04
apr

Analysis of Passenger Data ACT OF 25 DECEMBER 2016 on the processing of passenger name records (Belgian Official Journal 25 January 2017) (PNR Act) The Belgian ‘PNR Act’ (Passenger Name Record) requires carriers and tour operators in the various transport sectors (air, rail, road and maritime transport) to forward the data on their passengers to a central database - ‘the passenger name record database’ - so it can be analysed in the context of terrorism, violent radicalisation and other forms of serious crime such as fraud, people smuggling and the illegal trade in drugs and arms. The intent is to compare the collected data with pre-determined criteria to identify new trends and phenomena, and to determine which passengers could endanger our public order. PIU There are still many hurdles to clear before Belgium can effectively start with the analyses. First, a ‘Passenger Information Unit’ or PIU must be established within FPS Home Affairs. This unit will collect, store and process the data that is transmitted by the carriers and tour operators. In other words, it is here that the data is analysed and stored in the ‘Passenger Name Record Database’. Crucial to this is the cooperation with the PIUs of other ...

06
dec

  Implications of the New Regulations regarding the Use of Drones in Belgium On 25 April 2016, the Royal Decree on the use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) in Belgian airspace became effective. This Belgian regulation is a transitional regime.  The minister or the director-general may give persons who have a special experience with respect hereto permission to fly an RPAS, to act as an RPAS flight instructor and RPAS examiner for a period of one year as from the effective date of the Royal Decree on Drones.  If after one year the persons involved are unable to prove that they comply with all requirements laid down in the Royal Decree, their certificate of competency and/or operator’s certificate will be revoked. If you fly a drone that weighs less than 1 kg for private use, you may only do this over private land, at a maximum of 10 metres above the ground, and in accordance with the privacy regulations. Heavier appliances (take-off mass of 1 kg or more) may fly higher (up to 300 feet), but there are strict rules for both operators and appliances.  Pilots must pass theoretical exams and practical tests.  For drones with a take-off mass of ...

13
sep

Brexit and Aviation: Status Quo is Likely The 23rd June referendum vote in favour of the British exit from the EU came as an enormous shock despite the warnings from pollsters, which many EU politicians did not take into consideration. However, this is typical for the European politicians who live in their ivory tower. The first consequence is an unwelcome period of uncertainty. But, as with any major shock of this kind, the immediate warnings of disaster and market collapse normally dissipate as thinking adjusts. The bureaucrats will now begin to pick up the pieces and work around the complexities, to leave this all to chance. For consumers, the single aviation market and the US-EU Multilateral Open Skies Agreement are the most immediate issues. For European services, the likely outcome is for the UK to negotiate single market access, as Norway and others have, through the ECAA, although they are not EU members. This would broadly maintain the status quo from a consumer perspective and the UK’s airlines would retain full market access. UK airlines would have to comply with associated EU regulations, despite having no say in their formulation, which is exactly ...

28
jun

Collision of Birds and Aviation – Part 2 Airport operator liability for damage caused by a bird strike The international sources do not regulate the subject of airport operator’s liability, i.e. if the airport operator is responsible on the basis of objective or subjective principle. Legal theory and judicial practice disagree on this issue. In case the airport operator is responsible on principle of subjective liability, the carrier must prove presence of general conditions for liability like: damage event, loss and cause-and-connect connection between damage event and loos, while he has not to prove the airport operator guilt. In case of subjective responsibility of airport operator for damage caused by a bird strike, it is assumed that the airport operator contributed to occurrence of damage by negligence. Burden of proving a greater degree of responsibility is on the carrier. On the other hand, airport operator in order to be exempted from liability on subjective principle must prove that he is not guilty for the damage, i.e. that he took all available measures to prevent or reduce presence of birds in airport area. In the international air law there is no regulation that ...

03
jun

Collision of Birds and Aviation – Part 1 Bird strikes are a lesser hazard to aviation than other well-known hazards such as loss of control in flight, controlled flight into terrain, and runway excursions, but they can and do present risk that needs to be addressed. The first bird strike was recorded by the Wright brothers in 1905, and the aviation wildlife hazard has been a risk to aviation ever since. The ditching of US Airways flight 1549 on the Hudson River in 2009, was the dramatic result of dual engine thrust loss arising from an airborne encounter with a flock of geese. Although modern jet airliners meet and exceed the government regulations for bird strikes, accidents and serious incidents can occur. Aviation wildlife hazards encompass birds on the ground and in flight, terrestrial animals (such as rabbits), and even airborne animals such as bats; however, this article focuses on bird strikes in particular. Operators and flight crews should be aware of the risk of bird strikes, prevention strategies, and actions to take following a bird strike. International and national legal sources for identification of liability for damage caused by collision of ...