Pilots in NL prosecuted and found guilty for disturbing wildlife

[Oldpilot55]

I find this really quite depressing. We nearly had the same rubbish in the Cairngorms where a no-fly zone was proposed but rejected. I'm all for protecting wildlife but this over-zealousness seen in Holland leaves a nasty reminder of the freedoms our fathers died for two generations ago.

[adv]

so does a birdstrike now automatically qualify you for prosecution?
(or should that be persecution!)

[It flies]

I'm learning to fly at Lelystad airport at the moment, and from my own observation can confirm that a lot of the disturbed feathered wildlife crosses the busy A6 motorway and come foraging on the meadows of the airport. Herons, storks, buzzards, falcons and what have you. On more than one occasion I've dodged herons on the runway. Doing a runup next to four or five storks is common.

Might this have something to do with the type of aeroplane? I can't imagine something like a Rotax powered aircraft at 1450 ft to really be loud enough above the background noise to disturb any wildlife. It would be easier to be offended by a passing Yak-52. It seems that it would be hard to prove that wildlife is disturbed by an aircraft flying overhead next to a busy motorway.

[sternone]

You can't compare those cheeseheads with the rest of Europe. Therefor I'm sure that this stays a very isolated issue in Europe.

[hatzflyer]

I understand from friends in Belgium that a lot of wealthy Dutch pilots are now nipping across the boarder to fly. The result of this being that they offer "premium" rents for hangar space and are effectively pricing all the locals out of all the northern airfields.

[Mechta]

From what I have seen, it is unfamiliar noises which scare wildlife. If you flew the same plane over the same nature reserve every day, the birds would get used to it and probably not be bothered. Buy a new plane with a different engine, and for a few days they may get alarmed.

I have seen crows barely more than a rotor diameter from a Chinook starting up, who didn't bother getting out the way, so volume of noise isn't the only factor.

Anyway, who's to say the birds didn't detect a nearby predator which caused them to take flight?

[BackPacker]

Anyway, who's to say the birds didn't detect a nearby predator which caused them to take flight?

The park rangers.

According to the law, their observation statement is sufficient for a conviction. Just like a statement from a police officer would be sufficient in a lot of cases. In fact, in the Netherlands, they have the legal status of "buitengewoon opsporingsambtenaar" which gives them limited police-like privileges.

You can't compare those cheeseheads with the rest of Europe. Therefor I'm sure that this stays a very isolated issue in Europe.

Welcome back Sternone! Have all the bruises on your ego from your previous frequent-visit period healed?

[AC-DC]

I just bought a new map, over Holland a Prohibited is printed.

[BackPacker]

I just bought a new map, over Holland a Prohibited is printed.

Sorry, can't use that one legally yet. Look at the date: it's from 2012. You know the law: never fly with outdated or pre-dated charts.

[It flies]

Anyway, who's to say the birds didn't detect a nearby predator which caused them to take flight?

This is the point I was trying to make. This seems very hard to prove as the Oostvaardersplassen is right next to a motorway and Lelystad airport. People are free to enter. Lots of aeroplanes fly along the edges each day. I think even the aerobatic competition box is within hearing distance.

According to the law, their observation statement is sufficient for a conviction. Just like a statement from a police officer would be sufficient in a lot of cases. In fact, in the Netherlands, they have the legal status of "buitengewoon opsporingsambtenaar" which gives them limited police-like privileges.

I'm aware of this, but it would not make much sense if this can pass unchallenged in a higher court. In Holland you can get a 140 euro fine for holding a mobile phone while driving. It doesn't matter whether you are using it or not, the police officers' word is enough evidence. But if I could prove that I don't even own a phone and I was holding my camera, how can this 'evidence' hold up in court?

We're in need of a Dutch version of 'Flying Lawyer' here.

[BackPacker]

People are free to enter.

Last time I was there the nature reserve was fenced off. Access is very limited and only allowed when accompanied by a park ranger. Except last year when all the ponds were iced over and somebody gave a blanket permission to all ice skaters to enter.

I think even the aerobatic competition box is within hearing distance.

The aerobatics hold is normally placed at the western tip of the ATZ/SRZ and is two lateral miles from the fence, approximately. The aerobatics box is slightly further away from the fence at approx. 4 miles. That's most likely hearing distance, but I wonder if it's close enough to actually cause a disturbance.

Furthermore, there is a highway and a railway line in between.

[Katamarino]

I would also be interested to hear how 'The Police Officer said so' can possibly be taken as more believable than the person being prosecuted (assuming they are a person of good standing without previous record). Expecially having seen cases where the Officer is mistaken, or just plain inventing stuff - do they have targets to fill on 'numbers of cyclists stopped', or the like? It seems odd that they have to wrongly fine innocent cyclists when visiting any road crossing in The Hague will get you 95% of cyclists sailing blindly through the red light, while I and maybe one other person get sworn at for having the gall to stop for it!

I realise we are branching out here slightly

[It flies]

Backpacker, thanks for the clarification on the aerobatics area. It will be interesting to see how this case develops. Especially if the everlasting plans to develop Lelystad for airliner traffic actually happen. There will be a lot of fines handed out then...

I would not be surprised to see this verdict overturned eventually.

Katamarino, I think this thread will be moved to Jetblast swiftly if we continue on that one

[Katamarino]

Good point, I'll leave it there

[It flies]

There has been a short update on this issue on the dutch AOPA site. Follow the link in the first post to see the update. (Text in dutch)

I think the gist of the text is this:

The dutch minister has in answer to questions in dutch parliament told that she will look into the inconsistencies in the current laws and if necessary change them so the current use of airspace by general aviation in the Netherlands can be upheld.

I think this can be seen as a glimmer of hope?

[Pace]

Although the judge noted that the laws clearly conflict, and called upon the Dutch government to resolve this situation, I suspect that this rather low-level judge was simply not legally able to weigh one law against another. The public prosecutor was basically able to prove that the wildlife was disturbed in the legal sense of the wildlife act, so the judge at this level had no other way than to find the defendants guilty. That they were conforming to all aviation laws and customs at the time was not deemed a valid defence.

BackPacker

Surely the Captain of an aircraft has the ultimate descision to override any law in his duties of maintaining the safety of his aircraft.

To have pulled his aircraft up into CAS would have caused a collision threat if he had tried to avoid the birds.

His descision not to avoid the birds by not entering CAS would within his rights overule the bird protection laws?

Pace

[dublinpilot]

Pace,

I think the provision that you are refering to only allows the commander to disregard a part of the ANO...not any law.

dp

[IO540]

I think this is one of many examples of where national laws were drafted without considering ICAO obligations.

The UK drive to sell off aviation frequencies is another one, dreamt up by unbelievable idiots, but the amazing thing is how far this one has run without anybody in Govt apparently noticing the "little problem".

[BackPacker]

Surely the Captain of an aircraft has the ultimate descision to override any law in his duties of maintaining the safety of his aircraft.

Pace, this was not a case of a safety concern overriding the law. We were not talking about a flock of birds in-flight on a collision course, but rather wildlife being disturbed on the ground by pilots overhead at 1450'.

Looking at the letter of this wildlife protection law, what the pilots should have done is not overfly this nature reserve at any height where this might disturbe wildlife. Not at 1450' (50' below the base of CAS) like they did, not at 2000'-FL45 (typical CAT vectoring altitudes for EHAM at this location) and not at FL100 or above. Unless they were absolutely sure that their appearance/shadow/exhaust gas/noise/karma could not, in any way, disturbe the wildlife there.

That's the main problem we're talking about. It's not an aviation law but a wildlife protection law resulting from European legislation. The way that wildlife protection law is currently written - and apparently interpreted - is that it has no vertical limit. If your plane, no matter at what altitude, is thought/observed to have disturbed wildlife in that area then you're a target for prosecution. Even if you fully comply with other laws, including those for aviation.

Of course the Natura-2000 wildlife reserves (note: plural - there are several dozens of these identified in the Netherlands alone) are not listed as such on any VFR or IFR aviation chart. Furthermore, pilots have no way of knowing how skittish the animals are at that time. Have they eaten recently? How many natural predators are there in that area anyway? How used are they to overflying air traffic, or, for instance, traffic noise from a nearby highway or railway line?

(Note that in this particular case, the Oostvaardersplassen, a railway line literally run along the fence of the nature reserve and the highway A6 is just 750 meters away. If a train passes and a bird within the reserve is disturbed and takes flight, theoretically the train driver can be prosecuted too.)

So abiding by this law is a totally hopeless proposition. Not just for a pilot overflying this reserve, but also for a train or car driver on the nearby railway line or highway.

[It flies]

Another update on the Dutch AOPA website. Things seem to be slowly moving in the right direction. (text in Dutch only)

http://www.aopa.nl/files/docs/40.pdf