MichaLSA wrote:
Specific: risk is not zero a pilot mistakenly takes such an accepted FPL as clearance to enter the FL >100.
I know that authorities over and over again hammers in the message that an accepted flight plan is not a clearance (at least the Swedish one does) so that seems to be a common misunderstanding. But I really can’t understand it. The distinction between planning and execution should be crystal clear. It’s not like you’re talking to FIS, simply tell them that you intend to climb to FL105 and then get busted. That I could possibly understand.
Ask confidently and competently, and PROB99 you will receive. Unless you’re wanting to cross an active ILS at the wrong altitude, or an area with active military drills, etc., then asking while sounding/acting competent mostly works the same everywhere.
Ask confidently and competently, and PROB99 you will receive.
That is definitely no longer the case here.
Ask confidently and competently, and PROB99 you will receive
We are talking VFR in general Charlie, even in France & US you can get refused one if ATC can’t separate or handover
Once you are in Charlie ATC need to provide handover and separation all the way on adjacent Delta/Charlie
We are talking VFR in general Charlie, even in France & US you can get refused one if ATC can’t separate or handover.
Make that Delta for Spain.. Often enough, asking for a VFR transit in D comes with a a negative. Especially near major airports at tourist destinations in summertime. Depends on the controller though. If he knows/likes or flies GA you’re often good to go 
Sorry for the thread drift, back to Germany..
In Germany, the difference between „TMA class C“ or D, and the „general class D above FL100“ is very little. The only one being that in the TMAs there is often some IFR traffic to deal with, whereas the general class C is totally devoid of any traffic (except occasions al climbs and descents of high level traffic of course).
But traffic density is not the point. No matter how you shake it, every such transit or enroute segment of a VFR aircraft is always a „strip“ to create, some coordination to make, at least 5 radio calls to make, etc. Plus you never know what kind of pilot you get. If ATC is staffed at the minimum (Covid and summer vacations of stuff), then they will just refuse a VFR entry, without offering any alternative, as that reduces the workload to just one brief radio call.
Obviously, from a VFR GA pilots point of view, this is not a great situation, when ATC cannot warrant a general accessibility of its controlled airspaces (although DFS will hardly admit this) but it is what itis and they won‘t adjust their resource planning to the VFR GA pilots needs.
boscomantico wrote:
No matter how you shake it, every such transit or enroute segment of a VFR aircraft is always a „strip“ to create, some coordination to make, at least 5 radio calls to make, etc. Plus you never know what kind of pilot you get.
While I agree you may get initially denied for any number of reasons, and perhaps PROB99 should be lowered, but in my experience the difference comes down to this…
Pilot 1 (first transmission to any ATC): “X Approach, um, this is, um, oscar oscar whisky tango foxtrot, ah, 5 minutes east, I mean west of X, request permission to climb to 10.500 feet to enter your airspace”
X Approach: “Unable at this time. Remain clear of class charlie.”
Pilot 2 (on Information, with whom he has been in contact already): “X Information, oscar tango foxtrot request climb FL110” (already knows this means a freq transfer)
X Information: “For permission to enter class charlie, contact X Approach 123.456”
Pilot 2: “X Approach, oscar oscar whisky tango foxtrot, TB10 over ALPHA (IFR waypoint) at FL090, request climb FL110, routing via BRAVO, CHARLIE, DELTA (a sensible route using IFR waypoints)”
X Approach: “Cleared as requested, squawk 1234.”
In the first case, the request comes from nowhere, uses up nearly the same amount of transmission time as the second, and creates work for the controller to figure out what this guy is actually going to do. He also makes mistakes and shows signs of orientation issues. If I’m the controller, this sounds like a guy I don’t want to deal with.
The second communicates everything the controller needs to know: 1) he’s already in the system, so it’s more of a handoff; 2) the information is complete and concisely communicated; 3) he offers a reasonable route, so he knows the area, has a plan, doesn’t need hand holding, and is unlikely to wander off unexpectedly; 4) he uses IFR waypoints, which is a non-subtle cue that he’s instrument rated, and which helps the controller who is accustomed to working with IFR traffic.
I won’t say this is a 100% model for success, but it dramatically increases your chances!
Here is what happened yesterday: initially checked in on Langen Info gave my details, didn’t file a fpl beforehand. Frequency was quite busy, and there were tons of gliders in the air, which are always tricky to spot.
Once frequency traffic died down a bit, I said “langen Info, HB-XXX, request climb to FL 105 and enter airspace Charlie, on a xxx heading. I’m Instrument rated.”
After some coordination by FIS, I was handed over to radar controller and immediately cleared up to FL 090 through Stuttgart delta airspace and then a few minutes later cleared to climb “up to FL110” which I took as a cue that they prefer 110 over my requested 105, so I climbed to 110. The last request they had was that I fly to an IFR waypoint instead of a heading, which was no problem at all, so probably better to request a waypoint routing from the getgo.
When descending out of Charlie nearby my destination, they even offered that I can remain on their frequency (which I down to about 5k ft) and gave me very useful traffic information.
Overall very impressive service, given that on a later IFR flight plan on the same day I had a 45 minute CTOT delay due to congestion/not enough staff.
I also felt there was a real convenience and safety advantage for me as a pilot as I was separated from all the airspace E VFR traffic which is often unknown to ATC. And yesterday there was really everything: I even encountered a non-motorized paraglider at FL080 nearby karlsruhe.
👍👍👍 Three thumbs up. You made yourself knowing in advance, discussed your options and opinion here in the Forum, executed accordingly and got the experience what it is like to get the reward of being prepared. Perfect.
Well done!
HBadger wrote:
a few minutes later cleared to climb “up to FL110” which I took as a cue that they prefer 110 over my requested 105, so I climbed to 110. The last request they had was that I fly to an IFR waypoint instead of a heading, which was no problem at all, so probably better to request a waypoint routing from the getgo.
In my experience even when VFR a controller will usually give even altitudes as opposed to 500ft increments. This makes sense because the VFR altitude rules are based on visual separation, whereas the time spent under positive control is not visual separation. Also your experience re: the IFR waypoint is exactly what I was referring to above. Unless I’m VFR in a terminal area with defined VFR reporting points that the controller is expecting me to use, I always refer to IFR waypoints and even altitudes, because that’s the controller’s comfort zone and lets you mix more easily with IFR traffic.
