SERA and national rules are built on ICAO through additions, exemptions or specifications, the same goes for SERA. SERA is certainly a substitute for national rules (in Norway SERA is already in effect, since November 13). However, there is a long list of exemptions and additions.
That is true. SERA does not substitute the ICAO Rules of the Air. SERA substitutes each country’s national Rules of the Air (or however they may call it).
SERA is purposely made to allow for local “variations”. Essentially SERA is ICAO Annex 2, 3 and 11 rewritten in EASA language. All together it is current regulations written in a common syntax, rather than a new set of rules. It is very little new there, and what is new is mostly details, and those details can be “localized” in any case.
I’m not an expert on this, but I don’t think that’s accurate. Correct me if I’m wrong, but:
There is a significant difference between ICAO and SERA.
ICAO’s recommendations are, well, recommendations, are they not? As such, they do indeed allow for local variations – ideally filed and published as differences, but not necessarily so, as I believe the US, among others, have proven to a large extent.
SERA comes as a EU regulation and as such is binding law within the member states as soon as it becomes valid. It cannot be localized “in any case”, as you put it. It can be localized if and only if the specific article specifically allows for such variations.
With respect to the subject originally discussed in this thread, that is not the case.
It is very little new there, and what is new is mostly details, and those details can be “localized” in any case.
The really new stuff are the VFR night rules.
SERA is purposely made to allow for local “variations”. Essentially SERA is ICAO Annex 2, 3 and 11 rewritten in EASA language. All together it is current regulations written in a common syntax, rather than a new set of rules. It is very little new there, and what is new is mostly details, and those details can be “localized” in any case.
Yes, IFR is much easier here than in Germany.
However, ATC service is better in Germany because it’s ubiquitous and sufficiently staffed. Apparently, you can’t have it all…
Every year I go to Friedrichshafen and stand up in front of rooms full of incredulous German pilots. They just don’t believe how good we have it in the UK compared to Germany.
Yes, IFR is much easier here than in Germany. But other regimes have other cultural differences which make it easier or more difficult. France, for example, seems to make “grass roots” flying much easier than we do, whereas the Greeks have some very arcane rules about which airports you may or may not fly between.
This conversation started with SERA and I think we are seeing why it is a grand and worthwhile scheme doomed to fail.
In the UK, all you need to land anywhere is the permission of the landowner.
If you are flying a particular type of operation (for example, commercial air transport), you might have to use a licenced airfield. Note – this is a requirement for the operator, not a requirement for the airfield, hence there are some unlicenced airfields that have quite extensive runways and facilities. Blackpool being an (in-)famous example, they lost their licence when the operator went bust.
The licence might stipulate operating hours, and types of operation, but you can land there anyway on an unlicenced basis, although the landowner (represented by the airport operator) is free to say “not in this weather you ain’t, I’m not going there at midnight in rain to open the gate for you…”
There is – quite rightfully – no basis in law for anyone to take this right away from the landowner or the pilot, AIP or not. Of course for regular operations you will need planning permission as you are creating an airport…
I think Napoleonic law and doctrine is a lot more prescriptive than UK law – but don’t quote me on that.
Could you share some more details in this particular regard? It might help us with our fight here in
Germany…
While the AIP is not law, it is certainly evidence. And to counter that only with “what’s not explictly forbidden is allowed” seems a little faint to me.
