@gallois wrote:
Does this statement indicate that EASA have lodged a differences statement with ICAO regarding the number of radios that should be carried?
A difference statement needs to be issued by a individual ICAO member state, which EASA is not.
AIP content is maintained more or less rigorously current, varying by country. It is normally a good source of current information but to say it is law? … I wouldn‘t want to quote the AIP as defence in a court of law ;)
in austria
1.
the AIP is one way, given by law, to publish laws and regulations.
(there is a rather complicated constutional way how (drafts of) laws that have passed the house of parliament finally come into effect.
part of it is that they have to be published in a “constutional” way. the same is true with regulations on a lower level of legislation.
2.
laws and regulations that are published in the AIP as laws and regulations are legally binding.
3.
there are laws and regulations that are “just republished” in AIP.
others come into effect as they are “constutionally” first published via AIP.
4.
as the AIP is published by austro controll which is a state agency (department of civil aviation/part of the ministry of transport) responsibel for it defined by law,
it is, seen from the legal point of view, the same as a ministry is publishing a new regulation (verordnung)
wherein laws are quoted or reffered to (because a regulation always has to be consistent with laws that
are in effect.)
as AIP is thereby a governmental publication you can quote from its "legally binding" parts
like you could from the books of law themselfs.
so the question is my view is not wether the AIP as a whole is legally binding or law by itself.
the answer is the AIP is a legally necessary/possible way by the republic to publish laws and especially regulations
so the come duly into effect.
ONLY those parts of the AIP that are designated as laws and regulations are legally binding.
cpt_om_sky wrote:
this is the actual vfr chart published in AIP.would you consider data (for example cta) given on it legally binding or not ?
Two separate issues.
Regarding the CTA, the law is SERA.6001 “Classification of airspaces” which states that “Member States shall designate airspace in accordance with the following airspace classification.” The chart informs you of what designation the competent authority has chosen.
Actually, I would say that the binding designation is the coordinates published in AIP ENR, not the charts in AIP AD.
here is an example of a regulation that was published via AIP/austro control/department of aviation
so that it could come into effect as a regulation.
and it is legally binding.
https://www.austrocontrol.at/jart/prj3/ac/data/dokumente/LO_SUP_2021_11_en_2021-11-05_1211560.pdf
LO_SUP_2021_11_en_2021_11_05_1211560_pdf
Note that these AIP PDFs are dead by the time most people read them, so I have to download them and upload the copy here.
Just done the one in the post above.
Everyone can do it 
in austria
1.
the AIP is one way, given by law, to publish laws and regulations.
(there is a rather complicated constutional way how (drafts of) laws that have passed the house of parliament finally come into effect.
part of it is that they have to be published in a “constutional” way. the same is true with regulations on a lower level of legislation.
2.
laws and regulations that are published in the AIP as laws and regulations are legally binding.
3.
there are laws and regulations that are “just republished” in AIP.
others come into effect as they are “constutionally” first published via AIP.
4.
as the AIP is published by austro controll which is a state agency (department of civil aviation/part of the ministry of transport) responsibel for it defined by law,
it is, seen from the legal point of view, the same as a ministry is publishing a new regulation (verordnung)
wherein laws are quoted or reffered to (because a regulation always has to be consistent with laws that
are in effect.)
as AIP is thereby a governmental publication you can quote from its "legally binding" parts
like you could from the books of law themselfs.
so the question is my view is not wether the AIP as a whole is legally binding or law by itself.
the answer is the AIP is a legally necessary/possible way by the republic to publish laws and especially regulations
so the come duly into effect.
ONLY those parts of the AIP that are designated as laws and regulations are legally binding.
I highly doubt most of this, and especially this part:
the AIP is a legally necessary/possible way by the republic to publish laws and especially regulations
so the come duly into effect.
We’re not going anywhere, let’s ask a lawyer.
cpt_om_sky wrote:
ONLY those parts of the AIP that are designated as laws and regulations are legally binding.
Great, you got there in the end, that birdcage may contain things other than birds, it is not legally binding as a whole. Hence it is called an “Information” publication. Now point out exactly how I can tell which bits are law and which aren’t? For example, is the customs status published for an airport law, or just information?
BTW – the reason you are getting this push-back is important. Austria may be one of the countries where the AIP is produced meticulously to a high standard, but that is not the case in other countries where they can be hopelessly out of date. Also, on occasion regulators slip in what they would like the law to be instead of representing what it is.
So in reality, it is best to assume everything it prohibits is law, and it is a good idea to verify everything it appears to permit.
If these thingd didn’t cause arguments about how they should be read there would be no need for lawyers.
sorry, that i bothered you and wasted your time.
@cobalt
did you really read and understand what i argued before and about ?
@snoopy
you might find out, eventually, that your high doubts were unjustified.
if we, just for fun, could look at our hours in the air and at court
you might (and would most likely) well prevail up there.
down here in the fields of hard legal arguements and court decisions things might be different.
as some of you pointed out, we were just hopping around, being lost in wild speculations,
going off topic and doing all forms of weird brain gymnastics, proposing nonsense and counternonsense.
for me, though, it was all different.
i had the possibility to talk/write with you about this accident,
just being shot down by this unforeseen tragic event.
the next days we will lay to rest a very fine man and pilot, who crashed in circumstances we do not understand (as yet).
understanding/learning to better prevent such accidents should and must be our goal.
so i sign out now. wish all of you clear skies, best fun and fullfillment in the air, and always, always a happy landing.
