WingsWaterAndWheels wrote:
The main problem with VRP here in Norway is that they are named after the name of the village, which makes them difficult for pilot who do not speak Norwegian
I agree. It makes no sense whatsoever to name them that way. Logical names would be much better for everyone.
I think the above must be country dependent.
Peter wrote:
Mixing up enroute with approach / departure.The former is a silly case for VRPs especially as you could legally be above a layer.
Not in a CTR you can’t. At least where I fly, they would never let anyone cross a CTR over a fog layer or low cloud as in such a case the VMC criteria within the CTR are not given: VFR is suspended in the whole airspace if surface vis is below 5km and ceiling below 1500 ft AGL. I seriously doubt that you’d get any clearance through the CTR for transit VFR on top within the CTR, possibly above it in Class C it is rather possible. And up there, VRP’s don’t matter anymore. Within the CTR the VRPs basically are used the chanel VFR traffic away from IFR. Clearly, the situation may be different if you are at an airport which only has two Ryanairs per week as opposed to an airport which has several thousand movements per day.
How does routing VFR through a VRP and IFR through an IFR waypoint help with separation? The VFR traffic could be anywhere within sight of the VRP – on a good day 
Peter wrote:
suggests ATC doesn’t know people use GPS.
I have certainly met some who don’t. They didn’t understand how a VFR aircraft could possibly report an airways point, particularly if it was over water.
LeSving wrote:
A PA-28 was coming inbound at the same points.
That was me :-) One of the seldom cases where I got to fly higher than 2000’ inside the CTR, thanks!
As my experience goes, in Norway, the VRP are used for approach/Departure, seldom for transit (unless you want to transit over the airport itself). I’m not an ATC but I guess it makes their job a bit easier making sure that the IFR traffic are separated from the VFR. Also it seems like it makes the approach of a VFR more predictable and easier to merge with commercial traffic. The main problem with VRP here in Norway is that they are named after the name of the village, which makes them difficult for pilot who do not speak Norwegian (I had trouble when I moved here). I much prefer when they are named Echo, Sierra …
Mixing up enroute with approach / departure.
The former is a silly case for VRPs especially as you could legally be above a layer.
Silvaire wrote:
to and from all directions, not just in predefined lines
Sure, try that inside fjords, wallies and mountains 
Just today when trying the club’s brand new P2008 (great plane). I was flying outbound from one VRP to the next. A PA-28 was coming inbound at the same points. ATC solved it by telling the inbound plane to remain 2500’ or above and I at 2000’ or below. (by default, and depicted on charts, the alt is max 2000’)
Airborne_Again wrote:
Agreed, but that is not the European ATC mindset.
Again, the other evening when honing the touch and go skills of a student before going solo, we had to orbit on down wind waiting for a SAS CRJ 900 to land. The CRJ 900 planes are run by the Irish company CityJet (in SAS livery) using Irish or whatever crew. The pilot on the CRJ asked the tower if the light GA plane was “out of the path”. The tower answered in a slowly and overly clear voice: “The – light – GA – plane – is – orbiting – well – north – of – the – runway”. More often than not, it is the “sausage factory” pilots from “elsewhere” that has an odd mindset (IME). Something like that has never happened with countless SAS/NAS/KLM or Widerøe planes.
Of course, there are ATC personnel that are young and inexperienced as well, meaning overly cautious, but they shape up pretty fast. Scheduled flights (airlines) as well as ambulance/SAR always gets priority though. Light GA is on the lowest level in the pecking order. I don’t see how that could be any other way in a mixed environment.
Silvaire wrote:
When there is a lot of traffic inbound; outbound and transiting simultaneously, ATC needs to be on their game and routing people through all available airspace, as and when it occurs, to and from all directions, not just in predefined lines.
Agreed, but that is not the European ATC mindset.
VRPs are fine as far as they go but are not adequate to support high traffic volume. When there is a lot of traffic inbound; outbound and transiting simultaneously, ATC needs to be on their game and routing people through all available airspace, as and when it occurs, to and from all directions, not just in predefined lines. Otherwise you end up with large numbers of planes milling around waiting their turn, which is a collision hazard. The best way to avoid collision when near an airport is to get on the ground as fast as possible, or out of the area as soon as possible.
