I haven’t read the entire thread, only the initial ones…. This guy didn’t call the correct number although it is quoted right there in the AIP… right ? He didn’t follow the correct procedures, right ? What I don’t quite support is the spin I’m getting, of this instance being a particular German thing.
It isn’t. Customs are a pain in the neck if you don’t follow correct procedures, everywhere. Ever dealt with US customs or some other EU countries’ customs authorities or imported something into these countries without proper customs procedure ? Ever done that ?
I haven’t read the entire thread, only the initial ones
You perhaps should 
Ultimately this debate comes down to what a reasonable person would regard as due diligence.
Ibra wrote:
For NAA licensed airports: isn’t that an aerodrome manual (EASA) requirement?
For strips, usually to show 28 days things or restrictions on planning permission?
Any idea which EASA legal text? I have searched Commission Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 in vain…
Edit: the nearest I can find is some twaddle in an AMC which is, as EASA says, “non-binding” and “not of a legislative nature”.
I’ve not logged movements at my airfield for the past ten years and I’m not about to start. As for planning consent, neither I nor the local authority could care less. We strive not to annoy our neighbours, although one did complain that he hadn’t seen or heard us fly for a few days. I think I made some lame excuse about weather and he let it drop.
We’re just a small airfield and we seldom have heavy aircraft here, the heaviest yet being about 24 tons.
Frans wrote:
I know, this is really mean and misleading, but I don’t see an real error in the delivered information.
We’re so close to agreement 
I think I wouldn’t have a problem if the AIP said “Non-EU” instead of “Non-Schengen”. I do agree with you, all the information is there, but you need experience to interpret it correctly. All of us on here have learned by this guys error.
" …I wonder why this doesn’t happen much more often?"
Maybe because…
1. Most people are very careful around customs issues and inform themselves extensively.
2. It only affects you when leaving EU customs zone which many EU pilots dont do often (or they fall under 1.)
3. If in doubt, you fly in via a permanently staffed customs airport (not a small airfield) and “without further formalities” you can move on
4. That applies to many places and circumstances and people who are affected by this usually make sure not to irritate these humor-free folks
In these matters you dont trust the purely verbal information of some guy at an airfield (low paid or volunteer) just because he answers the phone (and in immigration matters the obviously badly informed unlucky pilot did not trust the guy either)
And just to make sure: the guys answering the phone at the small airfield/airports are not ATC and no officer (as the badly written original pdf report suggests) and have very limited official role outside safety (even if they play ATC at times ;-) )
My view, a disproportionate and possibly unfair duty and tax effect for some negligence of an unfortunate pilot. But in foreign car cases (as Frans has mentioned) and boats you find similarly unfair “punishments” when violating tax rules.
Ultimately this debate comes down to what a reasonable person would regard as due diligence.
Wouldn‘t calling a number that‘s explicitly quoted be regarded as such ? What am I missing ?
I recommend reading the entire thread. Yet again:
Often, there is
Remember, this is not a German pilot flying from one German airport to another German airport. This is a non German pilot/aircraft flying into Germany from abroad. The ability to carry out the required enquiries can be very limited. Across Europe, airport “police” (immigration, customs, whatever) tend to regard an airport as somewhere where they go to sit and get paid for sitting there. The idea of serving “customers” and especially assisting “aircraft” (remember, the airport is not there for aircraft; it is there principally as a place of employment) is an alien concept. This principle is widely applied by nearly all airport staff except those who make direct €€€€ out of traffic (the handlers), so if you have this
and the airport knows Aircraft X is landing and is going to get busted for €25000 they will not walk the 5m and advise Customs. It’s not their job. And this is a real scenario; I have stood in such a corridor and was told exactly that.
The AIP fax numbers are now nearly all dead and “police” email addresses either bounce back or nobody reads them or they are lost in spam filters and if they receive them then almost never ack them. In aviation “police” (immigration/customs), not replying to emails is practically a cornerstone of life.
That is why many pilots rely on airport contacts for sorting this out. I have many many times got no joy out of the immigration numbers in the AIP and only the airport (in the bizjet world, you use only the handler for all this) was communicating. An affirmative there, and most people would fly there.
Within the EU this is not an issue. And of currently non-EU countries, only Switzerland has a significant number of pilots flying into Germany (the other non EU countries in Europe have almost no touring community). When the UK leaves the EU, that will become a 2nd potential area of problems, with the added factor that – unlike the Swiss – most Brits don’t speak German. And you cannot (yet) google translate phone calls… maybe next year? But as I said, half the time nobody answers anyway.
Yes, indeed, Switzerland and (later) the UK have the same issues all over the EU. But for some reason Swiss pilots are seen all over Europe. I don’t think they do some magic. And I don’t think they speak Portugese / Spanish / French / Italian / Croatian.
It sure this is getting loopy here, but…
Simply fly into the EU via a permanently staffed customs airport.
Plenty of those in most countries. Done. Safe.
Whats the problem with that solution?
Many countries have that as default.
Germany offers additional options for which you need extra due diligence. Not good, agreed. But can be avoided.
Coming back here… If the unfortunate guy in the trigger story knew CH is Schengen, why did he ask for the police to be called ? Why not ask for customs ?
And finally, did he actually ask for customs to be present explicitly ?
Peter wrote:
It’s not their job
And you actually think this is strange somehow? No? Yes? It is the pilot’s job and responsibility to make sure customs are OK, nobody else. Of course things can be made smoother, like it’s done using IPPC, both for entry into EU (all bordering countries) and flying back home from anywhere. So why doesn’t the Swiss CAA/pilot organisations/ATC make life easier for the Swiss pilots?
Peter wrote:
the other non EU countries in Europe have almost no touring community
That’s a matter of perception. I am non EU, and definitely no tourer. Nevertheless I am sure have have toured more NMs/hours this year than 90% on this board Even been involved in arranging club trips to EU (Sweden), and commuted by SEP for a short week when towing gliders. Besides, flying to Germany is more than a good day’s work in a slowish SEP, a bit more to it than crossing a border 20 NM away. Still, Norway gets swamped each year by German pilots (in and out of EU), so getting back to Germany (EU) cannot be all that difficult or unknown. (Fly via Sweden or directly to a customs field, problem solved)
I think this case is blown out of proportions. Crossing a customs border in an airplane, then landing on the other side without proper preparations is plain stupid, no matter what the “fee” may be. The problem here is (after the last “but”):
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Frankly, I will be very wary of ever flying to any of the non-A-List airports in Germany again. With proposterous tarifs for any kind of error, the risk is simply too high if the AIP is so unreliable. In fact, this should be brought to the attention of EASA as well.
Same here.
LeSving wrote:
NOT because he was unlawfully prosecuted and judged in some way
Judgement is a human action. Humans are capable of wisdom and mercy. Neither were exhibited in this case (apparently).
We all break the law every day (knowingly or unknowingly). Should we then suffer the full penalty of the law for that, just because we’re guilty?
Of course not. That’s the reason this should be challenged.
These laws are made by men and can be made anew by men.
