Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Will SERA airspace regs apply to homebuilts, VFR and IFR?

Joe-fbs wrote:

As explained on page 1, the EU is not always as monolithic as the nay-sayers believe. SERA is one set of EU rules that allows for various local “derogations”. The UK has used them in respect of low flying and other aspects of SERA so maybe the French have done the same but I don’t have the time and energy to investigate the rules in France.

Certainly France (or any other country) can legislate within the leeway provided by SERA. But not outside of it.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

As explained on page 1, the EU is not always as monolithic as the nay-sayers believe. SERA is one set of EU rules that allows for various local “derogations”. The UK has used them in respect of low flying and other aspects of SERA so maybe the French have done the same but I don’t have the time and energy to investigate the rules in France.

strip near EGGW

If that law contradicts SERA, then it will not be valid.

My French is far from perfect, but my interpretation of what a French pilot was saying on a forum is exactly what you just said. It does not appear to be compliant and hence is “dead”, but I’m not volunteering to be the one to make that point in the French courts.

Comment on the forum is from Jean Bossy at the bottom of http://www.aerovfr.com/2014/10/les-regles-de-lair-a-la-mode-europeenne/

Derek
Stapleford (EGSG), Denham (EGLD)

derek wrote:

They specifically refer to the 1957 law and state that it will not be changed.

If that law contradicts SERA, then it will not be valid. Of course the French justice system could take a different view, but if you went all the way to the European court, they would lose.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Just found a recent document on a French government website claiming that SERA permits them to keep their existing low flying regulations. They specifically refer to the 1957 law and state that it will not be changed. This does not sound like the interpretation intended by SERA, which referred to specific airspace structures such as controlled airspace. Here is the link (French only) for anybody interested: http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Tableau_comparaison_SERA_-_RCA.pdf

[ local copy ]

Derek
Stapleford (EGSG), Denham (EGLD)

I just bought the latest IGN 1:500k VFR chart for North-East France. It still shows the special rules with 1700 ft / 3300 ft / 5000 ft / 6500 ft (Paris) AGL minimums for overflying small / medium / large built-up areas. Certainly does not sound SERA compliant to me, but not going to risk it on my next flight over.

Derek
Stapleford (EGSG), Denham (EGLD)

Yes, I gathered that, but in which respect are the French rule(s) more restrictive than SERA 5005(f) of the “Common Rules of the Air”?

I guess we’re talking about this 300/500/1000/1500 metre rule:
FRA.5005 f) 1)
i) Les hauteurs minimales de survol des agglomérations définies dans l’arrêté du 10 octobre 1957 relatif au survol des agglomérations et des rassemblements de personnes ou d’animaux s’appliquent.

Does anyone know if the French authorities have prosecuted anyone for alleged breach of this rule since the Common Rules came into effect?

Last Edited by Jacko at 26 Mar 15:17
Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

SERA 5005(f)

LFPT, LFPN

PapaPapa wrote:

But some states try to go around that.
France wants to keep its overflying rules but they are not SERA compliant (I think there was a discussion about this somewhere on EuroGA already)

Sorry, I missed that thread. Which French rule(s) are we talking about?

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Martin wrote:

As for instructing you how to deviate from SERA, the tools which are mentioned in the GM are not really suited for country-wide limit change. The way I see it, they don’t want you to be able to make a blanket change, but local changes are fine (because there could be places where it’s warranted). And those tools will work just fine locally. While you could theoretically use them to cover the entire country and IMHO go against the intent, I imagine it wouldn’t be worth it.

That’s exactly how I interpret the GM as well And it makes a lot of sense.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 25 Mar 09:30
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
39 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top