Back to the hapless Swiss pilot for a moment. Would it not make more sense to crowdfund a legal challenge ?
I am not sure there is a sufficiently solid basis for that. I assume AOPA have evaluated this and came to the conclusion that they would losing all the donors’ money.
One has to read the verdict from the first trial (which however is unfortunately not available in English) to get an insight into the case.
What WOULD be interesting to find out is whether EDFW was on the list of “Besondere Landeplätze” in years immediately preceeding the flight. I can’t find the old versions of this link:
https://www.zoll.de/DE/Fachthemen/Zoelle/Erfassung-Warenverkehr/Befoerderungspflicht/Zollstrassenzwang/liste_andere_verkehrsrechtlich_zugelassene_flugplaetze.html?nn=22492
and trawling through old versions of the Bundesanzeiger doesn’t seem trivial.
boscomantico wrote:
One has to read the verdict from the first trial (which however is unfortunately not available in English) to get an insight into the case.
Do you have the link to that one, too? Only the appeal was posted here.
boscomantico wrote:
What WOULD be interesting to find out is whether EDFW was on the list of “Besondere Landeplätze” in years immediately preceeding the flight. (…) and trawling through old versions of the Bundesanzeiger doesn’t seem trivial.
It seems to me it wasn’t, at least since March 2013.
But again, the difference between “besondere Landeplatz” and “we have arrangements to make a Einzelbefreiung with 24h notice” is not explained in the AIP. It says customs available, 24h PPR for non-Schengen arrivals, I’d have made the same error as that Swiss pilot, and worse. I would have understood “no PPR necessary for Schengen arrivals”.
The fact that the rules are obscure is not, in itself, a big problem.
That the consequences are utterly out of proportion is!
After all, I made the same mistake related to immigration into Germany a few years ago, and landed at a non-immigration field because the airfield told me it was fine, and it wasn’t. The result was an exchange of letters and a warning not to do it again, not even a fine, and even IF a fine had been levied it would have been a few hundred Euros, with an absolute cap of 2,500. THAT was annoying, but appropriate.
It is completely unjust that small mistakes lead to tens of thousands of cost, and this is what should be challenged.
As I wrote earlier, in the UK, customs eventually lost the right to apply the letter of the rules when it is clearly unjust.
So I agree this should be challenged to the largest extent possible.
boscomantico wrote:
No. That is not possible, because Egypt is not in the EU (last time I checked)
Right, but nothing in that note mentions the EU, just Schengen/Non Schengen. So how are they offering Non Schengen (which Egypt, but also places like Serbia would be) with PPR24 hours if they only can accept EU Non Schengen traffic? Again, the whole thing is totally half baked.
By coincience I learnt of another nice thing German customs are up to recently but which is unrelated to aviation, yet it shows their attitude. People in the border regions of Switzerland go shopping a lot in Southern Germany, actually sustaining most of the economy in certain places. One part of that game is getting your VAT back by presenting the cash receipt at the border for stamping and then sending it back to the shop for refund. Part of that deal is, the whole merchandise needs to be presented for inspection if necessary.
Recently we went shopping there and on the way out, I saw a kid eat a muffin being part of someone else’s shopping. That family got informed by attentive staff that they run the risk of loosing their VAT refund if not ALL the merchandise was there for inspection and that recently, a family had been fined € 900.- because one of their kids had actually consumed one kids fruit drink worth 45 cents out of their shopping worth maybe €100 before crossing the border and the agent had spotted the empty package! The shop today resolved the situation by supplying the family with another unopened pack of muffins for free. Seeing the kind of families who go out there for groceries regularly, that was a fine which hurt them badly.
Again, yes it is the law but it show the attitude of those people towards customers who sustain a whole region with their shopping. If this broke on some Swiss news channels, then quite a few people would be scared off, directly damaging their own economy… it appears they could not care less.
lionel wrote:
But again, the difference between “besondere Landeplatz” and “we have arrangements to make a Einzelbefreiung with 24h notice” is not explained in the AIP.All airfields, for which you need an “Einzelbefreiung”, don’t have any arrangements with customs. In fact, you can apply for an “Einzelbefreiung” on ALL airfields in Germany. Please note that every “Einzelbefreiung” is a paid service from the German customs. As described a few pages back , this “service” costs around 50-90 euros, depending on how far the customs need to drive to the airfield.
After all, I made the same mistake related to immigration into Germany a few years ago, and landed at a non-immigration field because the airfield told me it was fine, and it wasn’t. The result was an exchange of letters and a warning not to do it again, not even a fine, and even IF a fine had been levied it would have been a few hundred Euros, with an absolute cap of 2,500. THAT was annoying, but appropriate.This example shows perfectly the difference between how serious you should take Customs over Immigration in Western Europe. If you make a mistake on Immigration laws, you may expect appropriate legal proceedings. However, if you make a mistake on customs laws, the consequences can be enormous.
Does this “Einzelbefreiung” cover Immigration and Customs?
No, the Einzelbefreiung, just like this entore thread, refers to Customs only.
But yes, of course, there is an equivalent to that for immigration, which is called a Grenzerlaubnis.
Right, but nothing in that note mentions the EU, just Schengen/Non Schengen. So how are they offering Non Schengen (which Egypt, but also places like Serbia would be) with PPR24 hours if they only can accept EU Non Schengen traffic? Again, the whole thing is totally half baked.
You just have that wrong.
An AIP will only ever mention what services they offer, not what they don‘t offer. Always. So, if, under the CUST section, and airfield speaks only about the requirements for Non-Schengen flights, that MEANS that there are no provisions for non-EU flights!
Right, but nothing in that note mentions the EU, just Schengen/Non Schengen.
Exactly.
So how are they offering Non Schengen (which Egypt, but also places like Serbia would be)
Totally not. Egypt, or Serbia are not Non-Schengen. They are non Schengen AND NON-EU.
with PPR24 hours if they only can accept EU Non Schengen traffic?
They are offering non-Schengen because they can. They ARE a Grenzübergangsstelle. Not offering that, just because they can‘t offer non-EU, would be stupid. In other words, EDFW can be used for flights to and from the UK, Ireland, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.
The price for having these concessions is regulatory complexity. Either make it simple, and throw it all away, or offer whatever can be offered under the conditions there are, even if they are complicated. It‘s a bit similar to the discussion about the Zürich airspace structure. There are always arguments both for and against complication vs. simplification.
Do you have the link to that one, too? Only the appeal was posted here.
I was referring to the appeal.
It seems to me it wasn’t, at least since March 2013.
That would weaken the position of the pilot even more. In the appeal, he said that he remembered from previous years that at EDFW, customs clearance WAS possible. Not likely then…
