Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Netherlands introducing new measures to block non-domestic Annex 1, and IFR in them

A_and_C wrote:

I feel any attempt by the government of the Netherlands to ban our operations in an EU state would be in conflict with a number of EU laws and is also in conflict with parts of the 1944 Chicago convention.

While I understand your pain, things are not that simple:

  • Chicago convention gurantees some freedom of air travel, but not to all operators, aircraft and personnel. It is fully in line with Chicago convention, that one state bans aircraft and operators from their airspace even though they are fully licensed in there home state e.g. for safety reasons. To ban airplanes that don’t comply with internationally agreed safety standards (which is close to the definition of Annex I as there the individual state defines the applicable safety standard) from an airspace is not a breach of Chicago.
  • More difficult with EU, BUT: It is common practice in many parts of community law, that EU defines parts of the subject matter that are open for national regulation – and in exchange these national regulations are not applicable to all other member states. Some more well know examples are drug regulations where it is perfectly legal to buy, own and consume some substances e.g. in the Netherlands but even trying to bring theses to Germany is a criminal offense. Same exists e.g. in weapon law or even with certain road vehicles.

Therefore I would see the general claim that national restrictions on AnnexI planes that are certified according to other member state regulations is in breach of EU laws as quite questionable.
A more successful route might be to question if EU has rightfully excluded a certain type of aircraft from community regulation.

Germany

Malibuflyer wrote:

To ban airplanes that don’t comply with internationally agreed safety standards (which is close to the definition of Annex I as there the individual state defines the applicable safety standard) from an airspace is not a breach of Chicago.

Wouldn’t it be a breech if the aircraft had a fully ICAO-compliant national CoA?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I would argue that there is no such thing as an “ICAO-compliant CoA” as ICAO does not define technical standards for airworthiness. Thats the reason why a plane has to be certified by at least 4 different CAAs these days (FAA, EASA, Brazil and China) and others more or less automatically follow one of these (e.g. Transport Canada).
The grounding of the 737Max was the most visible example for that: Some states banned the type from their airspace before FAA groused the fleet – even those planes that had a valid CoA from their home country.

The whole idea of Annex I is simple, logical and in my opinion a great thing for aviation: EASA basically says: “These planes do not meet EASA airworthiness standards but if you want to let them fly in your country, go ahead”. And that’s exactly what is happening.

Germany

Malibuflyer wrote:

EASA basically says: “These planes do not meet EASA airworthiness standards but if you want to let them fly in your country, go ahead”.

What EASA really says is “we don’t bother with these aircraft”, which is something different. There are lots of certified Annex I aircraft that would meet EASA airworthiness standards.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Fully agree! That is what I meant by my initial statement that a more successful route of challenging the current rules is to question if a certain type is rightfully on the Annex I list.

If one can prove that a certain type fulfills EASA airworthiness standards there is no reason that the type should actually be Annex I – and only such types should be on the list which do not meet the standards or where no-one would take on the cost to prove they actually do.

One should also not forget, that while some operators (esp. those interested in cross border operations) suffer from the downsides of AnnexI status, many actually like it as typically (obviously depending on the individual state) there are higher degrees of freedom with respect to maintenance, licensing, etc. in that categories.

Germany

@Peter
The article linked in the original post seems to have moved …. returns “not found”

Anyone know if it is still available?

Last Edited by chflyer at 03 Jul 10:10
LSZK, Switzerland

Yes; links disappear, which is why I spend significant time localising articles of relevance, by e.g. printing them to a PDF and uploading that. I looked on the wayback site but can’t find it there. A google on some exact text e.g. “IFR flying of foreign registered Experimentals are to be prohibited in Dutch FIR” just finds the above EuroGA post.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Are there no Dutch pilots on the forum? I would expect there to be quite a stir from them on this given the large number of antique aircraft on Annex I in the NL, and the corresponding popularity of NL airfields as destinations with antique aircraft owners in the rest of Europe.

LSZK, Switzerland

“If one can prove that a certain type fulfills EASA airworthiness standards there is no reason that the type should actually be Annex I.”
My Bolkow 208C is on an LAA Permit, therefore Annex 1.
Most Bolkow 208C aircraft are EASA Aircraft. Airbus Industrie is the Type Certificate holder.
Our Jodel DR 1050 was originally a Certified Aircraft. It became an Annex 1 Aircraft as an “Orphan” with no Type Certificate holder.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Malibuflyer wrote:

The whole idea of Annex I is simple, logical and in my opinion a great thing for aviation: EASA basically says: “These planes do not meet EASA airworthiness standards but if you want to let them fly in your country, go ahead”. And that’s exactly what is happening.

I agree. The only problem with this is there are as many sets of regulations as there are countries, and for purely pedantic, odd and bureaucratic reasons this causes issues when flying from one country to another. Maybe as a first step there should be a “minimum EASA Annex I standard”, some simple technical and administrative specs that each owner could apply for. All that is needed really, is some kind of verification, a simple note on a piece of paper, on EASA level, that the aircraft is airworthy, given this or that restrictions. Shouldn’t be too difficult IMO.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top