You do know your SERA, don’t you?
SERA.4001 Submission of a flight plan
…
(b) A flight plan shall be submitted prior to operating:
…
(5) any flight across international borders, unless otherwise prescribed by the States concerned
Er, yes well… sort of. I mean, I know that bit at least. 
What is by no means clear is whether, for the purpose of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 (aka “SERA”), there is an “international border” between France and Italy. The Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship has put his signature to, and published, a document saying that there is no such border and that we can move around the Shengen area of the EU “without giving borders a second thought”.
Of course, the Commissioner may be bullshitting us, but I do know that many of our fellow European Citizens do value the concept of “a Europe without borders”. It is a concept which French courts, in particular, have applied to their judgements with enthusiasm, even in the context of aviation.
Silvaire wrote:
have difficulty understanding the proper function of government
You speak as if there were a particular proper function of government. It isn’t. It depends on your ideology which, as we know, generally differs quite a bit between the US and Europe.
Jacko wrote:
Of course, the Commissioner may be bullshitting us, but I do know that many of our fellow European Citizens do value the concept of “a Europe without borders”. It is a concept which French courts, in particular, have applied to their judgements with enthusiasm, even in the context of aviation.
Of course I agree with you. But unfortunately the rule is what it is. It would have made much more sense if it referred to the EU — or at least the Schengen — border rather than “internnational” borders.
I reckon there are quite a lot of aviation regs which are incompatible with international treaties (like schengen) but since GA is largely below the radar nobody has chucked the money at it to get it tested legally. Another example is local CAA regs which conflict with EU human rights legislation.
Why does this matter in this case?
There is no way anyone can argue that a filed flight plan could have in any way prevented the accident or even reduced the risk of it happening, so it can play no role whatsoever in finding the pilot negligent.
In a functioning justice system, that would be true.
Disregard for regulations which have zero bearing on the accident, would be brought into the sentencing, but not into the determination of guilty or not, AIUI.
But unfortunately the rule is what it is.
I don’t see anything wrong with the SERA.4001(b)(5) rule. The problem is the anti-Union way in which it has been interpreted by some officials in Europe who desperately fan the embers of nationalist sentiment and division.
The Commission decrees that we need to file a flight plan for flights which cross “international borders”. Fine, that’s petty, pointless bureaucracy, but clear enough.
The Commission also insists that there is no border between the EU Shengen states, or that we can disregard any such alleged border. That’s also perfectly clear. We are citizens of the Union. One people, one territory, one Commission – to coin a phrase.
It follows that the Commission does not require us to file a flight plan to fly VFR from Calais to Nurnberg, for instance.
This is Union law, binding in its entirety on the authorities of every Member State.
Cobalt wrote:
There is no way anyone can argue that a filed flight plan could have in any way prevented the accident or even reduced the risk of it happening, so it can play no role whatsoever in finding the pilot negligent.
I suppose in the view of the judge the fact alone that the pilot (and apparently others from his club regularly) felt no need to comply with the requirement for international flights shows that he was not really very interested in any other regulation either. If he then comes to the conclusion that in order to hide that threspass they also did not do the customary radio calls for mountain flying in order to hide the fact that they were there, it would show a mindset which warrants closer examination. In his view most probably the adding up of “crimes” came up to the manslaughter charge.
I also think it is a verdict designed to make it brutally clear to others who have done the same in the past that this kind of thing is being taken very seriously indeed. Seeing how this thing is now posted around forums, I don’t think anyone will fly into Italy without a FPL or simply think that all this is for other people but not for them.
Where did the commission ever say that there are no more borders?
It is simply not true! Europe is not a single state like the US but a community of independent states – and between them are borders. It‘s that simple!
Schengen, Tariff Union, etc. are all great tools that help to improve many pracitcal implications of such borders, but that doesn‘t imply there are none. Therefore there is no room for interpretation in 4001b5.
I didn’t know you could prosecute somebody for manslaughter based on their mindset. I’d better watch out what I think next time I’m in Italy, or the thought police might come after me with criminal charges. Do I have to watch out for what I think in the US too, to avoid being prosecuted in absentia like a French Club president with bad thoughts? 
Peter wrote:
Disregard for regulations which have zero bearing on the accident, would be brought into the sentencing, but not into the determination of guilty or not,
Which is why I suggested above that the appropriate response to this accident is a civil suit between the individuals involved plus a small symbolic fine by government for crossing the border without a flight plan. You really would hope the French and Italians would then do something reasonable like eliminate the flight plan requirement between their countries, particularly as it may have indirectly contributed to this accident. It’s entirely possible within even the existing regulation, but its appears to be beyond them. I think a sad lack of leadership is being demonstrated by several levels of government, on view for all concerned.
