Malmö TMA PPR

Had similar experience last week with the same controllers (but IFR). Always friendly and doing their best.

Well, Copenhagen info, Kastrup Approach and Sweden Control could not have been more helpful today as I flew through their areas, negotiating onward clearances and handing one to the other – with a VFR flight plan. Thanks for the great service – if any of you ATC-ers are reading this!!

Regards, SD..

Agree (as that would include VFR training as well).

AndersB wrote:

The intention seems to have better control over the many school flights/airwork in the region.

Then why don’t they phrase it like for Stockholm TMA:

Prior Notice is required for the following operations within STOCKHOLM TMA;
* School and training flights, including “airwork”, holding and repeated instrument approaches
* Geological survey flights
* Parachute dropping
* Calibration flight for nav-aids and approach aids

Before submitting a flight plan the operator shall give prior notice […] of the flight by Watch Supervisor Stockholm ACC phone +46 (0)8 585 547 02

or even requiring PPR would be better.

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? :-)

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.

Dimme wrote:

Just in case the previous NOTAM was not clear enough:

This has every look of a temporary staffing issue.

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.