Frans wrote:
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.
If you were cleared to 2500 ft, you could just have climbed higher without any approval. Specifically, at 2500 you were an uncontrolled flight according to the AMC to SERA.6001. After the nonsensical reply the DFS gave you, you should have reported this to the LBA.
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.
The German VFR AIP has no mention of that in the sections about RMZ or TMZ. They mention that pilots can be given information or advice. (In the US, ATC can give you instructions that you need to comply with regardless of airspace class. That is not the case in Europe – or generally according to ICAO standards.)
Now particularly here in Germany I find the setup of airspaces quite reasonable.
I don’t know nothing about the particular case. But my general observation is that quite an effort is involved in releasing as much airspace as possible to general access. You can really do lots of flights without any real restriction.
And even airspace infringements are handled quite nice and adapted to the particular case. There might be things to be improved here but no comparison to the situation in other countries.
Reverting to this case, they could have made it a delta or Charlie. But instead it’s Echo under TMZ. Don’t you see that it is way better?
Peter wrote:
It does not explain why a route can be flown IFR but exactly the same route cannot be flown VFR.
In Norway there are helicopter routes for IFR in G airspace. These are for helicopters flying IFR (obviously 
), but also VFR. On occasion you will be told by ATC to keep clear of these routes. Flying fixed wing, you don’t carry these routes around, and consequently don’t know where they are, so the ATC just tell you to keep clear of that region or keep above/below certain altitude. I think mostly ambulance helicopters use these routes, but not only them.
In practice, no problem, but looking at SERA and such, it’s a tiny bit confusing. It’s fully legal to fly in G without transponder or radio for instance.
I think, as M_D mentioned, that the current “EASA type ATC” don’t have the needed flexibility built into it. It’s like what we need is a seasoned traffic officer standing in the middle, waiving his hands, guiding the traffic as he sees fit. EASA type ATC don’t work like that.
UdoR wrote:
Now particularly here in Germany I find the setup of airspaces quite reasonable.The German airspace is indeed very reasonable and pretty much cleaned up. But the mess around all kinds of procedures, between FIS, TMZ, or airspace C / D crossings, is something I don’t like. I highly prefer the Danish or French system, where you have much more Delta airspace, but the clearance is granted directly by FIS, which is mostly the dedicated approach controller at the same time. No switching frequencies or squawks. No extra coordination. Even no need to ask for a clearance, as this is granted mostly automatically.
If you were cleared to 2500 ft, you could just have climbed higher without any approval. Specifically, at 2500 you were an uncontrolled flight according to the AMC to SERA.6001. After the nonsensical reply the DFS gave you, you should have reported this to the LBA.Yes, absolutely, that’s what makes the instructions of ATC so strange… Never reported it to the LBA though, as I had no trust it would help anything back then. It might be too late for that now, but next time, I will.
Dan wrote:
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.
I guess the question is why you/your ops team as filed with a final level of FL290? Why is your flight planned profile and ideal profile so different? Is that to avoid some CTOT? Then it is fair game for ATC to leave you at the level you requested in your flight plan.
Peter wrote:
The UK has FCS1522 for reporting refused transits. I don’t know how many reports go in but I do know that UK ATCOs who post on social media (mostly they are on FB, though in the past they were all over the two UK chat sites, under nicknames) really dislike this scheme, labelling it as “ATC bashing”.
Even the CAA is advertising that form in their latest publication:
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Clued%20Up%20Airspace%20Refusal.pdf
Clued_Up_Airspace_Refusal_pdf
Whether the justification we get back tom ATSU are real and acted upon is another question.
I doubt anything is acted on, because ATC can just say it was done for safety / workload reasons. And the worst are certain NATS units which the CAA is even less likely to act on.
Then it is fair game for ATC to leave you at the level you requested in your flight plan.
That is true, but there is a constant game played between
This has been explained to me so many times. It’s like all the search engine ranking hacks over the decades… an evolving battle
^ this is how ATC gets apprehensive and standoffish when it comes to granting clearances. Can you explain why you would blatantly ignore complying with what you said you would comply with? They asked you to descend FL130 in 2min and you said you would and then just didn’t and even made a snarky comment on your video about descending slowly with a smiley face. If I were that guy behind the screen responsible for that airspace, what I would learn from the encounter with you is don’t trust VFR GA pilots to follow my instructions and next time give them the middle finger which I know I easily can.
Don’t you think that while you complain about ATC abusing their powers it’s actually you who is making it happen.
Apologies for my first post being this but as a fairly new PPL who wishes to have as much freedom in the skies as possible it really upset me to watch your video.
The better solution for VFR is no en route radio contact at all, and rational airspace design provides that possibility. Stockholm syndrome is really not the answer, passive resistance may be better 
@hazek Welcome to EuroGA
IIRC, apart from any other factors, I was asked to descend below the nearby terrain elevations. This is always a tricky one with the “below FL130” there. Look up the terrain map of the Alps… There was also some business re that “military exercise” not having been notamed. So your “freedom of the skies” is an illusion.
Are you an ATCO? If you were, you would know how this works. Obligations go both ways.
