Airborne_Again wrote:
So, theoretically you don’t have to follow the standard, but if you don’t the entire burden of showing that an installation is safe rest on you.
Yes, but that is more theoretical than real. It’s the same with aviation equipment in experimental aircraft. The existence of standards and also standard contracts has the effect of reducing the required competence, also across the board. You may very well be able to show your set up is fine, but the guy/women on the other side of the table is in no position to verify your claims.
Airborne_Again wrote:
That is a very important point since the AIP in many countries includes information that is contrary to law. There are several reasons why this could happenThe law has changed and the national authority hasn’t (bothered to) update the AIP. (More common than you may think.)
The national authority doesn’t approve of the changed (EU) law and keeps the old information on purpose to spread FUD.
The national authority doesn’t bother to cover special cases of the law. (And a “special case” could be all of noncommercial light GA.)
Agree 100%
Peter wrote:
IMHO the AIP should be adequate for briefing. But it is also wrong to charge for it IF it was a mandatory source, and Germany (and Switzerland?) make it de facto mandatory by forcing airfields to remove copies of the content from their websites.
Switzerland does not force airfields to remove copies of the content from their websites. However, any information posted on an airfield’s website will include a disclaimer about no currency guarantee and refer to the official (Skyguide) information for flight plannning. See Haftungshinweise here
LeSving wrote:
You could say that AIP is not law. I don’t really think a court will see it that way though, it’s not that straight forward. If it is not law, then what is it?
The AIP is information. It can refer to law and it can quote law, and in some cases law can even refer to the AIP! But the AIP is not in itself law.
That is a very important point since the AIP in many countries includes information that is contrary to law. There are several reasons why this could happen
LeSving wrote:
An industry standard is NOT a legal document, and it does NOT give you information on how to comply with legislation.
It is not a legal document, sure, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t give you information on how to comply with legislation. E.g. in Sweden, the rules and regulations for electrical installations are on a very abstract level — almost at the level of the EASA Basic Regulation.
In order to comply with the law you have to – in practise – follow the industry standards for electrical installations. The regulations say first that any electrical installation has to follow “good practise for electrical safety” and goes on to say that an installation is considered to follow “good practise” if it adheres to the Swedish standard for electrical installations.
So, theoretically you don’t have to follow the standard, but if you don’t the entire burden of showing that an installation is safe rest on you.
The AIP may not be the primary legislation but it matters when it comes to due diligence i.e. whether an accused pilot has briefed adequately to escape a criminal conviction.
This really nasty case shows that the situation is not black and white.
IMHO the AIP should be adequate for briefing. But it is also wrong to charge for it IF it was a mandatory source, and Germany (and Switzerland?) make it de facto mandatory by forcing airfields to remove copies of the content from their websites.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The problem arises when the only reasonable way to comply with legislation is following a set of standards. There are many examples of that.A good comparison would be if EASA made you pay to get the AMC/GM.
On the face of it maybe, but only because you are mixing apples and oranges. An industry standard is NOT a legal document, and it does NOT give you information on how to comply with legislation. It doesn’t matter if legislation use the industry standard for it’s own purposes. You have to remember the industry would use the industry standard regardless of legislation connected to it. It will use the standard in all contracts, all later disputes, all engineering, all testing. It’s the common denominator in which the industry operates. It quite literally “sets the standard” because the industry players agrees that they need a common level field. The legalities here are civil law, detailed in contracts between industry players. This exists regardless. It makes no difference if an authority also decides to use the standard in laws, typically for certification purposes.
You could say that AIP is not law. I don’t really think a court will see it that way though, it’s not that straight forward. If it is not law, then what is it? It’s certainly not an industry standard, it’s not made by any industry. It’s not a legal document, it’s more of a “AMC/GM” explaining how to comply with the law and also which laws and regulation you should comply with. You cannot be put in jail for breaking the AIP, but you can be put in jail for breaking the corresponding laws. This is a criminal offence, not a legal dispute. The AIP is information by the authorities for us to follow.
I would think that legally the CAA could franchise out whatever it wants. The whole AIP business may be done by a private company. That company are in full right of seeking payment for it’s services. Still, the main focus and responsibility of the CAA is safety (undoubtedly specified in law). Making information less obtainable for pilots, certainly is a very odd way of handling that responsibility.
Airborne_Again wrote:
A good comparison would be if EASA made you pay to get the AMC/GM.
Actually, you are right – these ASTM standards are the AMC/GM.
LeSving wrote:
That is not comparable at all. An industry standard is very far from being something you would call a legal document. An industry standard is made by the industry – for the industry. It’s more related to a POH than the the AIP.
The problem arises when the only reasonable way to comply with legislation is following a set of standards. There are many examples of that.
A good comparison would be if EASA made you pay to get the AMC/GM.
