Airborne_Again wrote:
IFR in class G is not one of them.
Who knows. The current situation in Germany is that NfL 1-293-14 (NfL = Nachrichten für Luftfahrer / Notices to Airmen) is still valid and explicitly forbids IFR flight in airspace G (the only uncontrolled airpace here) outside published procedures. The link is directly to our national aviation authority and in german language only: http://www.lba.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/NfLs/Flugbetrieb/Nfl_1-293-14.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2
A rough and dirty translation of that notice is that the LBA has invoked section 27 paragraph 1 of the Air Traffic Regulations on safety grounds to only permit IFR on official IFR procedures in class G airspace.
Presumably this is the exact equivalent of the UK and french “emergency safety differences” for VFR in Class D and flight-sharing websites respectively.
The LBA go on to clarify that RMZs have been introduced and surrounding class E airspace has been lowered to have a base of 1000ft for the protection of IFR arrivals and departures, and that (as before) IFR arrivals and departures are banned in deactivated control zones.
what_next wrote:
Who knows.Anyone who has read SERA knows.
The current situation in Germany is that NfL 1-293-14 (NfL = Nachrichten für Luftfahrer / Notices to Airmen) is still valid and explicitly forbids IFR flight in airspace G (the only uncontrolled airpace here) outside published procedures. The link is directly to our national aviation authority and in german language only: http://www.lba.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/NfLs/Flugbetrieb/Nfl_1-293-14.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2I know about that AIC. The point is that unless the German government has invoked the emergency clause in the Basic Regulation, it has exceeded its authority.
Here are examples of how the European Court of Justice has ruled that EU regulations “render automatically inapplicable any conflicting provision of current national law”.
Of course in practise, the point is moot since the national aviation authority that has decided on a conflicting rule is the same authority that enforces the rule. Very few people would bother to take the time and effort to bring a case to the European Court of Justice. That would take many years and in the meantime they would likely have had their license pulled.
Assuming EASA thinks it can push this, they could do the DGAC approach.
what_next wrote:
The current situation in Germany is that NfL 1-293-14 (NfL = Nachrichten für Luftfahrer / Notices to Airmen) is still valid and explicitly forbids IFR flight in airspace G (the only uncontrolled airpace here) outside published procedures.
Whilst 293-14 still appears on the LBA website, it does not appear in the list of current NFLs/AICs dated 1/6/2017 -
here
There’s also an interesting little snippet regarding RMZs surrounding some aerodromes.
Of course there is need for IFR in class G in Germany. And for IFR clearances in Class E below MRVA.
That need has been traditionaly been fulfilled by blatant lying by flight crew.
But where is the current (valid) documentation to say it is still banned in Germany? The referenced document no longer appears on LBA’s list of current notices.
Are we relying on historical and/or anecdotal information?
Cobalt wrote:
Of course there is need for IFR in class G in Germany. And for IFR clearances in Class E below MRVA.That need has been traditionaly been fulfilled by blatant lying by flight crew.
Ha, indeed.
Cobalt wrote:
blatant lying by flight crew
Dave and I sort of alluded to this earlier, and it is worthy of debate, maybe in a different thread.
The whole I/V thing is really a bit Ernest Gann, in my opinion.
We need a better way to distinguish our operations than whether we can see out or not.
As most VFR flight now involves moving maps with terrain awareness and magenta lines, and many people carry traffic systems which are almost as effective as radar, and weather technology which is better than ground radar, and so on, maybe we should be changing our rules to being according to what equipment we carry and are trained to use, rather than the question of whether our eyes, only one weapon in the armoury, can be used?
Anyone can start a new thread, and indeed often should 
