Boscomantico, you may be right about Spain (maybe?) but in Portugal you need a flight plan for every flight (except circuits).
I’ve no idea about Portugal, but certainly Spain only require it for flights entering controlled airspace.
And Portugal too. While it’s been a few years that I flew in Portugal, the AIP (ENR 1.1) still says:
Submission and addressing of VFR flight plans within Lisboa FIR
All aircraft intending to fly in accordance with VFR rules within Lisboa FIR controlled airspace shall submit a flight plan.
in light GA terms, Germany, Switzerland, France and UK are “most” of Europe.
Probably best to let the pilots who live outside that region draw their own conclusions on that statement!
I’ve no idea about Portugal, but certainly Spain only require it for flights entering controlled airspace.
Don’t known about post-SERA, but before that correct. In Spain, realistically it was/is for every flight, as most of the country is CAS one way or another. That said, I just cannot see the issue here. A FP is a non-event.
A FP is a non-event
a) Information relative to an intended flight or portion of a flight, to be provided to air traffic services units, shall be in
the form of a flight plan. The term ‘flight plan’ is used to mean variously, full information on all items comprised in
the flight plan description, covering the whole route of a flight, or limited information required, inter alia, when the
purpose is to obtain a clearance for a minor portion of a flight such as to cross an airway, to take off from, or to land
at a controlled aerodrome.
The Italian AIP say “flight plan” not “full flight plan”, so in my opinion it is perfectly inside of SERA regulations, although the non-airborne requirement for filing must be a nuisance. Sunset +30 and sunrise -30 is maybe a couple of minutes different from the 6 degree rule? We have always had the 6 degree rule.
What is more strange is that SERA does not specify anything about opening or activating a flight plan. There are regulations for filing, for content and for closing, but none for activating. The Norwegian regulation has added a description for how to activate a flight plan when you take off from an airport with no ATC.
The now current Italian egulation makes it very clear that they want a full flightplan filed before flight if any controlled airspace is used. But again, AOPA is working on it and the drafts for the new version of the RAIT is out already. Updates shortly.
ECET is, on average, SS+40, so the difference to SS+30 and ECET is not a huge, but neither totally insignificant. BTW, the Netherlands so far even operated on SS+15! Will be interesting to see what they do…
Also, I have to correct myself: Italy has been operating on the ECET principle ever since, so no change there.
We should look at each of those deviations and check if SERA allows for them. If SERA does not allow a deviation, the local regulation in in conflict with SERA and as SERA is directly applicable law in all countries and stands above national law, the local gold plating is invalid. Then the local lobby groups can go to court and have the local rule removed.
Does SERA allow the UK to ignore the semicircular flight rules? Is Germany’s SR/SS deviation within the allowed differences?
Is Germany’s SR/SS deviation within the allowed differences?
I was asking myself the same thing. While SERA does (unfortunately) contain a lot of those “unless otherwise prescribed by the national aviation authorities” passages, I can’t remember seeing anything similar in the context of the day/night definition.
To be precise, it is still not totally certain that Germany will stick with SS+30, since we are still waiting for the final version of the new LuftVO.
But yes, Europe must keep a close eye on those NAAs which are overstepping the mark.
So in the end lots of magazine articles that have already been published about the new SERA are completely wrong, because of all these national exemptions…
And one might have hoped for things to become easier :)
