“Mandatory” May be too strong a word to use much of the time. While convenient for ATC, what they really want in most cases Is to know exactly where your are and expected path forward. VFR corridors sometimes need to be followed closely (usually in the vicinity of major airports), but in other cases, if your are clear and confident in your comms, you can fly as you want if it makes sense and isn’t disruptive.
Whats the difference if you are allowed to pass VRP at 4000? They look about the same on Garmin/SD ..
I was taught that VRP-s are only meaningful up to specified altitude- i.e for Tartu CTR the clearance “cleared via LALVI VFR” means not above 1000ft
Peter, I don’t understand your complaint about your problem with VRPs around Southampton.
You requested a VFR clearance, and it seems fairly obvious you’d be asked to transit via VRPs.
As far as I can see, they’re all on the chart….
2greens1red wrote:
You requested a VFR clearance, and it seems fairly obvious you’d be asked to transit via VRPs.
He requested a VFR clearance via SAM. It seems obvious to me that he should get a VFR clearance via SAM unless that route was unsuitable for traffic reasons.
I guess local knowledge would help. SAM is used for intensive IFR training from Bournemouth next door, and 4,000’ is an unlikely cleared altitude, though of course, depends on time of day etc.
Flying that transit dozens of times, VFR, they always seem to pin us down on VRPs; after all, that’s what they’re there for.
IFR reporting points for IFR transit, VRPs for VFR transits, seems logical.
IFR reporting points for IFR transit, VRPs for VFR transits, seems logical.
Can anyone make an argument which stands on its two feet from first principles, along those lines?
In WW1 yes, in WW2 not really unless you are flying a Tiger Moth down the road, and after that not at all – radio nav has been widely used.
I have often flown VFR transits across Class D airspace with one radio on board, a handheld battery powered comm. Comm only in VFR aircraft is common and nowadays using VFR charts on portable moving map GPS is the norm – resulting in installed nav radios being removed.
On the other hand, in relation to the original concern, US VFR charts shown the VRPs pretty clearly and they are by no means mandatory – simply saying ‘unfamiliar’ would change ATC approach to anything that works – which is all that matters.
“IFR reporting points for IFR transit, VRPs for VFR transits, seems logical”
The logical thing is big VRPs in VMC
If you can’t see it or find it, then it does not matter how do you navigate to it or what are your flight rules?
This a bit like AG airfields who insist on you to use QFE to fly their circuits if you dare to request QNH (say trying to avoid CAS on top of you), honestly, as long as you fly that circuit at right “distance to ground” it does not matter what mb datum you have in the pressure scale (if unsure you can leave it at 1013 and fly constant angles to runway or other traffic)
Last time I reported my position to London Info by saying LAVRI, they come back with “it is an IFR waypoint you are VFR”, I told them I am passing Challock in 5min, they had no clue, then told them half way Ashford-London and they went happy, I could cut the chatter if I just picked a flight level and told them I am now IFR like Peter did…
If the VRP was Calshot or Beaulieu maybe there were nice and trying to offer you a shorter route.
The shortest route would be along the coast at 1900ft (whoops I meant 1700ft, in today’s “new climate” 
)
The reason for going via SAM is to get a more orderly handover to Bournemouth for the ILS. There was some cloud around and it is better to position oneself appropriately.
