To what extent is the AIP legally binding?

cpt_om_sky wrote:

did you really read and understand what i argued before and about ?

Yes, for example you said

thereby whatever is content of the AIP it is law of the land.

which you then, commendably and after much discussion changed to

ONLY those parts of the AIP that are designated as laws and regulations are legally binding.

reading all this, I think the term legally binding has a very different meaning for someone who deals with law on a daily basis and someone just trying to conduct a flight operation within the laws, rules and regulations of the area or country he is operating in. In legalese, this may be two very different things.

I think what we as pilots need AIP’s to be is a RELIABLE source of INFORMATION about the rules, regulations, particuliarities and so on of a given country, so that we can rely on the information therein to convey what we need to conduct a legally and practically safe flight operation in the country of coverages. Clearly, the AIP is supplemented with supplements and NOTAMS, which may change information available in the AIP.

When a non professional-legal eagle talks of legally binding, what I in particular wish to express is my need for documentation which allows me to follow the laws, regulations and information I need for this purpose. Not more, nothing else.

What is problematic is if the AIP sais one thing and then you get a violation because the law sais something else. Personally I think no pilot should be expected to exercise FURTHER due diligence than follow what the AIP/SUP/NOTAMS say without running the risk of being prosecuted for following this information, even if it happens to be erroneous. I know that is in many cases not what happens, as we need to read airport websites and possibly call, write and get other confirmation, but is is NOT how it is supposed to be.

If I get ramp-checked or otherwise challenged for my actions in any capacity in flying and I have the relevant part of the AIP/SUP/NOTAM which confirms what I have done is correct, then I want to be able to put the said document under the nose of the checker and challenge him, what I have done wrong and would expect the administrations and courts to honor the fact that flight operation are impossible if those docs are not current and reflect the legally binding texts of law.

Maybe this clarifies a bit why those with a legal background have a hugely different interpretation of the term legally binding.

Is a traffic sign a legally binding document?

Indeed.

There was a famous case in the UK where someone successfully argued that an electronic display on a motorway gantry did not meet the legal requirement for correctly displaying a speed limit, and thus the limit was unenforceable.

The actual law said that the number denoting the speed limit must be displayed inside a red circle, as has been the case on fixed signs in the UK since forever. The argument was that the red ‘circle’ created by a whole load of little red lights on the display was not actually a circle because it was not a continuous band of colour all the way around.

@cpt_om_sky

sorry, that i bothered you and wasted your time.

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.

I am sorry you lost a friend, and it is unfortunate that you feel you wasted someone’s time. You haven’t.

Most of this debate comes down to this. But almost nobody wants to say it, because everybody thinks their country is the best – especially on an international forum where people get extra defensive. As an admin I see this every day. Under the legal systems in some countries, an AIP “permission” will be worthless, and the AIP is thus worth no more than some airport guide you bought on Ebay. Under other countries’ legal systems (e.g. the UK’s), an AIP permission (or even an ambiguity) makes a prosecution impossible, assuming you get a competent defence lawyer, but a “prohibition” may be bogus if a law permits it.

This is also an interesting thread.

I think we can all accept that there are rules and then there are laws and then there is the constitution.
All clubs, associations etc will have rules to which the members have agreed to abide.
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. 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.
EASA itself basically accepted ICAO with some differences most suitable to Europe on behalf of the countries that make up the EASA membership instead of each country indicating its own differences directly to ICAO. What is the point in 30 countries each presenting the same difference to ICAO.
ICAO, for the most part is, however, not even a set of rules because in drawing up the Convention of Chicago agreement could not be reached on certain rules and so they became a set of annexes which contain a set of norms and recommended practices.
Some of these, however, were thought by some countries to be worthy of putting into law in their own domain which they did.
With the advent of EASA some of these were put before the EU and became EU law.
When countries signed up to the EU they signed up to EU laws unless they agreed some differences either temporary or permanent. They could not be outside of any treaty agreement but the treaties accepted that no country should be expected to change its constitution in order to comply with EU law. In other words there would always be a fudge.
Each ICAO country is expected to produce information on a regularly updated basis about the rules and laws appertaining to aviation in a format which can be shared on a reciprocal basis with operators in other countries. Where it is an EU law on which the rule is based that law should be identified, where a difference to a rule has been submitted that should be identified and on what that difference is based eg constitutional grounds or a National Law which it has not been repealed in favour of the EU law.
It is an ICAO norm accepted by EASA that this information should be in the form of an AIP. To maintain accuracy on the AIP should be updated (now I may have this wrong, every 28 days with a 42 day advance warning) Any information that is shorter term will go into an AIRAC published every 28 days and any more immediate information which time or other reasons will not allow it to fit into the timescale should be published in the form of a Notam.
So as Snoopy days the AIP is not a legal document but is a document containing national rules and where there is a law, where to look to read that law.
What I have written is an amalgamation of various aviation law text books and articles written by various aviation lawyers. So it is my understanding and may not be the way others would read the same information. All can be found on Google except the air law text books which were the ones used for my first IR theory exam and the ones used when I did the CBIR theory exam after some years gap in flying.
My take on it as a pilot is to follow the AIP, AIRAC, Notams and Sup Notams and let others worry about whether they are legally binding or not.

cpt_om_sky wrote:

understanding/learning to better prevent such accidents should and must be our goal.

So true!

the AIP is not a legal document but is a document containing national rules and where there is a law, where to look to read that law.

That’s not correct for everywhere.

This is going around in circles. Everyone is talking about their own country like it was all of Europe. It isn’t. Europe is a bunch of very different countries, very different cultures, very different legal systems which came from different origins. About the only thing most European countries have in common is that they are topologically adjacent

If one is going to debate “legally binding” then one must consider whether something in it is usable for a defence in a criminal prosecution (all aviation regs are criminal law).

In some countries, the AIP content will be usable – because (to repeat myself) (a) it is an official publication (b) it is customarily used to obtain a briefing AND pilots are trained in State sponsored schools (which pay a hefty fee to the CAA – the prosecuting agency!!! – for their license to train!) to brief from the AIP (c) it constitutes adequate due diligence.

In others, with different legal systems, it won’t be, because their legal system does not provide for [some of] these defences. Pilots in those countries have a bit of a problem, because where are they supposed to brief from? A mistake in the AIP is unlikely to cause you to crash, but an error in the customs/immigration info could land you in hot water, as already discussed, and that’s before you get outright bogus info like LGKC (discussed e.g. here) which has been there for many years and nobody cares.

all aviation regs are criminal law

Really? I doubt that. Wish I had more time to read up on this. Entering controlled airspace without clearance in Austria, for instance, is most provably breaking „only“ „administrative law“.