gallois wrote:
A horrible way to go but hopefully the carriage of PLBs and ELTs will avoid this sort of tragedy in the future
The rationale of PLBs and ELTs, as well as FP for that matter, is for SAR crews to waste as little time and resources as possible, and reduce the risk of the SAR mission. It’s not to prevent you from dying a horrible death, although that is often a result as well, and is of course important to most of us 
It’s still a no brain, no headache situation. No PLB, ELT or FP makes life easy for SAR as well.
gallois wrote:
The thing is while many across the pond think of Europe as a United States of Europe. We are not. We are 27 independent sovereign countries which come together and give up part of that sovereignty in a common cause. Maybe one day we will become more like a United States of Europe and maybe we never will.
Exactly. And every single ease of those international rules and regs between countries, which are in full effect everywhere else on the planet, is a little political miracle. I cannot imagine Europe will ever become a united states of Europe though.
Having read Silvaire’s posts over the years I strongly suspect the reasons he is opposed to VFR flight plans is not the (minimal) hassle in filing, opening and closing them but a matter of principle – that filing a flight plan implies that you tell some “authority” how you’re going to fly. I do have some sympathy with that view. I also agree that it doesn’t make sense from a national security perspective to require flight plans for cross-border flights between allied countries.
Obviously that is a huge, obvious and entirely justified aspect of it. The reason for this archaic situation with VFR is fairly obviously that government is uncomfortable with people flying themselves around unmonitored and wants to track them. I don’t think that is pleasant or justified. Also, what you pay for it on a practical level is a tremendous loss of flexibility when wanting to spontaneously change plans, and I find it shocking that this isn’t universally appreciated. It’s also odd that the policy for light aircraft crossing borders isn’t the same as the universally applauded policy on the ground… one that is already in place, despite protestations that European countries are somehow intransigent in this regard. I simply can’t imagine resigning myself to that set of circumstances in the way that is suggested by some posters here.
Silvaire wrote:
The reason for this archaic situation with VFR is fairly obviously that government is uncomfortable with people flying themselves around unmonitored and wants to track them
I think you are overthinking it. The requirements for flight plans between countries is “ancient”, and Europe consists of a whole bunch of sovereign countries. The rationale is obviously customs and immigration. Remove those, and the requirement will eventually disappear, if so for no other reason than for the “government” (EU) to make a statement that “we are one” or something like that.
Sometimes there are other reasons like tracking flights for intelligence. For example the GAR (and especially the 12hr PN) for the Channel Islands has been said to be for tracking money laundering (historically a lot of dodgy banking went on there, especially Jersey and Guernsey (hardly on Alderney 
).
Also a lot of it is job protection. Europe is full of that. We may think the UK police is super busy but in reality a large chunk of the force has little to do (property crime is way down, since most “stuff” like colour TVs are worth so little now) and they love any paperwork to push. So the system is self-sustaining.
There have been a number of discussions about various aspects of the process of crossing Borders in Europe. Some intelligent and knowledgeable people have posted. I have read in excess of 100 posts and ended up confused by complexity and legal detail. Please can people criticise or add to the following summary working on the basis of a reasonable expectation of being in compliance without expecting absolute certainty. I would especially appreciate an update on what to do if pre booked immigration do not turn up and is there any real likelihood of GA airfields having the finger print systems expected at large airfields. I am also unsure how to contact German customs since their AIP, unlike France does not give contact details under airfields. Is this an issue elsewhere.
I am quite happy to knock this into something that could become a useful download if Peter thinks that is of interest.
1. Schengen is about immigration it says nothing about customs.
2. Countries can suspend Schengen or have special rules for example demand use of an Airport of entry for customs purposes.
3. Customs and immigration (C&I) duties may be combined but this should not be assumed
4. C&I may actually be delegated to an airport employee but this should never be assumed just because they examined your passport.
5. Be present at the time advised to C&I. For departure if they do not appear you are at risk if you depart early. For arrival you should remain in your aircraft with the door closed till the ETA you provided. Although these restrictions are rarely applied, they can be.
6. A flight plan may be visible to C&I but it does not form part of the C&I process
7. Customs have considerable powers. They can and occasionally have imposed VAT and import duty on the value of the aircraft
8. Pre loading luggage carries risk. The obligation is to present it to customs
9. There is some obligation to be the owner of the aircraft or carry documentation showing that you are authorised to use it. N registered aircraft held in a trust may be asked for this.
10. In the UK submitting a GAR fulfils most obligations. While Border Force (BF) seem relatively relaxed compared with some countries you should not depart early or arrive early and leave your aircraft.
11. It is prudent where times are provided directly to C&I to be conservative and wait as necessary to accommodate any differences between predicted and actual arrival and departure times.
12. It is prudent to be aware of airfields on your route that have permanent customs in case of diversion. In the UK there is an obligation to have an approved airfield as your alternate or inform border force
13. Experience indicates that special care is needed in Germany and Switzerland
14. A UK citizen has an obligation to have their passport controlled. It is unclear what is acceptable if C&I properly notified fail to appear but as a minimum retain proof of your best efforts to be compliant.
2. Countries can suspend Schengen or have special rules for example demand use of an Airport of entry for customs purposes.
Nope on both of these.
@bosmantico please give details of your answer nope to Schengen suspensions.
From the EU website on “temporary reintroduction of border controls”
The Schengen Borders Code (SBC) provides Member States with the capability of temporarily reintroducing border control at the internal borders in the event of a serious threat to public policy or internal security.
The reintroduction of border control at the internal borders must be applied as a last resort measure, in exceptional situations, and must respect the principle of proportionality.
The duration of such a temporary reintroduction of border control at the internal borders is limited in time, depending on the legal basis invoked by the Member State introducing such border control.
The scope and duration of reintroduced border control should be restricted to the bare minimum needed to respond to the threat in question. Reintroducing border control at the internal border should only be used as a measure of last resort.
The reintroduction of border control is a prerogative of the Member States. The Commission may issue an opinion regarding the necessity of the measure and its proportionality but cannot veto a Member State’s decision to reintroduce border control.
Rate2 wrote:
Countries can suspend Schengen
Countries can not suspend Schengen, but they can introduce temporary border controls, which is colloquially known as “suspending Schengen” although it is not.
or have special rules for example demand use of an Airport of entry for customs purposes.
They can’t do that either. Greece does do it and refer to something which is possibly a legal loophole.
gallois wrote:
The scope and duration of reintroduced border control should be restricted to the bare minimum needed to respond to the threat in question. Reintroducing border control at the internal border should only be used as a measure of last resort.
That’s what the Schengen treaty says, but unfortunately Member States break this rule all the time with impunity. Sweden certainly does.
The reintroduction of border control is a prerogative of the Member States. The Commission may issue an opinion regarding the necessity of the measure and its proportionality but cannot veto a Member State’s decision to reintroduce border control.
Unfortunately. But they can take the matter to the ECJ.
Rate2 wrote:
6. A flight plan may be visible to C&I but it does not form part of the C&I process.
Depends on the individual country. In some cases a flight plan is accepted as customs notification.
doillq wrote:
after filing a flight plan with take off from ZZZZ and being told one needs to leave from a certified aerodrome in order to be able to leave the country.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t using an airfield/airport with an ICAO designator mandatory for cross border flights to be able to claim freedom of flights rights?
Although ATC/AIS will let you through their system, it doesn’t mean it is legal by border police regulations, if I recall correct? I remember several incidents during Covid with respect to Border Police, when they got aware, as a side effect of health restrictions, of cross border flights going to and from airfields on ZZZZ designators in international flight plans. I once faced a hefty discussion with AIS of an officer over the phone on them releasing me diverted into an ZZZZ airfield.
This was my moment of awakening to always check both, airlaw and border police regulations, when flying cross border even intra Schengen (which AFAIK does not automatically apply to GA movements, as movement by aircraft not operated commercially is not part of the treaty agreements ?) = never trust everything is ok even if your FPL went through aviation authorities acceptance, it hasn’t been checked against border police.
