I wonder if the AIP entry is just badly written? Because you could understand if they wanted prior knowledge of unusual activity like parachuting/training/aeros etc where you cannot always comply with ATC instructions right away.
I can see that this would be a huge problem for schools and aerial photography companies, but I don’t see how it would be a big issue for transient or to/from VFR traffic following published routes since it doesn’t apply to them. Or am I missing something?
Published routes for VFR does not exist in Sweden, as far as I am aware…
AndersB wrote:
Published routes for VFR does not exist in Sweden, as far as I am aware…
In a few places there are published VFR arrival and departure routes (e.g. Stockholm/Bromma ESSB), but nothing enroute.
Airborne_Again wrote:
In a few places there are published VFR arrival and departure routes (e.g. Stockholm/Bromma ESSB), but nothing enroute.
And those are in the CTR, not the TMA. There are no published routes or procedures for VFR in any TMA anywhere in Sweden.
So what is the last bullet referencing with ATS routes, and so on? That bullet is the only one that seems to remotely apply to transient GA tourist traffic, but if there are no routes then one can’t really violate that point then if one doesn’t request PPR on the basis that one is complying with that bullet exemption.
Just in case the previous NOTAM was not clear enough:
- MALMO TMA LIMITED FOR VFR TFC, CLEARENCE MAY NOT BE GRANTED.
SCHEDULE: SAT-SUN 0400-2000
FROM: 03 AUG 2019 04:00 TO: 11 AUG 2019 20:00 ES/A0870/19
Dimme wrote:
Just in case the previous NOTAM was not clear enough:
This has every look of a temporary staffing issue.
At least that’s clear … should have been so written in the first place. VFR crossing approval of busy TMAs can often be rather hit and miss. Could be traffic related or staffing.
With reference to the last paragraph in the AIP “ESMS 2.23 ITEM 2” above, I called the Watch Supervisor at Malmö ATCC last week, as my VFR flight from ESMS to ESMH would be included in the PPR requirement (used ATC services in the ESMS CTR, before flying under the Malmö TMA).
We had a constructive chat in a positive tone about the text and she mentioned that they got a few calls just after published, but that not too many question it now. The intention seems to have better control over the many school flights/airwork in the region. She agreed that the AIP was not written exactly as it should be interpreted and would hand over the question to “the guys who write the documentation”.
A bit detailed…did you follow? :-)
