The Stockholm one is fair. Flight schools etc call in advance to let know of their intentions (PN, not PPR) and ACC can plan abit in advance. Good for all
The Malmö one is just absurd. Basically every VFR flight in this rather large TMA requires PPR, only given weekdays. And during a few days in June (so far), no VFR flights at all will be accepted…. I’m following up abit on my side, but not locally based, so no connections at ATCC
skydriller wrote:
Would a flight plan be PPR?It never is.
A similar entry for Stockholm TMAA key difference is the latter is explicitly referring to the TMA, which I’m fine with, while the former to TMA’s lateral limits FL195 and below, ie including the G-air below the TMA all the way down to the ground, which is ridiculous. And useless, people will stop calling FIS (they don’t have to for VFR flights anyway), ATCC won’t be able to enforce its rule (how do you verify the type of operations if you are not in contact with the operator?), and with more people flying no-XPDR/no-COM the overall safety will be degraded. Good job.
I see what you mean @Arne, and you are correct. The way the text is formulated now also includes the G airspace below the TMA lateral limits. This is of course crazy, non-enforceable and probably illegal. I have however done many flights since then in the G airspace below without any PPR and I have received traffic information from Sweden Control without any problem, so I assume it’s probably sloppy written text that didn’t mean to include the G airspace below.
Didn’t catch that….even worse/crazy/etc/etc….what can possibly be the meaning of this? Any of you locals that can make some calls and try to find more out on this?
Important also for all guys coming in from Europe to Sweden VFR…
I’ve sent an inquiry via aroweb, I’ll report if I get anything meaningful.
Concerning VFR traffic coming from Germany, we were a bunch coming back on Sunday, at least 2 of us did not call before (I don’t know for the other 2) and we were all accepted in the TMA at our altitudes. Maybe the traffic was slow just then.
An ATCO just wrote in a comment on Facebook that “PPR is not required for such cross country flights”. However, that is not reflected in the AIP. Maybe the entry will be updated eventually.
Kind comment from the ATCO, but if the AIP says so and no NOTAM saying different is published, that is simply the rule.
Hopefully, ATC will then after all incoming calls, understand that they have to rewrite.
Wording says “…that is expected to affect air traffic service”, so flights in uncontrolled airspace within the TMA lateral limits, is exempted.
I was looking at this just today and the AIP entry for Malmo is either vague or all encompassing depending upon how you read it. I happen to be in Malmo right now and have asked a Swedish friend who speaks very good English if there is any translation errors and he says not. Its the bit at the end saying “Other flight operations that not intend to follow published ATS routes or procedures, within controlled airspace, that is expected to effect the air traffic service” which could encompass ALL flights, or they might mean only flights unable to comply with ATC instruction, such as aerobatics?
I hope to be flying up here myself VFR in a month or so and it would be interesting to know what others have experienced.
Regards, SD..
It’s only the rumor mill, but a colleague at the aero club mentioned that it’s connected to the large military excercise that’s currently ongoing. I looked at the naval AIS yesterday and there are ton of NATO vessels around the southestern coast.
Ahh..
Would explain the NOTAM, but not the AIP…
