Aviathor,
Does France still have these non-standard mimimums even after the introduction of SERA?
Rwy20 wrote:
Isn’t “competent authority” EASA speak for the national NAAs? You find it everywhere in the regulations when they mean the CAA/LBA/DGAC etc.
Yes it is. ATC can not give permission to deviate from any regulation. A request for permission to go lower than the normal minimum altitude will involve a risk assessment which, obviously, ATC can not do on the spot.
P- and R-areas are different. Usually ATC is a designated authority for permissions according to the AIP – but not in all cases.
I agree I think it would be very surprising if ATC could over ride the legislation, unless there is specific provision for them to do so in the legislation. By analogy we hear of cases where a pilot will say to an instruction “unable” for example when asked to enter cloud but not instrument rated so despite ATC in one sense authorising the pilot to do so, the pilot realises that the legislation takes precedent and for that reason he cannot comply.
This came up in the old “London City transit” scenario. ATC give you a transit clearance (at weekends, anyway – I have not bothered with this shortcut since a particular flight in 2003) but it is illegal in a SE plane due to the glide clear rule (which it is not ATC’s job to police). It has been a well worn forum topic over the years.
dublinpilot wrote:
Does France still have these non-standard mimimums even after the introduction of SERA?
Unfortunately yes.
This is the legal foundation invoked by the DGAC:
GM1 SERA.3105 Minimum heights
MINIMUM HEIGHTS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY ABOVE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM HEIGHTS
In cases where it is considered that the minimum heights specified in SERA.5005 and
SERA.5015 are not sufficient, the competent authority may establish appropriate
structures, such as controlled, restricted or prohibited airspace, and define specific
conditions through national arrangements. In all cases, the related Aeronautical
Information Publication (AIP) and charts should be made easy to comprehend for
airspace users.
SERA itself does not give any access to making national exceptions, but the GM does open up for that possibility.
In Antwerp this happens all the time when RWY 29 is in use in the VFR landing circuit over the city of Antwerp. You don’t have the 1000 ft separation but still this is the circuit you have to follow. They tell you and expect you to follow the published altitude, although the ground clearance is less then 1000.
but the low flying rule is suspended for the purposes of making an approach or departure so a published procedure is fine.
Peter – yes I thought of that example as well, it is a good one. What happened in 2003 if you can say? I use to fly that route regularly, but it is fine in a twin as you say.
Maybe landing at Antwerpen on RWY 29 and flying the pattern there, you are considered in the approach to landing phase?
I agree that ATC has no authority to deviate from the law.
BTW the authority is defined in the AIP GEN 1.1 Designated Authorities… ATC is clearly not an authority
Regarding the Belgian examples cites:
-Regarding EBBR the AIP states: EBR01 – BRUSSELS CITY – Entry prohibited, unless instructed by ATC
-Regarding EBAW – obviously the pattern over Antwerp is covered by the “Except when necessary for take-off or landing” provision
