Firstly, did you type immigration into the Search box?
First thing i did 
But your a smarter person than I if you can get a general understanding from the quite specific questions that populate the inital pages. Also a lot of the posts are quite old.
I did however just now find this page which is quite good!
https://www.euroga.org/forums/flying/14036-flying-in-europe-for-the-first-time
Let‘s start with this map here.
Thank you! Very pedagogical. A follow up question is of course what cases cause the French to require prior notice?
File a flightplan and go. It‘s fantastic.
That’s my definition of awful. Hopefully someday an EU international agreement can be reached to eliminate the pointless flight plan requirement for flying, making cross border GA travel just like any other travel in the Schengen zone.
The schengen zone in itself is a simple enough idea. But let’s take a look at one thing which will bite you if you don’t do it right.
Is an approved flightplan enough?
This is a frequent and serious mistake among new PPLs. There is no such thing as an “approved flight plan”. In the Eurocontrol IFR world you get a flight plan route validated but any FP means nothing re a legal ability to fly or land somewhere.
You have to brief from the AIP and from NOTAMs. That will tell you if a particular airport has Customs and/or Immigration, and any PN/PPR applicable. Within the EU+schengen zone you don’t need to worry about this (most of the time) but elsewhere you do.
This is really important. It shows how totally useless the PPL training system here in Europe is. I’ve seen so many people turn up somewhere thinking they filed a FP, it wasn’t rejected, therefore…! Or file an FP via some CAS (controlled airspace) and think they have a clearance. Flight plans, in reality, go almost nowhere useful.
A follow up question is of course what cases cause the French to require prior notice?
Nobody actually knows, other than as one French poster here puts it, you will never change French culture
The UK GAR system works well. The email option is disappearing and you will need to use the government website.
Also look at “Threads possibly related to this one” below.
Hopefully someday an EU international agreement can be reached to eliminate the pointless flight plan requirement for flying, making cross border GA travel just like any other travel in the Schengen zone.
Nearly 30 countries who occassionally have aligned interests?
Silvaire wrote:
Hopefully someday an EU international agreement can be reached to eliminate the pointless flight plan requirement for flying, making cross border GA travel just like any other travel in the Schengen zone.That will take as long as we have one central European ATC instance. Besides, when traveling from the US to Canada or in reverse, you need an FPL for VFR cross-border flights as well. Furthermore, there are some EU countries where you don’t need an FPL for cross-border flights, such as flights between Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Austria.
Flight plans, in reality, go almost nowhere useful.That is by far not always true. More and more ATC or FIS units around Europe have VFR flightplans in their system. It helps to shortcut radio calls and get faster or even automatically CAS transits approved. Besides that, VFR flightplans are especially for SAR. In the Alps or Norwegian country side, not the badest thing to have…
Frans wrote:
That will take as long as we have one central European ATC instance. Besides, when traveling from the US to Canada or in reverse, you need an FPL for VFR cross-border flights as well. Furthermore, there are some EU countries where you don’t need an FPL for cross-border flights, such as flights between Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Austria.
This has nothing to do with ATC, because when eliminating cross-border flight plans the reasonable and logical approach would also include eliminating the requirement for VFR traffic to be in contact with ATC when in Class E airspace or lower, regardless of crossing borders within e.g. the Schengen Zone. Like flight plans, enroute ATC also serves little purpose in normal VFR flying if the airspace is properly organized, and both flight plans and ATC are an archaic approach to SAR. For that reason too they should both be optional for VFR travelling within Schengen Europe.
The analogy with the US is a good one except that given the Schengen zone, flying between countries in Europe is legally closer aligned to flying between US states. Flying between US and Canada or Mexico is more akin to flying from the EU to Africa or Turkey, where no international political union or treaty covering freedom of movement across the border is in place.
It is surely a good thing that some countries in Europe have come to their senses enough to create bilateral treaties to eliminate the necessity for cross border flight plans. It demonstrates a principle that should be applied to make flying VFR around Europe like driving a car or truck around Europe, with no notice or tracking required to cross any national border. The current situation is ridiculous given the tiny size of the countries and accordingly the completely different situation that’s been put in place when crossing the border on the ground in a much larger vehicle.
Silvaire wrote:
This has nothing to do with ATC, because when eliminating cross-border flight plans the reasonable and logical approach would also include eliminating the requirement for VFR traffic to be in contact with ATC when in Class E airspace or lower, regardless of crossing borders within e.g. the Schengen Zone.ATC will monitor overdue times and coordinate SAR missions through AIS offices. So, therefore, the national ATC ‘company’ has to deal with you in some way, therefore they might want to know when they have a ‘handover’ from another country / flight information region, which pilots enter in the EET field.
The analogy with the US is a good one except that given the Schengen zone, flying between countries in Europe is legally closer aligned to flying between US states.Schengen is just an immigration treaty, it’s the EU that makes stuff more aligned in politics and assures freedom of goods. But still, even full EU and Schengen members aren’t comparable with US states. There are so many historical, cultural and also political differences between countries (i.e. France vs Germany), which also brings differences in how ATC, SAR etc. per country works. The EU is still far away of being a kind of USE (United States of Europe) and while Eurocontrol may standardize things, each national ATC company still invents their own wheels.
ATC will monitor overdue times and coordinate SAR missions through AIS offices. So, therefore, the national ATC ‘company’ has to deal with you in some way, therefore they might want to know when they have a ‘handover’ from another country / flight information region, which pilots enter in the EET field.
My head hurts reading this stuff. It’s all completely unnecessary, and mostly valueless… but self perpetuating. A 406 MHz ELT works pretty well for SAR, as does using the radio when you need it (only), not to keep somebody on the ground employed talking to you for no particular reason.
The use of a flight plan coordinated by ATC for SAR purposes is archaic, whether or not international flight is involved. The same is true for airspace that is so badly planned and executed that a VFR flight generally has to use ATC to get from A to B.
Again, I don’t think mandatory FPL’s are a real enemy in cross-border flying. I would be more than happy, if this was our only concern in Europe.
If I had to file a flight plan to travel where nobody on the ground faces any kind of similar hassle to make the same international A to B trip, or monitor the radio continuously when flying along enroute minding my own business, flying would be the last thing I’d choose to do.
This is going off on a tangent
In this case it is important to summarise the situation, which I tried to do e.g. a flight plan has no relationship to immigration (or a “permission to do something”). It is just something you need to file when crossing borders (with a few exceptions) and for Eurocontrol IFR.
And the crucial thing, which most pilots still do not know (judging from social media everywhere) is that you brief from the AIP and from NOTAMs, every time. Within schengen, too.
The Norway/Switzerland situation is more complex, with various previous threads, and gotchas like this (that thread contains useful links to recent changes).
Threads like this one listed below are worth a read.
So, yeah, it is a mess and a 3 line question leads to hundreds of lines of replies.
The subject title is a general question, but if @Axelaxe is asking specifically in the context of using a CBIR for international travel then the whole FPL discussion is moot. A cross-border IFR flght needs a FPL. One can debate the value (or not), but that‘s rather off-topic, isn‘t it? How much of this value discussion helps answer the question?
Sorry, crossed with @Peter‘s comments.
Silvaire wrote:
The use of a flight plan coordinated by ATC for SAR purposes is archaic, whether or not international flight is involved
Archaic yes, but it works without relying on any technology or gadgets. Besides, when flying over populated areas, there will always be witnesses who urge to report an accident (while using the phone to put it on social media ) Not so much over non populated areas. Also, SAR is independent from ATC. You can file a flight plan for SAR purposes without ever talking to ATC the entire trip. The only requirement is that someone opens the plan and someone closes it. That someone does not need to be you, and there’s no need to talk to ATC about it, only the NOTAM office.
As for the requirement of a flight plan when crossing a border, I don’t know what exactly that requirement is based on. Immigration, customs, something else entirely, military purposes ? The thing is, with Putin on the run, I think most governments feel this is not the time to revoke the requirements for international flight plans.
In any case, filing a FP is just a swipe away using SD. It’s not difficult and it takes no time.
Silvaire wrote:
If I had to file a flight plan to travel where nobody on the ground faces any kind of similar hassle to make the same international A to B trip, or monitor the radio continuously when flying along enroute minding my own business, flying would be the last thing I’d choose to do.
That’s 100% a you-problem.
