this is a verdict of the austrian bundesverwaltungsgericht (federal court of administration). 9.5.2018
last sentence is of part two of the verdict: 1. is feststellungen (findings) 2. beweiswürdigung (evidence assessment) 2.3.:
Beim Luftfahrthandbuch handelt es sich um ein von der Austro Control GmbH im Auftrag der obersten Zivilluftfahrtbehörde herausgegebenes Handbuch. In diesem Luftfahrthandbuch sind, untergliedert in verschiedene Themenbereiche und Kapitel, die in der Luftfahrt einzuhaltenden Bestimmungen enthalten.
the aip is a handbook published by austro control gmbh by order of the “highest civil aviation authority”.
in this aip are icluded the regulations (subdevided by themes and chapters) for aviation that have to be complied with.
Gericht
Bundesverwaltungsgericht
Dokumenttyp
Entscheidungstext
Entscheidungsart
Erkenntnis
Geschäftszahl
W249 2169178-1
Entscheidungsdatum
09.05.2018
………..
II. Das Bundesverwaltungsgericht hat erwogen:
1. Feststellungen:
1.1. Der Beschwerdeführer stellte einen Antrag gemäß § 24f LFG auf Verlängerung der Betriebsbewilligung für sein unbemanntes Luftfahrzeug “DJI Phantom 3 Advanced”, Ordnungszahl XXXX , der Klasse 1. Diese Bewilligung wurde dem Beschwerdeführer mit Bescheid der belangten Behörde vom 20.06.2017, Zl. XXXX , unter Bedingungen, einer Befristung und Auflagen (s. I.1.) erteilt.
1.2. Der Beschwerdeführer sowie die weitere, von ihm als Pilot beantragte Person XXXX , sind über 16 Jahre alt und zum Betrieb des beantragten unbemannten Luftfahrzeugs befähigt. Das beantragte unbemannte Luftfahrzeug entspricht den Anforderungen des LBTH 67 Pkt. 4.3.2., ist gemäß § 164 LFG versichert und hält die Lärmgrenzwerte nach Anlage N des LBTH 67 ein.
1.3. Das Luftfahrthandbuch Österreich schreibt in Kapitel GEN 2.7-1, zuletzt aktualisiert am 21.11.2008, für Flüge, die nur während des Tageslichts durchgeführt werden dürfen, vor, dass hierzu die Zeiten BCMT und ECET zu beachten sind.
2. Beweiswürdigung:
2.1. Die Feststellungen unter II.1.1. gründen sich auf den Verwaltungsakt, der dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht vorliegt, und sind nicht strittig.
2.2. Die Feststellungen unter II.1.2. gründen sich auf den Verwaltungsakt und ergeben sich aus der erteilten Bewilligung sowie sind ebenfalls nicht strittig.
2.3. Die Feststellungen zu den beiden Begriffen BCMT und ECET unter II.1.3. gründen sich auf die dazu im Luftfahrthandbuch Österreich, GEN 2.7-1, 21.11.2008, enthaltenen Definitionen und Vorgaben für Flüge, die nur während des Tageslichts durchgeführt werden dürfen. Beim Luftfahrthandbuch handelt es sich um ein von der Austro Control GmbH im Auftrag der obersten Zivilluftfahrtbehörde herausgegebenes Handbuch. In diesem Luftfahrthandbuch sind, untergliedert in verschiedene Themenbereiche und Kapitel, die in der Luftfahrt einzuhaltenden Bestimmungen enthalten.
gallois wrote:
Basically the same system as can be found in France. A lot to look through and still haven’t found airspace infringements yet
Yes it’s the same in France but there are strict laws on ZIT/P/R but the rest of +/-100ft in airspace go in the “just culture system”, in any case ATC have most of say on it, which is not bad after all (in UK ATC now have zero say on airspace infringements, it’s the bunch of admins in Gatwick who are getting excited on auto-generated spreadsheets and reports and zero idea on how ATC/PIC operates 
)
follows a proper “just culture system”
This is again a mixup of two completely different things.
The ability to get off a criminal offence with just a bollocking or a nasty letter is absolutely nothing to do with it being criminal and with having some “maximum fine” attached e.g. 2 years in prison (the prosecution of which can be activated if you give them the middle finger at a CAA interview, etc). See the Henderson thread for a couple of examples.
It’s same in driving over the speed limit, which is 100% criminal, but sometimes (very rarely) you don’t get done.
Air Navigation Order 2016, Part 10. In particular, 265 Offences and Penalties sets out the level of penalties for offences, and 249 makes not following the rules of the air an offence.
Cobalt found it – as usual.
thank you, peter !!
Peter wrote:
The ability to get off a criminal offence with just a bollocking or a nasty letter is absolutely nothing to do with it being criminal
I agree on that (you did not spot my sarcasm)
gallois wrote:
Even SERA is a rule making body and not a law making body but a group of European countries have agreed to sign up to some or all of these rules.
How do you mean? SERA is European law. It is published in an EU regulation which is binding for all EU member countries.
Those rules that particular countries could not accept either became outside of the scope of EASA, ie delegated to National authorities or would be added to or supplemented by the NAA.
For some rules, the NAAs have some leeway by explicit delegation in SERA. An NAA may not supplement SERA in any other way. The EU has already shot down a few such attempts. (At least the UK reduced cloud separation in class D airspace. If I recall correctly there was also something about uncontrolled IFR or IFR minimum altitudes in Germany. The EU has also shot down some national “supplementation” of other aviation-related legislation.
If all of SERA is law, which EU legislation makes it EU law. Secondly under what legislation has that passed into legislation in EASA member countries outside of the EU? Thirdly, why are they called Single European Rules of the Air and not Single European Laws of the Air. Finally, if they are the laws of the air throughout Europe, why is it necessary for each country of EASA to have its own AIP? Surely we would just need one.
cpt_om_sky wrote:
Gericht
Bundesverwaltungsgericht
Dokumenttyp
Entscheidungstext
Entscheidungsart
Erkenntnis
Geschäftszahl
W249 2169178-1
Entscheidungsdatum
09.05.2018
full text to be found: www.ris.bka.gv.at
gallois wrote:
If all of SERA is law, which EU legislation makes it EU law.
It is EU regulation No 923/2012.
Secondly under what legislation has that passed into legislation in EASA member countries outside of the EU?
By some kind of agreement/treaty between the countries in question and the EU. Exactly how it works, I don’t know, and most likely not in exactly the same way for different countries (e,g. Norway and Switzerland):
Thirdly, why are they called Single European Rules of the Air and not Single European Laws of the Air.
Is that a serious question?
Finally, if they are the laws of the air throughout Europe, why is it necessary for each country of EASA to have its own AIP? Surely we would just need one.
I don’t know how to begin answering that question. It looks like some kind of serious misunderstanding here.
To what extent is the AIP legally binding?
Having thought a bit about this. The question here is what legally binding mean, and in which context. Official documents from governmental agencies are per def legally binding towards the agency who has published it (the government). But I guess the question is more about to which extent they are legally binding for a pilot. In Norway you can only be convicted if you break the law. You cannot be convicted for not following the AIP, but that does not mean you will stay free if responsibility if you do not follow the AIP. What matters is what the law say.
The law (in Norway) simply say the PIC is fully responsible for the aircraft, that it’s airworthy, is environmentally “worthy”, is loaded correctly, has the correct equipment, is correctly manned, and that the flight is planned and executed according to currently valid “regulations” (impossible to translate the correct term into English in this context, but it is not exactly regulations, it’s broader in meaning). In essence, for practical purposes, the law say the AIP must be followed. So, not following the AIP may result in you breaking the law, and you can be convicted and punished. How this is in Germany, I wonder, because the AIP isn’t even available in general. In Norway, this would make the AIP void of legal validity.
