ivark wrote:
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
VRP are (normally) there to separate IFR from VFR entering and departing controlled airports. They can are also be linked to VFR routes inside the CTR. There is also a max altitude associated with them. Thus they have no meaning when flying higher. On uncontrolled airports there may also be VRPs in the vicinity, but then they are there as blind reporting points, and are not mandatory. VRP enroute sounds odd to me, what if you fly “on top” for instance?
In class D airspace, VFR does not actively get separated from IFR flights, which is why in Class D (CTR) around airports Visual arrival and departure routes are implemented to achieve that separation. This does not preclude an ATC unit clearing you a different way, but they may not be very forthcoming if they have other traffic.
Did the controller know your motivation for wanting to fly via SAM? And if the wether was such that you wanted to use an ILS at your destination, why not request IFR from the outset?
And how is SAM an IFR-specific point anyway?
I know there are IFR reporting points like DOMEG or VALSU etc, which, when I use them VFR, sometimes confuses the FISO or so.
But SAM is a DME-station and why would that not be suitable for VFR?
Indeed; it doesn’t make sense. Forcing VFR traffic to VRPs, especially enroute at 4000ft, is crazy and suggests ATC doesn’t know people use GPS.
Peter wrote:
Forcing VFR traffic to VRPs, especially enroute at 4000ft, is crazy and suggests ATC doesn’t know people use GPS.
That depends on how the area is set up. If they have VRP’s and VFR routes they want VFR traffic to follow to separate them from IFR Approach sectors, it is not at all crazy. That is how it works in ZRH or elsewhere, where Transit routes usually follow the inbound/outbound routes. You can not expect to be cleared across the CTR on any other route. Also you would never be cleared through the CTR at any higher altitudes then those prescribed in the VFR routes.
I don’t know how Southampton is set up in this regard, but it may well be the same Thing.
Most of Europe, including the UK generally, doesn’t have a problem with VFR traffic routing via IFR waypoints.
Obviously the conditions need to be VMC but that is up to the pilot to maintain.
IMHO VRPs are a WW1 idea, with no place in modern times. By all means maintain them on the VFR charts for those who want to fly like their grandfathers 
“By all means maintain them on the VFR charts for those who want to fly like their grandfathers”
Or for those who don’t want to have thousands of £€$ invested in kit they don’t want and don’t need in their ‘real’ aircraft; in my experience, ex-airline guys.
My Moth instructor flies will a basic VHF, compass and chart. He persuaded me on my last visit to his field without my routine iThings – just map and Mk1 Eyeball. This resulted in a visit to a well-known race-course in SE England, not normally host to aircraft; jockeys and their steeds were not amused. Nice well-kept strip, though….
The maps are full of VRPs. No problem. What I don’t get is why ATC would insist on them, especially for enroute, when the pilot is offering an unambiguous and commonly used IFR waypoint.
Around airports, VRP insistence is common in some countries eg France, Italy…
Peter, I think it all depends on the level of traffic ATC is dealing with. The VFR routes (and accompanying altitude) are design to allow transit even while an airport is active, or position VFR traffic for an approach. I sometimes hear when requesting a transit (“there’s no traffic”)—which essentially means “just let me know how you want to cross and at what altitude.” As a VFR pilot, I find the waypoints useful and easy to find using SkyDemon. It’s true, Garmin and sectionals don’t always show them.
I disagree they’re about WWI era flying. They are actually much more about letting VFR traffic through controlled airspace (or avoiding it altogether) on routes that are often quite sensible. In other cases (for example, the routes from Hungary or Austria through Slovenia), they appear to be a sensible path over rough or mountainous terrain designed to lower risk.
As to the original question, no, I don’t believe they are mandatory unless you’re told to follow them. The critical issue is that the pilot be clear about where he/she is and what he/she wants.
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
I disagree they’re about WWI era flying
So do I. I think they technically are much newer also. There are more of them now than when I got my PPL in 1992. From a practical point of view, they make entering and leaving controlled airfields (VFR):
I have never thought about any good use enroute, but maybe some places (as the mentioned routes through Slovenia), working more as a guide ?
