Peter wrote:
I think our next fly-in should be in Austria
Too much work! If we can not rely on the AIP, it is almost impossible to even identify all rules of the air we need to stick to when flying ion Austria ;-)
Snoopy wrote:
or practical purposes, following the AIP works. From a legal perspective, it’s good to know that it’s not the law.
sorry snoopy, but i am pretty very sure that you are wrong.
please look at the law passages i quoted.
and the verdict (erkenntnis) of the vwgh dated 11.10.21
(a court can oviously only justify a verdict by facts proved and law given.)
why would (how could) the court refer to restrictions that are published in AIP
if they would not be law?!
AIP is per austrian law (luftfahrtgesetz) defined as a way to publish (new) laws and regs.
as far as texts in AIP are defined as law and regs there they are laws and regs of the land.
cpt_om_sky wrote:
please look at the law passages i quoted.
How about you look at them again and quote the passage that says “the AIP Is law”. All I could see is “Law can be published in the AIP”, or “The law was published in the AIP and the pilot should have spotted the discrepancy and relied on the law”?
cpt_om_sky wrote:
AIP is per austrian law (luftfahrtgesetz) defined as a way to publish (new) laws and regs.
as far as texts in AIP are defined as law and regs there they are laws and regs of the land.
@cpt_om_sky wrote:
…einer Übertretung des § 4 Abs. 2 LFG iVm der Verordnung des Bundesministers für Landesverteidigung über die Festlegung eines zeitweiligen Flugbeschränkungsgebietes im Raum Salzburg am 19. und 20. September 2018 für schuldig erkannt
Was the pilot sentenced based on the AIP, or based on § 4 Abs. 2 LFG?
this is the actual vfr chart published in AIP.
would you consider data (for example cta) given on it legally binding or not ?
Yes you are likely to have to follow the circuit as per AIP on departure & arrival, as Malibuflyer said sticking to AIP tend to cover your flying from a variety of legal things out there: noise agreements, environmental laws, conditions of aerodrome use, overflying cities…
If you don’t do that then you are likely to get prosecuted for that, you can install a webcam & FR24 server and start reporting pilot deviations from published circuit on busy summer day at LOIH
One you have gathered enough evidences of VFR pilots flying straight-in and managed to get a court to fine them for that, you can move to pilots flying straight-in in IMC
However, good luck prosecuting a pilot flying IFR in IMC or VFR in VMC as per that published circuit, it’s just impossible in the context of private pilots, the only “visbility & cloud judge or police” out there in Golf is terrain, plus some “forums pilots”…
Actually, you can depart with zero visibility in the absence of RVR/ATC WX for flying and TAF/METAR for planning in the context of solo private flying, no one can stop you, prove it or fine you…there is literally no mechanism in EU or AIP law that allow any of that, it’s pilot interpreted visibility, however, you may find plenty of legal charges associated with that takeoff: departing with insufficient fuel, overweight, unairworthy aircraft, no licence, busting airspace, low flying over city…
You are misunderstanding „legally binding“.
The chart is contained in the AIP as a service to pilots. The AIP is a tool. Many things in the AIP, such as this chart, are based on the actual law (which states something along the line of „no entry into controlled airspace without clearance“ → SERA).
To construe that the AIP is law is something else entirely.
It is an „information publication“ and not the law.
Again: following the AIP will, in many cases, assure one is also following the law.
For discussing legal details, on the other hand, the AIP is a unsuitable sole source.
I learned this, that the AIP is not law, to my amazement, during a course lectured by a senior manager of the civil aviation authority.
Happy to be corrected, always eager to learn.
