Right. Thanks boscomantico.
See, PP? France does comply with SERA 
What boscomantico quoted is for night VFR. It’s from SERA.5005(c)(5). The rule for VFR as such is in SERA.5005(f):
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown:
(1) over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons at a height less than 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 600 m from the aircraft;
(2) elsewhere than as specified in (1), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water, or 150 m (500 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 m (500 ft) from the aircraft.
My bad. Indeed, the day VFR rule actually does not seem to give any leeway to the national CAAs.
In that light, it is hard to see how France can argue for their specific VFR minimum height rules…
boscomantico wrote:
Indeed, the day VFR rule actually does not seem to give any leeway to the national CAAs.
Well, they can lower it. I would expect that stating a lower limit in AIP would count as giving permission.
boscomantico wrote:
My bad. Indeed, the day VFR rule actually does not seem to give any leeway to the national CAAs.In that light, it is hard to see how France can argue for their specific VFR minimum height rules…
OK. But the French minimum height rules do comply with SERA because according to the guidance material, stricter minimum heights can be required by the competent authority
GM1 SERA.3105 Minimum heights
MINIMUM HEIGHTS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY ABOVE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM HEIGHTS
In cases where it is considered that the minimum heights specified in SERA.5005 and SERA.5015 are not sufficient, the competent authority may establish appropriate structures, such as controlled, restricted or prohibited airspace, and define specific conditions through national arrangements. In all cases, the related Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) and charts should be made easy to comprehend for airspace users.
That said, I think it is unnecessarily obscure to hide such things in the GM…
Aviathor wrote:
OK. But the French minimum height rules do comply with SERA because according to the guidance material, stricter minimum heights can be required by the competent authority
No, they can’t! What the guidance material says is that if the competent authority requires a higher minimum height, that can be implemented by “appropriate structures” such as restricted airspace. A blanket rule requiring higher minimum VFR heights are not possible according to SERA. E.g. Sweden has such restricted airspace in some national parks where the restriction is that the minimum height is 1000 feet and flight closer than 5 km to ridges and mountain tops is prohibited.
I do not think you can interpret the GM in such a restrictive manner, Airborne_Again.
I will not however take up the fight by breaking the French regulations and thereafter fight it in court all the way to Strasbourg. I know Marc-Olivier Mehu did state he would. Still waiting
Well, then you should tell the DGAC. They use the GM to justify their decision.
I think it is not totally unreasonable to interpret SERA 5005(f) as minimum requirements, especially when it is backed up by GM.
Anyone who wants to challenge this will be a hero in my eyes – FWIW…
