Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Action against a pilot for a breach of Schengen

WhiskeyPapa wrote:

But the law actually protects pilots.

Well not in your case. You got fined which you shouldnt have. And if there was anything like a living AOPA here in Europe things would be different for GA.

WhiskeyPapa wrote:

In this case the ”punishment” was a misnamed technicality.

A fine is a fine which indicates you are guilty of breaking the law or a regulation. We read accident reports to gain knowledge. The same goes for this forum, to share ideas and experiences in order to learn. For example, take Greece, here is a country that is both in Schengen and the EU so by all rights you should not need to fly to an airport of Entry to go through Imm. and Customs. If I had not been a member of Euro GA ,I might not have gotten the word that flying there from Hungary is a big no no if you dont use an AOE. As it is right now I wouldnt go there in any case because of FRAPORT.

KHTO, LHTL

A pilot in command should never give a sh1t “what people think.” I have two priorities: 1) my passengers; 2) my skin. In that order. If worries about ATC’s (or an airport manager’s) views affect a pilot’s decision making, then he should not be PIC. Period.

@C210_flyer
In theory, I agree with you. There should not be fines in such cases. In my case, in an ideal world, they should have called it something else for the same amount of money. But this is irrelevant to the priorities that should guide the decision making of a PIC. A PIC has a sacred obligation to his passengers and secondly to himself. The consequences are irrelevant.

But the law actually protects pilots. So what are we complaining about?

In this case the ”punishment” was a misnamed technicality. I refuse to get worked up over it. Basically, I think we agree. The difference is that I let things slide when I think the intent is positive.

Last Edited by WhiskeyPapa at 27 May 21:10
Tököl LHTL

Im reticent in mentioning my own detention when landing at Belize International when told I could not since I had no landing permit according to them. Long story short I was directed to an out of the way tarmc where I was met with Police and Army security forces. With a machine gun. Everyone very surprised when I showed them a copy of Landing Permit authorized by the Head of Civil Aviation. It only took 2 hrs to clear that up with the head of that agency appearing on the Tarmac to greet me with apologies.

What I find is that these Airport managers regard their piece of real estate as their private fiefdom. What should and must not happen is that information goes out that will cause someone to make a fatal decision with some obtuse airport manager in mind.

There is a reason that there is an International treaty that regards special treatment of aircraft that declare an emergency. They are not to be charged fees. Not sure how extensive that is but I dont think even handling fees are allowed to be charged. However that is a guess which someone might chime in with some facts.

There should never have been a fine for what occurred in your case. If it were a fee to call out customs that is another matter. However it should never have been a fine. Please dont confuse how much as opposed to what for. It is a terrible precedent for future flights involved in a similar situation.

KHTO, LHTL

No. They just fined me. Over time they became nicer, as described above. My sense was the airport manager had a perception of the situation that fell apart on review of tapes. He was very angry when I landed, but softened as the facts became clear. I had the strong sense that my problems with the police were driven in part because of his views (but this is a sense I have, not a certainty). I understood why he had his views. In his shoes, I might have felt the same. Life is strange; sometimes you draw a conclusion that appears utterly self evident. But if you are empirical (and the evidence is there) it can turn out you are wrong. I never judge people for making snap judgments (often they are correct, but not always). I do judge people for refusing to reconsider a view once new evidence arrives. In this case, new evidence was reviewed and people acknowledged it (implicitly). End of story. I have no complaints.

Last Edited by WhiskeyPapa at 27 May 19:41
Tököl LHTL

C210_Flyer wrote:

Arrested, means no matter what country you come from, even if not cuffed, you have to be told you are under arrest for such and such.

Ok so your were officially arrested. Then what happened? Did they take you before a Magistrate?

KHTO, LHTL

I was arrested and told so. I walked toward the tower at one moment was was told they would put me in cuffs if I continued and that I should indeed be in cuffs, but that they were being nice. They wanted me to stay at the plane.

Tököl LHTL

I read the original post about how he was arrested. Come on, arrested? Would you claim to have been arrested, if a cop stopped you for speeding and then gave you a summons? You would certainly be considered to be detained (temporally) but arrested? Arrested, means no matter what country you come from, even if not cuffed, you have to be told you are under arrest for such and such. Afterwards taken to a holding facility or brought before a judge and charged.

What most here in Europe fail to see is the precedent that is being set. ITS NOT ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY. It could be 2 ct today and forfeiture of your plane tomorrow or even prison if they so chose. The fact is there are laws and treaties on the books and if people or countries decide not to follow the law then they in fact are breaking the law.

So are we dealing with semantics again? Was it a fine or a Customs and Immigration fee? The amount of money is inconsequential to the question at hand.

KHTO, LHTL

Peter wrote:

The departure airport gets an ARR message from the airport where you actually landed, so in the above example Austria will discover what you did. But is this always the case?

I believe the original destination airport gets the ARR message as its ATS unit is responsible for initiating overdue action.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 23 May 13:23
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

people filing IFR to a customs airfield, then cancelling IFR in the latter stages of the approach and breaking off to a VFR airfield close-by. There seem to be very few checks when this happens.

Quite a lot of people, over many years, have filed for a customs airport and then diverted (without cancelling IFR or anything special) to one in a different country. I would make several observations:

  • the practical aspect is that obviously “they” can’t get you physically – because you aren’t there (but could get you next time you enter the relevant country, and under ICAO have the right to request your CAA to pursue you on their behalf)
  • a diversion is normally for a genuine reason (wx, aircraft issue, passenger or crew distress) and the pilot is not responsible for making phone calls post-landing to notify [whoever?] to explain his reasons
  • if you make it even more complicated, discovery is even less likely (e.g. departing a non-customs airport in Austria, crossing Germany, filing for Caen (France) but diverting to Exeter)
  • if IFR, Eurocontrol tracking stops at the moment the diversion is announced (yes this is really true) so in the above case would stop around Caen
  • if you departed from an airport which is customs PNR but didn’t give the PN because you filed for Caen (inter-Schengen), that makes discovery even less likely (and no ATC unit en route will be able to assume you didn’t clear customs, because they can’t know whether you gave the PNR)

So I wonder how the system actually works for detecting this kind of stuff.

It is most likely country dependent.

The departure airport gets an ARR message from the airport where you actually landed, so in the above example Austria will discover what you did. But is this always the case? And does anybody actually look at the ARR message, somebody who knows the rules? It’s a bit like homebuilts being checked for having got the permits… mostly they are not but reportedly this happens in Germany on the big homebuilt/UL fly-ins (but one can imagine Germany doing it) but any “plane spotter” will know by taking one look at a plane which has landed whether it would have needed a permit.

Also many small places are not on the AFTN so the ARR message will be addressed (per the AFTN addressing database) elsewhere e.g. if you depart from LDSB then the ARR will go to LDSP.

Fairly obviously if you keep doing this you will get picked up eventually. But providing you always land in accordance with the rules of the country where you landed, the detection procedure would need quite a lot of effort invested, checking flight plans, etc.

Also there are lots of non-customs (I obviously mean customs/immigration) airports where police do look at your passport on your way out, so you could claim you were passport checked.

Many years ago, when I started my PPL, I really pi$$ed off an instructor at the school (who claimed to be a part time lawyer too) by asking what stops somebody just flying to France, no flight plan? (the GAR form existed then but everybody ignored it until about 12 years ago, and you really could fly to any French airport with no PNR, or at least all Brits did). She could have just given me an answer, but didn’t…

The important point is that diversions draw attention because they are used for drug smuggling (the police are waiting for you at the wrong airport) but this is not an issue if you don’t divert at the country of arrival.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

EU member state.

Tököl LHTL
30 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top