Controlled airspace where VFR should be allowed but isn't

Frans wrote:

they did not allow me once to enter airspace Echo as VFR flight (no joke)

Can you explain? Neither radio contact nor a clearance are required for VFR in Class E airspace as long as the weather meets Class E VFR minima.

Dan wrote:

TC has, over the years, evolved into a highly complex, and at the same time obsolete and rigid system, favouring ATC as such.

I think, particularly in Switzerland, we have to take another crucial factor into account, which is the legal threats ATCO’s keep being confronted with. IMHO, this has been a MASSIVE reason for the changes in our country, how anything out of the ordinary is being dealt with.

Swiss ATC in the days before the Ueberlingen disaster and before the upheaval in the FOCA where lots of the progressive minds like Auer were replaced by people who think much more in legal terms than in others, used to be highly flexible and also a “fun” place to be. In the 1980ties and 90ties there was few one could not get from them if asking nicely and behaving professionally while doing it. Slots were a term only used by ATC, not in connection with regulation of airport capacity, PPR was practically unknown wherever you went and particularly ZRH ATC were mostly the ones who would accomodate whatever they could.

After the horrible years of the two Crossair accidents and the Uberlingen disaster, these things changed profoundly. We lost lots of freedom to operate at ZRH, such as the swing over 14/16, such as circuit flying during off times, such as wake turbulence separation, such as similar use of 14/16 which was for decades managed well by the crews at ZRH and were thrown out due to single incidents which proved that the ATCO’s KNOW what they are doing. Single incidents were used to restrict the whole system. And in recent times, one tragic accident has eliminated a whole branch of flying historical airliners and airplanes, not because the reason for that crash was found to be those ancient airplanes to be not airworthy but due to the opening of a chance to get rid of a work intensive possible liability.

We had rules upon rules implemented which all did one thing: It made anything out of the bog standard procedures more and more impossible. In many cases, this was done against the desires and in stark contrast with the capabilities of the ATCO’s themselves who simply were forced into submissions by the fact that several of their colleagues who actually DEFUSED situations successfully (such as GA14/TO16) found themselves being treated as criminals and dragged before courts and in some cases punished for doing their job. While this has been defused somewhat today, it has fundamentally changed the way ATC works or rather HAS to use brutal CYA tactics for the simple fear of being indicted the moment they do something which is not specifically allowed.

This whole mindset can be seen anywhere today: The Annex 13 purpose of accident and incident reporting and the just culture which is the essence of Annex 13 has been totally destroyed by the attacks on people who were upfront and honest when incidents happened instead of hushing them up. That is not only what ATC but also many other people had to find out after cooperating in good faith with TSB’s in recent years.

Seeing all that should put a perspective onto why ATCOS in Europe today are being less and less willing to put their ass on the line to make something possible for someone who then might screw up and get them into court. There is practically no more due diligence and human judgement involved, but simply and easily strict rule following. And I would not be surprised if in the heads of those theorists, the elimination of the human as a “source of errors” from the process is where this is eventually leading to.

I am glad I grew up and started flying in those days of freedom and fun, yet I do sympathize with the role the ATCO’s have today vs 10-20 years ago and I understand that they are no longer willing AND in many cases outright forbidden to use their judgement rather than the rulebook and the earlier “let’s see what we can do” attitude has changed into “can they punish me for that?” question which needs to be addressed.

While I have understanding for the people “at the front” it stops there. The environment out of judges, prosecutors and table theorist rulemakers which has replaced expertise and progression is an aspect which poisons so many factors of our lives today that it also has created a society where government and rulemaking is in general rejected by the population as all of them find that the inhumanity and rampant bureaucracy invades all aspect of their lives. This is not a good development.

But in general, I think if something should be done to look at that and improve the situation, what would be needed is a unified front of all participants in aviation to stop the overregulation and particularly the overzealous prosecution of our fellow professionals who do nothing more than their job. We should not allow ourselves to be instrumentalized in a “divide and conquer” scheme thought up by those in power but stand together. Otherwise, we will increasingly find ourselves in a very inhospitable place to be.

Peter wrote:

It does not explain why a route can be flown IFR but exactly the same route cannot be flown VFR.

In the eyes of many regulators and certainly many lawyers, VFR are about as useful as a mosquito at a barbequeue.

It’s all about “avoidable risk”. Hobby planes (which VFR are mostly) are avoidable, as not necessary for the “big picture” which for them is CAT and for many even airline traffic only (those evil moneybags in their jets are just as unnecessary). It’s also an unfortunate fact that VFR pilots may exhibit a larger risk of ending up where they should not be, higher, lower, not on track, than a magenta line LNAV steered airliner. CVFR unfortunately disappeared again, when it was a good answer to many of those problems.

So the easy thing is, put a mosquito net up called class A or C and keep them out. Risk averted.

It’s not unlike any other conflict. To understand what is going on you have to put yourself into the shoes of those who are against you. GA does not do that often enough and certainly not with the vindictiveness needed to really take effect.

What supposed risk of properly allowing VFR access to all airspace except Class A could not be put to bed by looking at the US airspace system? It is not money for ATC either, the cost is minimal in comparison to that of many government functions that achieve comparatively little.

The seemingly crazy situation results from government interest in controlling and shaping what is perceived as an intrinsically threatening activity as opposed to promoting freedom under rational rule of law. If it is local, it is because the culture in that locality is more inclined or tolerant towards knocking down outliers and shaping behavior.

VFR flight in a rational system doesn’t even require radio contact except in very densely flown airspace, never mind permission for access. The supposed legal and liability issues, as well as the ATC cost arguments are just a charade or a symptom, not a real cause. CAA and ATC incompetence in controlling classes B, C and D airspace may be a secondary factor but it would be overcome if anybody involved was properly motivated.

chflyer wrote:

Can you explain? Neither radio contact nor a clearance are required for VFR in Class E airspace as long as the weather meets Class E VFR minima.

This happened on a flight, starting from Paderborn in 2020. The CTR (class D) border goes up to 2.500 ft, after which airspace Echo with a TMZ goes up to FL100. The controller didn’t want me to pass 2.500 ft. I requested a direct climb to 3.500 ft, which was denied. So I asked the controller why, as this is airspace Echo and my transponder was activated with mode S for the TMZ. Then this controller got pretty mad at me, he told me this airspace is only for approaching and departing IFR aircraft and VFR departures are limited to 2.500 ft according to the VAC.

OK, to be fair, the VAC shows indeed a sentence, which says: “VFR approaches and departures max. 2.500 ft”, but again: There is airspace Echo above the CTR, no Delta, no Charlie, like at many other airports. How the hell can a controller force me to stay in his CTR?

So after the flight, I did send an E-Mail to the DFS. First of all to complain about the angry controller, but also asking why the German tower controllers never hand over to approach if this is so important to them and why this 2.500 ft limitation was in place. Well, I received an E-Mail with some further strange explanations from the subsidiary company “DFS Aviation Services”, claiming the TMZ above the CTR is for IFR traffic and the German system never foresees a handover for VFR traffic to the approach controller. I should have requested a direct climb on the ground, so the Tower controller could align with the approach controller for clearance, or otherwise, I should call FIS. And now even the most suspect part of this E-Mail:
Because the airspace above the CTR was Delta somewhere in the past (before 2018), we still need to control this and we would prefer to have it back to Delta, as we need to manage IFR traffic. Therefore, you may only enter the TMZ, if you’re coming from somewhere else and remain on the same level (e.g. 3.500 ft). An altitude change in the TMZ (Echo) should always be reported to the Tower or FIS and is not permitted without clearance, due IFR approaches and departures.

So again, I wrote them back that this is actually BS and VFR traffic can do whatever they want inside airspace Echo and the TMZ only requires an activated transponder mode S, without any radio contact. Never got an answer anymore.

Meanwhile, rules changed in Germany, and a TMZ means now mandatory monitoring of the approach sector frequency, plus squawking a code, mentioned on the VFR charts. They could contact you, if the controller wants you to change your altitude, when being in conflict with IFR traffic. I’ve seen a DFS presentation on this new rule, and so far they told their audience, being asked to change your altitude is not so “voluntarily” as it should be. You’re still responsible for own separation while flying VFR, but you should comply with controller instructions. This makes each TMZ zone in Germany now a kind of “Delta lite” airspace.

Peter wrote:

Why in CH Class C airspace which is largely around the Alps? There really is no commercial traffic there.

Because of the military. They use the airspace above FL130 during the week. Outside their operational hours (MIL OFF), the lower border between Echo and Charlie is at FL150, but even higher can be requested and is mostly approved by Alps Radar (former Delta).

This happened on a flight, starting from Paderborn in 2020. The CTR (class D) border goes up to 2.500 ft, after which airspace Echo with a TMZ goes up to FL100. The controller didn’t want me to pass 2.500 ft. I requested a direct climb to 3.500 ft, which was denied

I had something similar in France, VFR departure from Delta CTR restricted from climb in Echo TMA, funnily you can leave CTR laterally under TMA, climb in Golf and return to cross overhead not talking to anyone…

Peter wrote:

Why in CH Class C airspace which is largely around the Alps? There really is no commercial traffic there.

In the Alps I’ve never been refused to fly higher, some times it goes via Zurich Delta however. ZRH TMA I’ve never had the need to overfly because ZRH is usually my destination.

Why the Swiss ATC are super careful I’ve explained above. While I don’t like the situation, I understand it. Frankly, under the conditions they had to work over the years now, with countless legal threats and relentless prosecution instead of just culture and improvement rather than forbidding every procedure which has had a single mishap in years, I would not like to do this job and I hold those who still do it in the highest respect.

Silvaire wrote:

What supposed risk of properly allowing VFR access to all airspace except Class A could not be put to bed by looking at the US airspace system? It is not money for ATC either, the cost is minimal in comparison to that of many government functions that achieve comparatively little.

The airspace system is not grossly different. It’s the way the ATC personell as well as regulators are being treated by the legal profession and the general understanding of risk. While the spirit of ICAO and Annex 13 primarily is risk management, today the legal guys in all those organisations (CAA as well as ATC) press for radical risk avoidance. If it’s any perceived risk, ban it.

It is a change of paradigm which founds on general distrust to human performance and the liability implied or imagined which comes from it.