Mooney_Driver wrote:
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.
No, because the intention clearly was not to import the airplane into the EU. Nevertheless, that is the fact of what happened. This is similar to bringing drugs across the border. You can be a drug addict and bring along drugs for your own consumption. You have no intention of selling it, but that doesn’t help you much if you get caught. Lots of people have done that, and have to sit in jail for years.
The analogy between petrolhead pilots and drug addicts might be an interesting one for the climate change discussion but try as I may, I can find no provision for temporary admission of narcotics in the Chicago and Istanbul conventions.
The analogy between petrolhead pilots and drug addicts might be an interesting one for the climate change discussion but try as I may, I can find no provision for temporary admission of narcotics in the Chicago and Istanbul conventions.
I think you miss the point. It’s not that temporary admission don’t exist in Germany. The case is actually that the pilot didn’t take advantage of it, because he didn’t know the rules and regulations.
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
Chicago and Istanbul conventions in combination with the EUCOM opinion do not rule out that states set rules or procedural requirements, e.g. entering through AOE or other dedicated routes.
If you follow the (minimum) procedures i.e. informing customs & giving them the opportunity to see you per appointment at certain airfields or enter through defined permanently staffed border points/airports, there is no formality.
That is not an angle to fight this. Only sounds heavy.
1) The really unfair part here is how aircraft are treated differently from other means of transport such as cars, motorcycles, etc. Thousands of cars cross the Swiss-German border at non-customs border points without such dramatic consequences. If German customs were to apply the same approach and rules (importing a vehicle) to Swiss auto drivers, there would be a diplomatic crisis.
2) It is a shame that all European AOPA‘s let us down on this. In Canada, COPA has a $1‘000‘000 litigation fund for just this sort of thing with a lot of success. If all European AOPA‘s funded EU IAOPA with such a fund, this case could be taken up as far as the European Court of Justice. Given some of that court‘s decisions, it might have some chance.
@Jacko
This is the applicable paragraph of the German Air traffic law, concerned with the record-keeping.
Allegedly, it’s kind of a “leftover” from a totalitarian state… Guess which one… But I’m no lawyer and don’t know whether that’s really true or just a story.
Luftverkehrsgesetz (LuftVG)
§ 70
(1) Die Luftaufsichtsstelle oder auf Flugplätzen ohne Luftaufsichtsstelle die Flugleitung darf
1.
zum Zwecke der Erfüllung der ihr nach § 29 dieses Gesetzes zugewiesenen Aufgaben,
2.
zum Zwecke der Strafverfolgung nach den §§ 59, 60 und 62 dieses Gesetzes,
3.
zum Zwecke der Verfolgung von Ordnungswidrigkeiten nach § 58 dieses Gesetzes, § 108 der Luftverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung und nach § 43 der Luftverkehrs-Ordnung,
4.
zum Zwecke der Durchführung des Such- und Rettungsdienstes,
5.
zum Zwecke der Flugunfalluntersuchung,
6.
zum Zwecke der Luftfahrtstatistik,
7.
zum Zwecke der zollrechtlichen Überwachung
folgende Daten über den Start und die Landung von Luftfahrzeugen erheben, verarbeiten und nutzen:
-
Staatszugehörigkeits- und Eintragungszeichen des Luftfahrzeugs,
-
Luftfahrzeugmuster,
-
Anzahl der Besatzungsmitglieder,
-
Anzahl der Fluggäste,
-
Art des Fluges,
-
Start- und Zielflugplatz (nur bei Überlandflug).
Die Daten sind im Hauptflugbuch zu speichern.
Note that additionally, you are only allowed to use a German airfield if staff is present to keep this record. If you get an exemption from that, you are obliged to make sure the records are made anyway.
chflyer wrote:
The really unfair part here is how aircraft are treated differently from other means of transport such as cars, motorcycles, etc. Thousands of cars cross the Swiss-German border at non-customs border points without such dramatic consequences. If German customs were to apply the same approach and rules (importing a vehicle) to Swiss auto drivers, there would be a diplomatic crisis.Almost all asphalt roads, crossing the border between Germany and Switzerland, are official border crossing points. Customs may not be present at the time you cross, like on many smaller crossing points (or even on the highway), but it is a legal crossing point. If you try however to pass by car using a gravel or dirt road, which is not an official border crossing point for motorized traffic, you may get trouble if customs catch you. Try the same trick between the EU and Russia, and I guarantee you, you get big trouble outside official border crossing points.
The amount of the fine is the practical issue.
Lots of people have been fined say 500. For example one got that for landing at Megara after closing time. Not nice but you pay, post about it, and not do it again. It may be unjust in certain circumstances (like this case) and leave a foul taste in the mouth but any pilot can pay it.
25k is something else. IMHO some official got really upset. The rest of the establishment then closes ranks.
No, it is something that happens regularly, even if not too often. I guess roughly 1-2 times a year in Germany.
Here is another one from 2015, the story is similar:
Plus, this year, there was the case of that American / Hungarian guy posted further up.
It just happens every time a discrepancy between airfield logs and customs logs comes to the surface. No „need“ to get someone upset.
