They have always said 2hrs and enforced it.
However, the LOWZ AIP, which points to GEN 1.2
says 1 hour. That 2008 doc came straight from the AIS website.
I am doing a trip writeup and it would be great to have the current info.
I passed 2 days customs/immigration in Stockerau coming from Switzerland on my way to Ukraine. I had to hand over the form 1 hour before departure.
According to the Zell am See website of and after a google translate:
For flights from / to the “customs territory of the Community” and other areas in which the VAT and excise provisions of the Community do not apply, a border crossing-registration is required.
For flights from / to the “Schengen area” a border crossing Reporting to the police is required.
(If necessary, a message to both authorities required)
Please print, fill out and min. 2 hours before departure or before landing
fax to airport operations. Fax no. +43 6542 56041-41.
There doesn’t appear to be any legal basis for the 2hr requirement.
Also surely most pilots today cannot fax 
Do I read that correctly that they require the police notice even for intra-Schengen traffic?
Peter wrote:
There doesn’t appear to be any legal basis for the 2hr requirement.
Eh why not? If the airport owner wants you to wear pink underwear when you land there, you have the option to either comply or not land there.
Most likely the customs office wants to be notified 1h in advance, and the airport operator wants another 1h to try to get the fax machine working 8-)
I have emailed LOWZ with
and they replied with
ours is correct
As far as I am concerned, AIP/NOTAM are the reference. If the airport operator want to change the 1 hr to 2 hrs, they need to publish it by NOTAM pending correction in the AIP.
The tone of the reply is, ahem, “interesting”… I guess they have a captive market.
It would be interesting to hear of someone challenging this by filing say 1.5 hrs ahead and then using Aviathor’s position if the operator objects. I agree with him, but the conservative (and constructive) approach would be to honour the operator’s 2hr request and then discuss on arrival by citing the the AIP/NOTAM as the official reference.
That’s what I did with my very polite email (see the extract) and the reply is not exactly expansive…
It’s also interesting how the opinion of that reply varies according to the nationality of the person I show it to 
There is a bit of “lost in translation” going on here. Let me translate your very polite (British style) e-mail into a more direct language:
British: “Could you please tell me which is correct? [the AIP or you?]”
Direct: “Clearly, you are wrong. Admit it.”
Expected answer: “Truly sorry, of course the AIP is correct, thank you very much for pointing this out, we will change our website”
Unfortunately, they understood “Could you please tell me which you think is correct?”
and answered accordingly. “We are. Duh!”
BTW, for the conoisseur of subtelty, “Could you please tell me which you think is correct?” in British style would best be translated with “You are completely wrong, you idiot!”, and if the emphasis is put on “you think”, it actually means “You are completely, utterly wrong, you***** idiot.”
A useful guide is here
