boscomantico wrote:
However, for the latter I am not so sure this is really enforced. I for one have on a few occasions done shortish cross countries in Poland without any flightplan and the FIS which I called did not seem to be bothered.
It is not. In practice the FIS guys don’t even want you to call them to just say “hi, I’m flying from Grandma’s to Auntie’s”, just turn on mode-s and they will call you if they feel a need to (traffic, airspace, etc). Works really well.
And above FL95 Warszawa Radar usually doesn’t have your VFR FPL anyway and they just ask you where you want to go, and clear you there.
tmo wrote:
It is not. In practice the FIS guys don’t even want you to call them to just say “hi, I’m flying from Grandma’s to Auntie’s”, just turn on mode-s and they will call you if they feel a need to (traffic, airspace, etc). Works really well.
Thanks. Well, I sort of agree and neither do I subscribe to the UK-style “who can I talk to?” during every single flight. But then in unfamiliar terrain (which Poland is for all visitors), with lots of (mostly inactive) TSAs and TRAs around, I prefer to share my intentions with the FIS.
tmo wrote:
And above FL95 Warszawa Radar usually doesn’t have your VFR FPL anyway and they just ask you where you want to go, and clear you there.
Interesting. I would have thought that they are exaxtly those who DO have the flightplans to facilitate the RT with the pilots and also to have an initial idea about the filed/intended route.
In Germany, a VFR flightplan which is filed for above FL100 WILL get distributed to the enroute ATCCs and will be available at the radar desks.
Of course, if you file it for “VFR” levels in field 15, then it might not be available to the radar controller.
LeSving wrote:
LOL No one is forcing you. A T-Ford will do even today.
A straw man if ever I saw one.
I largely agree that I prefer ATC calling traffic to an ADS-B display, but I have no trouble mentally filtering out those aircraft on a display that are far away or no threat. In the absence of a radar-derived traffic service (welcome to the UK) the ADS-B is far better than nothing.
You could not rely on ATC to separate you from other traffic within Class E Airspace in my US area – there is just too much traffic, there is certainly no way ATC could talk to all of it, nobody ever considered that possibility and they won’t attempt call you out of the blue either. Even though most can be seen by any local ATC facility on radar, too many planes are talking to ATC for them to provide that kind of service reliably in most of the Class E areas that are densely populated by GA. It’s just too much talk, not enough reliable effect. There are enough IFR flights plus enough VFR ‘flight following weenies’ who call ATC without any necessity that it clogs up the frequencies in those areas. I do use VFR FF occasionally for arrivals or transitions in areas with very complex (typically Class E to Class B to Class D) airspace but not for most cross countries lacking Class B or C. I would find that annoying.
Virtually everybody here has traffic displays in the cockpit via ADS-B IN plus a tablet or whatever, and that does work pretty well in Class E while eliminating a lot of useless radio chat and reducing head-on-swivel lookout stress quite a lot too. Simultaneous radio chat would make the situation worse, not better. The radio and voice communication has its purposes in some situations (mainly related to getting cleared into some body of airspace) but it is archaic technology, not the future.
Similarly, but an exaggerated case, a friend of mine just got back from Oshkosh and reportedly found his tablet pretty useful to get lined up and spaced for his arrival. Once he got in line he couldn’t see any gaps between the planes on his display, so then the only thing useful was staying in line per procedure, with visual look out, with limited radio bandwidth conserved by using it only to receive and not to transmit.
LeSving wrote:
Yes, you see exactly where the traffic IS. That is also part of the problem, not part of the solution.With information (from ATC) you don’t see anything. You only know that some dude is operating at 2k feet flying locally in an area, another one on a cross country mission at 6k from NW to SE and so on. You know their intentions and their proximate whereabouts, and therefore you can filter out most of them. With ADS-B in, it’s like looking at an ant hill.
@LeSving, have you actually ever flown in an area with ADS-B in? I suspect not. I fly in what is probably the busiest airspace on the planet and yes, I do have lots of ‘targets’ on my screen(s). However, there are several factors at play:
1) I use the ‘suppress distant traffic’ function in ForeFlight, so I don’t see the UAL 787 at FL400 above me
2) Much of the traffic is predictable, e.g. the flow in and out of LAX, BUR, SNA, VNY, etc, etc.
3) Most importantly, I see if there is a potential conflict or not. ATC isn’t talking to everyone (although that’s pretty rare in L.A.) but not only do I see the traffic per se, I also see the callsign. Hence, if ATC calls traffic for me AND the conflicting airplane, I see exactly where the other one is with a quick glance on my screen.
ADS-B in is a godsend and could (and does) easily obviate the need for CAS grabs as we are discussing here.
172driver wrote:
Much of the traffic is predictable, e.g. the flow in and out of LAX, BUR, SNA, VNY, etc, etc.
That does make ATC traffic separation effective in those well known and documented areas of Class E. It does not work similarly well in training areas with maneuvering traffic, clogged up transition areas around GA airports and so on. For that ADS-B IN is much, much better than air-to-air alone and VFR FF is pretty much useless if the traffic density is high.
172driver wrote:
ADS-B in is a godsend and could (and does) easily obviate the need for CAS grabs as we are discussing here.
My experience with ADS-B traffic was that like any tool it took a while to learn, but it’s very useful once learned. Limiting access to huge chunks of Class D or higher airspace as an alternate solution looks very regressive in comparison.
Guys, transport yourself to Europe. Here we have
This topic has unfortunately been dragged off-topic. For Ireland, go and fly there, and you will see 
You can fly in the north and ATC will pass you traffic info on traffic in the south 
Yes, and all that needs to change (there is no reasonable way around it) if the region doesn’t want to get 100 years behind in what has become normal aviation infrastructure, and eventually die.
This topic has unfortunately been dragged off-topic.
I am fine with that. There is not really any Ireland-specific input coming anyway, other than to say if you want all instrument procedures to be fully in airspace where all traffic is known and controllable, then this is what you get.
Sure, the ever condescending tone of the US users here is slightly annoying, but generally, I think it is a very interesting subject comparing different approaches and philosophies in airspace design in Europe. What I was thinking is: has any European country ever, or say in the last 30 years, made any drastic changes in their basic airspace design? As far as I can tell, Germany, France, Austria, Slovenia and Switzerland have always had their „class E blanket“ at the lower levels. All the other countries have never had it, up to this day.
the ever condescending tone of the US users here is slightly annoying
They might equally accuse Europeans of having succumbed to the Stockholm Syndrome.
That has largely happened. Look at any of European social media sites (yes – Germany included; look at how many love the Flugleiter ) where anyone questioning the situation gets beaten up by pilots.
I think we badly need somebody here to remind us that a lot of the oppressive measures we have here are actually pointless.
has any European country ever, or say in the last 30 years, made any drastic changes in their basic airspace design?
No, because
Brussels did try to unify airspace, for years, with zero success. It would have been easier to purchase southern Europe Oh… wait… they did that!
