Peter wrote:
I have stood in such a corridor and was told exactly that.
I literally experienced this at a Tier A airport a few weeks ago myself.
Unaware of the whole debacle b/c no foreigner thinks of the UK as not being in the EU, I (innocently and naievely) went to my plane after informing everyone in the big C where I was flying (Germany to UK).
I was at my plane fueling up when the indignant policemen arrived… to inform me I was in violation of protocol.
Thankfully, they didn’t impound my plane and put me into a dungeon and whatnot, they just gave me the German scowl. (I can handle that)
I did learn my lesson.
Had I been going the other-way ’round I might have been hamstrung.
Full disclosure, I made this mistake going from the UK to another EU country (again, just a few weeks ago) and this story could have easily been mine.
I’m not an idiot (don’t ask any of my friends ;) – I’m just used to flying all over the “EU” without any hassles.
I also did this several years ago before Croatia was a member of the EU. They could have impounded my aircraft as well.
Thankfully, level heads prevailed.
So irritating to have individuals whose country is pedantic about ‘die Kleinigkeiten’ lecture foreigners about ‘reading the AIP’.
Eine Pruefung; wie viele von Ihnen koennen perfektes Deutsch? (Ich meine ‘perfektes’).
Fast niemand. Ebenso koennen wir nicht alle Regeln und Gesetzten beachten (obwohl wir versuchen).
Gnade haben, bitte.
Ibra wrote:
For NAA licensed airports: isn’t that an aerodrome manual (EASA) requirement?
Don’t know. Sweden has several licensed airports which are not staffed H24 but still available (without PPR) when the airport is not staffed and then certainly no one is keeping records.
AF wrote:
’m just used to flying all over the “EU” without any hassles
But Switzerland is not EU, and soon the UK will be in the same position. Actually much worse. Not part of the EU (outside the customs border) and not part of Schengen (outside the free movement border).
AF wrote:
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.
The “fee” or “tax” or whatever you call it, is out of proportion with the “mistake” that has been done. There is no doubt about that. But, legally what he did was to import an aircraft (illegally) into the EU. That is the fact. If you import something, you have to pay VAT, if you do it illegally, you have to pay a fee or whatever the law say. It’s an utterly stupid thing to do, ignorant or not, mistake or not, unless the intention is to actually import an aircraft (still stupid to do it illegally though). There is nothing more to say.
The other side of this is the laws themselves. Why do Germany have so strict regulations, while Sweden have none of this (at least I don’t know how it’s possible to end up in such a situation using the normal procedures of FP and border crossing). They are both part of the EU, the same customs union as far as I know. Very strange. For this to improve, the laws and regulations have to change, but this is a political issue, not a legal issue IMO.
LeSving wrote:
There is nothing more to say.
You’re (still) missing the human element.
A person has to decide what to do in each case. This isn’t an automated, robotic process.
That’s the point I’m making. There’s a name behind this decision.
Others (including me) have made this mistake, and the machine didn’t crush me (thankfully)
LeSving wrote:
But Switzerland is not EU, and soon the UK will be in the same position
Righto!
But, legally what he did was to import an aircraft (illegally) into the EU. That is the fact.
Not at all. The illegal act was and remains the failure of the German government to respect and apply the Chicago and Istanbul conventions in the manner prescribed by the European Commission – i.e. “no formalities” for temporary admission. If HZA have been making a habit of this kind of extortion, then they may be in line to repay – with interest.
The failure of AOPA CH to defend one of the HZA’s hapless victims comes as little surprise. I recall that after some pseudo-Scottish geezer upset the CAA by water-skiing in Cumbria he approached AOPA UK for advice. They waffled about “normal aviation practice”, referring to a UK Rule of the Air which had been superseded six months previously. That’s no criticism of the individuals who work very hard for us in AOPA, we just get what we pay for and it clearly ain’t enough.
Jacko wrote:
“no formalities” for temporary admission
There are no formalities for temporary admission. But you have to act in a manner so that the people issuing formalities know this is a temporary admission, and not something else. It’s all about communicating to the right people, or land at a customs field. This is the responsibility of the pilot. Ignorance is really no excuse, even though the effect of this ignorance is rather insane. I’m not defending this particular German practice, but it’s even stranger the Swiss themselves haven’t made a system that works, and prevents these things from happening. That’s how it’s done other places.
Airborne_Again wrote:
when the airport is not staffed and then certainly no one is keeping records.
I was referring when doing it by yourself, in the UK SE there maybe a book somewhere you just have to look hard 
The tricky one I found was in dump near windsock (I was searching for donation box as landing fee goes to charity)
I think Jacko is clearly onto something here.
Enter the country by error at a place which is not equipped to handle it is a felony, therefore a fine of sorts would be expected. Would we have a thread like this if that had happened? No.
But they claim the airplane was imported because it landed on one airport and went to another before being exported again? I don’t follow that ruling at all. Otherwise, cross boder travel with a car or whatever would also be impossible. Import means the aircraft comes there to stay there either because it is sold to someone inside that country or the owner moves to this country and has to import it as goods. If free transit as Jacko sais is put in question, then this whole thing is a huge problem.
The other bit which comes clearly out of this case is that justice hugely depends on how much money you can throw at lawyers. That is a total injustice as such. To me it appears as if the German state (and it is not alone here) is gambling on the fact that most people will be simply sufficiently scared by receiving a punishment or order to pay up for a mistake made that they never defend themselfs, those who do fail as they are outpriced by the cost of getting your case heard. The way this happened is clear: They lost the case because the mandate of the lawyers ran out due to no more cost coverage. Which means, the insurance cover AOPA provides is inadequate for what a legal battle costs.
Time to check up on my own insurance I guess and up it to maybe 1 million € per case. Below that, defending yourself against overwhelming odds of a state machine running amock is next to impossible.
Ibra wrote:
I was referring when doing it by yourself,
Not that either.
