How bad can an instructor be? (a badly planned trip via the Balkans, and border crossing issues in Europe)

dvukovic wrote:

- I did not had to go trough NOTAM’s, restricted areas etc. someone else did that for me if my plan got approved
- If weather en route is less than perfect and I wasn’t aware of that ATC would let me know and offer suggestions
- I don’t have to worry about traffic at all, just concentrate of the flight itself and ATC will let me know if there is anything to look out for

As I have never flown in SE Europe apart from Slovenia and Croatia, I cannot comment on Serbia specifically.
But in most parts of Europe a VFR Flight Plan does nothing of that, and it is a serious misconception if one thinks so. In fact, very often VFR flight plans by design never reach an actual ATC facility, never mind that they check it against any restrictions en route or at your destination.

Silvaire wrote:

That appears to be your main issue, yes, but Its one you’ve introduced into a largely unrelated discussion

What exactly do you mean Silvaire? That you know better than everybody else in Europe how Europe should be, how Europe should evolve, what we as European should tolerate etc etc? Based on what? The only thing you are basing your “philosophy” on is that everything works smooth when everything is one culture, one law, one language and with big walls around. We already know that. The Chinese and the Romans discovered that a couple of thousand years ago, and several states have tried to copy it through history.

Homebodies, cool term . Maybe I am a homebody, I don’t know. But during the last year alone I have been to three continents, North America included. I have lectured courses in Zambia, been all over Europe. I sure also like to travel

I grew up during the cold war. When I was 19-20, one small part of my job (in the air force) was to arm the missiles of F-16s before they could fly and scare off Soviet nuclear bombers, along with general maintenance of those planes. Since 1989-90 there has been about 25 years of calm and peace. Only 5-10 years ago everybody thought Russia was on a better path, and the only danger was “terrorism” and “cyber attacks” in one form or another. Everybody was wrong. Today Russia is more hostile and military active than ever, and Russians in general think highly of their strong leader, Mr Putin. A man who has single handed changed an emerging democracy more and more towards pure nationalistic despotism with himself at the top. He has already invaded other states (Ukraine) This is how fragile things really are.

The difference between now and then (during the cold war), is that it’s no problem for me today to visit Russia. Also, Russians come to Norway to work, particularly in the northern parts. Russia is definitely no longer a Soviet state. I don’t know what it exactly is anymore, or what it’s becoming, but when it looks like a duck etc… Then we have the Balkans, Greece, Turkey.

My point is that s that what you call “practical issues” really are the evidence of deeply rooted suspicions, as well as resent and ongoing disputes, if not downright war. Europe has always been a can of worms. There has never been a time where it was peace everywhere. Since the end of the cold war we have had 1-2 decades of relative peace, but only if you disregard Balkans. It’s more correct to say we have had 1-2 decades of optimism. Today that optimism is also under a bit of tension.

dvukovic wrote:

Now, we come to the point of safety. Once I file a flight plan and get talking with ATC:
- I did not had to go trough NOTAM’s, restricted areas etc. someone else did that for me if my plan got approved
- If weather en route is less than perfect and I wasn’t aware of that ATC would let me know and offer suggestions
- I don’t have to worry about traffic at all, just concentrate of the flight itself and ATC will let me know if there is anything to look out for
- In case that something bad does happen, rescue will have a general idea where to look for you (eg. not ending up like Steve Fossett)

If you ask me that is a pretty good deal in exchange for a short phone call 30 mins prior to flight.

Take out NOTAM and weather and it looks just like home But I think maybe I understand what you mean. Lots of military air spaces are on and off rather randomly, they call it “real-time” or something. The same goes for air sport air spaces partly in controlled air space. In those circumstances there are no way of knowing if they are “on” other than being in contact with ATC. NOTAM is not “real-time” enough. A flight plan may clear this out? but I have never thought in those directions.

With weather, ATC will help you out, FP or not. The same goes for traffic, but they will only tell you about traffic they know. There could be lots of unknown (to them) traffic. If everybody has to file a FP, then no problem of course.

Peter wrote:

Let’s not forget the topic here is IFR.

It is in relation to the original article and in relation to the subsequent discussion, given that IFR is one workaround to airspace issues and the lack of international acceptance of free GA movements. Obviously weather tolerance is also a benefit of IFR (and the intended reason for its existence) but I think what would generate more interest in GA in the Schengen zone at least (and as I realize I’ve said about 10 times, and that the less obtuse have doubtless understood ) would be extending the same freedoms granted to ground travel to light GA travel. No drive plans, nothing but a sign as you cross the border. One might say that ground travel is different because road traffic can be monitored easily, and that leads me to ask (I don’t know the answer) whether it’s legal to cross overland on foot between Schengen countries… purely to understand there is any rationale other than fear for limiting GA.

Where I’m going with this, if it isn’t obvious, is that I think that if ultimately ultralights could cross European national borders with no flight plans and no radio contact, there would be a big increase in the activity and numbers of aircraft (because it would be FUN) and that would bring the associated economic benefits that government likes. I think the first step towards that is to remove those issues for certified GA under VFR, national fear and suspicion notwithstanding.

LeSving wrote:

The only thing you are basing your “philosophy” on is that everything works smooth when everything is one culture, one law, one language and with big walls around

Obviously that’s a red herring – I have no such philosophy. I’m not sure anywhere is currently like that except arguably China, which is the exact opposite of a GA friendly environment.

Silvaire wrote:

Obviously that’s a red herring

Whatever. Your only point then is you think GA should be simpler because simpler is better. Couldn’t agree more. But, then we are taking a hike away from the reality in Europe, and that really is the main issue with that professor. He is acting in ignorance with reality. There is no excuse for that, it’s just ignorant and stupid.

Those reactionary Norwegians, they’re all the same It appears to me they may drink excessively too.

Silvaire wrote:

ultralights could cross European national borders with no flight plans and no radio contact,

one thing i have never understood is why anybody would want to fly without radio.. At least where I live 100% of GA and gliders use radio even in G class.. the visual spotting is usually hard enough even when you know where to look.

Microlight flying in Europe can be found here

[ local copy ]

Silvaire wrote:

[…]  but I think what would generate more interest in GA in the Schengen zone at least (and as I realize I’ve said about 10 times, and that the less obtuse have doubtless understood  ) would be extending the same freedoms granted to ground travel to light GA travel. No drive plans, nothing but a sign as you cross the border. One might say that ground travel is different because road traffic can be monitored easily, and that leads me to ask (I don’t know the answer) whether it’s legal to cross overland on foot between Schengen countries… purely to understand there is any rationale other than fear for limiting GA.

I’m sorry guys but I 100% agree with Silvaire on this. Inside the common travel area of Schengen there are no customs or immigration issues for travellers on foot, by car or even by CAT. Why should GA be an exception? The answer cannot be “smuggling” or “illegal immigration” or “terrorism” because all of these don’t really need GA as amply demonstrated in the past few years.

As Europe grows together, which will happen faster now that the UK as a permanent stumbling block to further integration is on its way out, there is also no question that there needs to be a common European airspace structure. Once the European Army is established there will be no further "national security " excuses preventing this.