think it is not totally unreasonable to interpret SERA 5005(f) as minimum requirements,
I don’t. There is no word about that. If we treated all SERA rules like “minimum values” which CAA can regard as such, then good night.
especially when it is backed up by GM
I wouldn’t say so, but yes, it’s very poorly written, and as long ad this is the case, DGAC can hide behind that.
boscomantico wrote:
I wouldn’t say so, but yes, it’s very poorly written, and as long ad this is the case, DGAC can hide behind that.
I wouldn’t expect that cover to work even in a first round in a French court. DGAC might try to pull a fast one but judges know how this works. They can’t go against an EC Regulation. GM is not a law at the EU level and anything they do at national level is moot, it gets overridden.
However, I’m sure if you piss them off, they’ll find something else to bring more joy to your life. 
PS: One could try to bring this to attention of EASA. I don’t think they would be happy with DGAC. And I imagine GMs are simpler to amend.
Martin wrote:
One could try to bring this to attention of EASA.
They already know. They read this forum. But how important do you think that a few thousand VFR pilots is to them? As always it is a matter of priorities, cost/benefit.
It’s not that critical to do on its own, but I would expect them to correct it in the next “batch” (they do minor corrections, even in regulations). And frankly, I don’t really have a problem with that wording. It could be better, especially the part about national arrangements, but it seems clear enough to me. If I remove that insertion with examples, it reads as follows:
… the competent authority may establish appropriate structures and define specific conditions through national arrangements.
What structure did exactly DGAC establish? And that rule clearly mentions permissions (that is NAA can allow you to go lower than that), not prohibitions or restrictions. That’s why you have to use those “structures”.
Aviathor wrote:
I think it is not totally unreasonable to interpret SERA 5005(f) as minimum requirements, especially when it is backed up by GM.
It is unreasonable. SERA is very clear on where the national authorities may impose their own rules and 5005(f) is not one of those places. The GM just tells the authorities that if they want to impose higher minima, they can using other mechanisms.
So you guys are apparently contradicting yourselves. One one hand you say that GM is not law, and then you go on proposing a change to GM to clarify how one can deviate from SERA? I would get rid of any possibility of derogating from SERA 5005, and certainly not by anything in GM.
Addition: at least Martin is
Aviathor wrote:
GM1 SERA.3105 Minimum heights
Excuse my usual ignorance: what do GM and GM1 stand for?
Aviathor wrote:
One one hand you say that GM is not law, and then you go on proposing a change to GM to clarify how one can deviate from SERA?
Then you misunderstand us. GM just advises you how you can achieve what you want within that regulation. If someone has trouble understanding the hint given, then it could be amended so it’s more clear and helpful. GM can’t empower you to break a rule in a regulation, but it can help you navigate it.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
Excuse my usual ignorance: what do GM and GM1 stand for?
IIRC GM stands for Guidance Material. The number behind it is used to distinguish different GMs for the same “paragraph” (can’t think of a better term at the moment; in the example given it would be the “SERA.3105”). There could be multiple of them. Same goes for AMCs (Acceptable Means of Compliance).
As for instructing you how to deviate from SERA, the tools which are mentioned in the GM are not really suited for country-wide limit change. The way I see it, they don’t want you to be able to make a blanket change, but local changes are fine (because there could be places where it’s warranted). And those tools will work just fine locally. While you could theoretically use them to cover the entire country and IMHO go against the intent, I imagine it wouldn’t be worth it.
Anyway, these rules are from ICAO Annex 2. EASA added the 150 meters above the highest obstacle within 150 meter radius bit, but the rest is Annex 2 implementation. That is IIRC. Of course, under ICAO, you can do whatever you want with your airspace, you just have to file the differences. It doesn’t work that way with EASA if you’re EU MS.
Martin wrote:
As for instructing you how to deviate from SERA, the tools which are mentioned in the GM are not really suited for country-wide limit change. The way I see it, they don’t want you to be able to make a blanket change, but local changes are fine (because there could be places where it’s warranted). And those tools will work just fine locally. While you could theoretically use them to cover the entire country and IMHO go against the intent, I imagine it wouldn’t be worth it.
That’s exactly how I interpret the GM as well And it makes a lot of sense.
