No, Hazek, this thread will end when it ends, not when you decide it ends.
I do not think thag is an acceptable summary.
The German AIP references the Eurocontrol RAD – where national authorities are supposed to ensure full synchronicity with national rules and restrictions. And it also contains sections which I understand to cover free airspace routing as well as temporary restrictions.
If a filed flight plan is validated by the Eurocontrol system despite being in conflict with actual national restrictions, then it does matter whether
A) the Eurocontrol system has failed or
B) the national authority has not provided the required input?
The latter appeared to be the case in Germany.
A fatalistic acceptance of a structural/regular state failure is not accetable for me. If the AIP references a source, checking that source needs to suffice.
Edit: my response is to Hazek, not to Peter (just took to long to type ;-) )
Those are the rules, as @Emir quotes the German AIP is perfectly clear under 7.3.3 what the PICs responsibility is for routes filed.
It looks like we interpret this article differently. I believe that in this case DFS missed to act according to their obligations and missed to supply zone activation data which reliefs pilots from responsibility of mistake filing plans across restricted zone.
That’s interesting.
“7.3.3 For IFR flights within Germany, the pilot shall pay particular attention to the contents of AIP ENR 3 (including the relevant published NOTAM) when planning routes.”
How do you interpret this part? To me it says they hold the PIC responsible for paying attention to route restrictions in the ENR section as well as NOTAMs.
“No flight plans shall be filed via the airspace of Germany deviating from the State restrictions defined within the Route Availability Document (RAD). This common European reference document contains all airspace utilisation rules and availability for Germany and any reference to them shall be made via:
http://www.nm.eurocontrol.int/RAD/index.html”
And then it further mandates that only Eurocontrol approved routes are allowed.
I’m genuinely curious how a different interpretation is possible here. Btw I also think this is bullshit but it does appear those are the rules.
hazek wrote:
“7.3.3 For IFR flights within Germany, the pilot shall pay particular attention to the contents of AIP ENR 3 (including the relevant published NOTAM) when planning routes.”How do you interpret this part? To me it says they hold the PIC responsible for paying attention to route restrictions in the ENR section as well as NOTAMs.
That’s it, nothing special there; ENR 3 describes ATS routes and the flight planning tools propose solutions according to it. However, RAD clearly states what is state’s responsibility. Directs are also available in German airspace under certain conditions e.g. connecting route with the airports where SID and/or STAR don’t exist.
http://www.nm.eurocontrol.int/RAD/index.html
And then it further mandates that only Eurocontrol approved routes are allowed.
Yes, but Eurocontrol approved routes are developed based on AIP data and RAD which AFAIU means that if the state misses to fulfil RAD defined obligations, Eurocontrol can operate only with data that they have available at the moment of plan validation. Supplying NOTAM data to Eurocontrol is also state’s (in this case DFS’s) obligation.
hazek wrote:
And then it further mandates that only Eurocontrol approved routes are allowed.
I’m genuinely curious how a different interpretation is possible here.
Exactly. And how do you file a route which is not Eurocontrol approved!? You can’t, so this part of AIP-Germany is completely pointless.
But that’s not the debatable point, but rather if you need separate permission to cross R-areas on a route for which you have a clearance. Here, I would agree with Emir that AIP-Germany is quite clear: “Even if a restricted area is activated, the competent ATC unit may still instruct or clear IFR and VFR flights to penetrate it…”
Some AIPs are even more explicit, e.g. AIP-Sweden: “When a clearance has been obtained penetrating a restricted area within controlled airspace, special permission to cross this area is not required.”
You may not like it but, well… such is life. 
Well I certainly never argued an additional clearance is needed, just that a clearance is needed such that its limit includes that R zone. If you’re cleared to destination you are cleared to destination.
But the issue here is what was filed not what was flown.
Moreover, in particular OP’s case one restricted zone (R-97B) is actually on the approved ATS route P605.
@Emir doesn’t ENR 3 also describe route restrictions? Also when you file DCT you’re not any published routes? And 7.3.3 does also mention PICs responsibility in terms of NOTAMs, you didn’t address that part. Sure the state is supposed to send that same data to Eurocontrol but 7.3.3 also says the PIC is also responsible to pay attention to them.
I’m not defending these rules, I’m just interpreting them. Please address the entire first part:
“the pilot shall pay particular attention to the contents of AIP ENR 3 (including the relevant published NOTAM) when planning routes”
What does this mean?
hazek wrote:
“the pilot shall pay particular attention to the contents of AIP ENR 3 (including the relevant published NOTAM) when planning routes”
Gentleman here is right, and the authorities were right, planning a flight right through active zones is a blatant example of total disregard for the law!
