It appears that all this is a battle about not changing anything and finding ways to stop what has been set in motion by others. From a number of publications I learnt that the German authorities have not shown up at important gatherings of EASA or apparently simply do not participate. I don’t understand the reasoning behind that.
It’s going to be interesting in the new future…
Ultimately, the bottom line in all this is that the EU has no police force, political correctness prevents a military invasion of Germany (especially on a weekday), and provided Germany doesn’t do something big enough to kick off a ban on its beef/car/whatever exports, all that Brussells can do is p1ss in the wind.
The EU is just a bit of paper which everybody signed…
Yeah – interesting times! You could not have done this before the Greeks bought 1000000 Porsche Cayennes with German and French €s and then melted the place down 
Actually, I don’t mind too much, because some years ago I was at a conference in London where a top EASA man stood up and said the name of the game is standardisation across Europe and therefore IMC Rating is dead unless everybody else adopts it also. He didn’t stick his middle finger up but may as well have done so. Times have changed… and for the better in most cases.
Ultimately, the bottom line in all this is that the EU has no police force
Neither does the German ministry of transport. This is a legal matter and German courts have jurisdiction. In German courts, EU law stands above national law (besides the Constitution but this one is quite sparse on IFR in G). To me the legal position is quite clear and and this NfL from the ministry is in clear violation of applicable law and thus toilet paper.
The EU is just a bit of paper which everybody signed…
No. The EU has lawmaking power, immediate and binding within the areas it was previously empowered by the signatories of the Treaty. Sometimes the states fight whether the EU has lawmaking power in a certain area or not but in the case of SERA, there is no doubt it has.
What is the minimum IFR altitude when taking off or landing?
SERA.5015 b specifically states (my bold, my capitalization)
“Except when necessary for take-off or landing, OR except when specifically authorised by the competent authority, an IFR flight shall be flown at a level which is not below the minimum flight altitude established by the State whose territory is overflown […].”
Yes, but a State can put conditions on the use of instrument approaches. Such a condition would not be in the Rules of the Air, but in the Operational Rules. This is what Sweden has done. Nothing in the old Swedish Rules of the Air prevents instrument approaches to airports without ATS – or even “roll your own” approaches (which are in principle legal for private flights in the UK as far as I understand). On the other hand, the Swedish operational rules say that every flight – including private flights – may only carry out IFR approaches to airports with an open ATS unit. (Not necessarily an ATC unit – AFIS is also ok.)
If you’re not allowed to use an IAP, then you can’t descend below the enroute minimum altitude.
I don’t have statistics to back this up, but it seems to me from reading the accident reports that aircraft get stuffed into the ground doing VFR approaches in IMC more often in Germany than elsewhere.
Firstly, is that a widely held perception?
Secondly, is there any evidence that it is true?
Thirdly, if it is, do we think that the current restrictions actually make matters worse, because they mean that people cannot be trained and experienced in doing these marginal things more safely?
(I speak as one who regularly flies into VFR airfields in IMC in the UK, perfectly legally, and with a great deal of thought, preparation and experience. Indeed I have written a paper to the CAA, which is now gaining some traction, suggesting that it is a practice that should be brought into the legislative and training fold rather than being left out in the cold.)
Indeed I have written a paper to the CAA, which is now gaining some traction, suggesting that it is a practice that should be brought into the legislative and training fold rather than being left out in the cold.
Would you mind sending me a copy? The Swedish CAA is just starting its work on the EASA “GA roadmap”…
don’t have statistics to back this up, but it seems to me from reading the accident reports that aircraft get stuffed into the ground doing VFR approaches in IMC more often in Germany than elsewhere
Maybe, but in all fairness, these would happen just as well if IFR was allowed in airspace G. They would just crash “legally”.
What would help is more instrument approaches to small GA airfields, as it would make the approaches more “orderly”. However, it only brings more safety if people respect the approach minimums (and frankly, that does often not seem to be the case).
Getting an instrument approach is very expensive and in many cases impossible for GA airfields in Germany.
(I speak as one who regularly flies into VFR airfields in IMC in the UK, perfectly legally
Naysayers in Germany claim that one can’t legally approach and land at an airfield under IFR if, per the AIP, the airfield is only approved for VFR operations. What would you reply to these people?
I would say that one of the advantages of living in the UK is that there is no such restriction :-)
Naysayers in Germany claim that one can’t legally approach and land at an airfield under IFR if, per the AIP, the airfield is only approved for VFR operations. What would you reply to these people?
To take it one step futher, in the UK you can legally approach and land under VFR in a field that has NOT been approved for VFR operations. A concept that is totally alien in Germany.
All this stuff hangs on differences in peoples’ emotional perceptions which are not based on any assessment or history of risk.
A term which I have often heard from German bizjet pilots is “IVFR”, and it is normally spoken with a smile And these are very careful ones, who don’t bust IFR minima. They seem to see it as the reality of life in Germany.
