to anyone?
They don’t belong to anyone in particular. It’s part of Norway for sure, the country, but it is not owned by anyone or anything, including the state. It’s part of what we call “every man’s right” in lack of a better translation. Ancient, unwritten laws that in later time has become part of the ordinary laws. It’s the same with airspaces for that matter (in principle, but more complex) . You will not find airspace A in Norway (with the exception of international waters). Military vise it makes no difference. You swear an oath to defend the King and the Country.
There is an anti windpower movement growing in Norway now. They mean the state has no right to simply use the land, or sea, for wind power. The state has no right to change the landscape to the degree they do, even if it’s decided by parliament and government. I tend to agree. If the state has a right to do it, then it’s also every mans right to simply tear them down (which of course the state does not agree with )
We might only fly Mooneys soon :)
The Guardian is UK’s major left-wing organ. It is frequently quoted by mainland Europeans because it is one of the very few UK papers which has an open online version. The others have mostly gone behind a paywall.
