I asked VFR traffic through Geneva airspace only once, in August 2016, along the published route. Was readily granted. They politely asked me whether I could climb a bit higher (FL110 or FL120, something like that), I accepted, but IIRC that question came after getting crossing clearance.
Frans wrote:
Please send us some reports of such occurrences (where and when).
I’m sorry, but I didn’t keep a logbook for the VFR crossing inquisition 
. Last time was this Monday en route from LSZS to EDSB. We crossed Zürich TMA sectors 11 and 13 on a vector from Walensee to VEDOK at FL90 (for IFR pickup at VEDOK). Clearance was relayed by Zürich Information.
The question still stands: how can ATC get away with this? Doesn’t anybody question it?
Perhaps these measures are used to keep “novice” pilots out of “professional airspace” (in the UK and probably all of Europe, the IR is very deliberately used for that purpose) and nobody wants to state this openly because it would question the national CAA’s licensing the PPL schools in return for hefty payments 
Thomas_R wrote:
Last time was this Monday en route from LSZS to EDSB. We crossed Zürich TMA sectors 11 and 13 on a vector from Walensee to VEDOK at FL90 (for IFR pickup at VEDOK). Clearance was relayed by Zürich Information.That’s already a big difference between a ‘simple’ VFR-only flight and a flight with IFR pickup on a Z-FPL. I do know that Zurich does allow VFR traffic into their TMA, when changing halfway from VFR to IFR or from IFR to VFR.
how can ATC get away with this? Doesn’t anybody question it?I’ve send the German DFS some critical feedback before, regarding strange ATC instructions at Paderborn (EDLP), as they did not allow me once to enter airspace Echo as VFR flight (no joke), but all I got was an answer like: “We can do whatever we want.”
I don’t get it – what do you mean exactly with “ATC did not allow you to enter airspace Echo VFR”? You don’t need any permission/clearance to enter airspace Echo VFR.
Frans wrote:
That’s already a big difference between a ‘simple’ VFR-only flight and a flight with IFR pickup on a Z-FPL. I do know that Zurich does allow VFR traffic into their TMA, when changing halfway from VFR to IFR or from IFR to VFR.
The difference between simple and complex VFR has somehow escaped me until now. VEDOK is almost at the other side of the TMA, i.e. the northern border, by the way.
We’ve done a couple of sight-seeing flights (VFR only!) some years ago to Eiger, Mönch & Jungfrau or to Matterhorn. All of which involved a routing from the north to WIL, thereby crossing several parts of Zürich TMA. It has never been a problem and sometimes was even offered by FIS. Maybe Zürich Arrival also prefers scenic flights?
This was a sightseeing flight where I went VFR around the mountains but they kept me below FL130. ATC sound track there too.
UdoR wrote:
I noticed however that the rate of success is a lot higher when I filed a VFR flight plan where I indicated the route I want to fly
It’s the same in Norway. Usually there are no problems, but if the ATC is busy and you come unannounced (no FP), then you could simply get the message “Stay out of controlled airspace” from the ATC. At some places/circumstances, a FP is required.
In Germany there’s no difference FPL or not in my experience. In fact a FPL get’s filed by ATC when accepted e. g. when approving >FL100. If I file a VFR FPL in advance Radar doesn’t have access to it anyway. Normally I call FIS, state intentions and get a Radar frequency after FIS asked them wether they can accept me. Works like a charm in most cases.
Peter wrote:
The question still stands: how can ATC get away with this? Doesn’t anybody question it?Perhaps these measures are used to keep “novice” pilots out of “professional airspace”
Interesting comments by Peter…
Not trying to be nasty, but a feeling I got more and more over the years, is that one of ATC’s top priority is please no additional work…
Even in the IFR pro environment. Typical example of protective rigidity: commercial line flight LGW-BSL, capped by FPL at FL290. Take-off from either runway direction at LGW, usual slow step climb on southerly vectors, until finally cleared to the final level and to contact French ATC. The FMS predicts loads of fuel savings, and usually better speeds at 390. Which one requests ASAP. Please “standby”. TCAS in all ranges display no traffic above in the vicinity. Time passes, then “for your request contact 1….”. The game repeats on and on until half the trip has been flown, and the PIC, upon querying as to the reason no higher level is given, is being told “because of block assignment” or the like. By which time the TOD appears on the top edge of the ND on the 320NM range
ATC has, over the years, evolved into a highly complex, and at the same time obsolete and rigid system, favouring ATC as such. Further automation of the system is met by high resistance, just try mentioning the abbreviation SES to any French controller
In return, the nicely organised (…) and oiled ATC system transforms all VFR traffic crossing or operation request as an intruder threat… and additional work. VRPs, VFR routes and the like are testimony to this philosophy, in contrast to the US, where one makes a position report and request, and is usually given a squawk, vectors and altitude in short order. Or used to. But also there, workload increase means such request will not always be granted, the more so in and around the bigger hubs.
In short, we cannot book more and more cheap flights to any place in EU, or the world, and expect ATC to handle “simple hobby VFR” flights with the same priority as commercial ops.
As technology moves into CPDLC, auto TCAS, etc, compounded by a further increase of movements, and SEP/MEP IFR private ops will also be threatened from operating into big airports and complex system.
Add to that the coming of UAVs… guys, we are doomed
