For the € millions which EASA blow away on producing internal reports on GA (I have some hilarious stuff which I can’t publish because it might identify the source) they could spend a bit of time producing a nice VFR-flying summary of requirements, and keep it updated.
Wouldn’t it be even better if those guys sat together and made the same VFR rules for all European countries so that we knew what we had to do? But maybe I am asking too much…
quadrantal in UK
Nobody actually cares about that. People fly at various levels. Most UK PPLs never go above 2000ft, and the highest traffic density is between 1000-1500ft.
Does anybody care about this anywhere else in Europe?
In my pre-IR days, only once do I recall a French ATCO objecting to me flying at (I think 5000ft) back from Jersey to Shoreham, across the bit of France south of Cherbourg. He asked me a cryptic question about whether my level was intentional, but wouldn’t tell me what he didn’t like about it. It was a stupid puzzle, but maybe he, as an ATCO, was not supposed to tell me. Eventually I realised he wanted me at 5500ft or 4500ft or something like that, and then he said “good”.
I never fly the quad or semi levels when VFR. It just increases the chances of an airprox, or worse. I fly at x300 or x700 feet.
However, from day one I never flew anywhere non trivial without being in contact with FIS all the time.
That works well in France and Germany but would not work in the UK… the services are very disjointed – here It would also not work in Italy or Spain, partly because so many controllers there can’t speak English 
I guess this discussion highlights what people are scared of, as distinct from the reality of flying which is much simpler in practice.
Wouldn’t it be even better if those guys sat together and made the same VFR rules for all European countries so that we knew what we had to do? But maybe I am asking too much…
Airspace policy ties in with national sovereignity and that is a tough one… I sat opposite the then #2 at EASA a few years ago, in a pub in London, and he reckoned it will probably never be unified. Well I guess he meant not before he changes his job.
Even my training for the ultralight license inclused both an introduction to the AIP, including mention of its importance and its limitations, and quite some time spent on filing flight plans.
I didn’t do any of that in my UK PPL, 2000/2001. No notams either. But I am a “very young” pilot, relatively for the GA population. Most of those I know flying have been flying for 20+ years and they will not have done this for sure.
Without question, the IR is the best solution to all this, but it is a huge amount of work (even now with the CB IR) and you need an aircraft capable of easily dealing with Eurocontrol flight plan altitudes. In reality, for any significant trip especially in less than perfect wx, this means oxygen.
I guess this discussion highlights what people are scared of, as distinct from the reality of flying which is much simpler in practice.
I think that’s absolutely correct. However I always hear “if you do that incorrectly you will be fined/lose your license/see an F18 in flight for the first and last time”. Of course I am scared.
“Does anybody care about this anywhere else in Europe”
Europe I haven’t come across it but South Africa we were queried about the reason for flying “non-standard” altitude.
Nobody actually cares about that. People fly at various levels. Most UK PPLs never go above 2000ft, and the highest traffic density is between 1000-1500ft.
how come so low ?
in France too i guess most people fly low (below 3000 ft QNH) but not that low…
It was a stupid puzzle, but maybe he, as an ATCO, was not supposed to tell me. Eventually I realised he wanted me at 5500ft or 4500ft or something like that, and then he said “good”.I never fly the quad or semi levels when VFR. It just increases the chances of an airprox, or worse. I fly at x300 or x700 feet.
When you reach FLs, then FLx0 is VFR and FLx5 is IFR and the 500ft are supposed to segregate flights. Not everyone flies IFR at FL120 :-)
On the second point, I prefer airprox than head-on collision but maybe that’s just me
how come so low ?
Just the training runs like that.
in France too i guess most people fly low (below 3000 ft QNH) but not that low…
From what I have seen in France, I would find it surprising if the standard club to club flights go higher. I have never seen another GA aircraft in France, other than very low down. And certainly never seen one in the Class E routes, which are great for longer distances, FL065+.
and the 500ft are supposed to segregate flights.
But does it? It only gives you a statistical improvement in the head-on closure speed. In reality, assuming straight line trajectories, any target on a genuine collision course will be a stationary point in the sky, and will be invisible to you until the last few seconds, and then it’s too late. The ability to avoid somebody who is going to hit you is illusory… (in cruise).
Not everyone flies IFR at FL120 :-)
On Eurocontrol flight plans, one tends to do FL100+ though one can do it lower in some airspaces. For example it’s just possible to fly Shoreham to Le Touquet at FL070 and talk to London Control for about 20 mins.
On the second point, I prefer airprox than head-on collision but maybe that’s just me
I agree but I probably know people who wouldn’t be so sure 
PapaPapa
When you reach FLs, then FLx0 is VFR and FLx5 is IFR
It is the other way round: the 0’s are the IFR levels. VFR is an 0+500.
It is the other way round: the 0’s are the IFR levels. VFR is an 0+500
haha ! yes indeed, sorry about that…
Funnily enough my GF has said that she would fly with me more if I got a Cirrus – purely because of the parachute!
Shows once again why Cirrus is the market leader for just about ever since they started up. GF/wife/mother factor. "No, you can´t buy that airplane, they are dangerous, what, it has a parashute? Oh all right then…. Actually, if that would get your GF back flying with you, it might be worth considering. If my wife would oppose my flying and not come along ever, I don´t think I´d be too motivated to continue.
As for subject of the thread:
I agree with most points of what the posters here have said. Often enough they add up to the typical burger runners and 12 hour a year circuit huggers. Not because they are worse pilots, not because they are cowards, but because VFR in most parts of Europe north of the Alps (and particularly whenever alpine crossings are involved) is not suitable for planned travel, neither for pleasure and even less for work.
I reckon that changes drastically if your homebase is south of the Alps.
For me personally, it is not really crossing borders which gets my to cancel a majority of my formerly planned trips but the combination of weather and the absolute requirement to be back at work at a given day and hour. Stable weather conditions which allow VFR trips of more than one or two days in a row are rare and far between, all year around, at least in Switzerland and the alpine countries.
Add to that that every time a trip gets cancelled, confidence of those who wish to fly with you will plummet to the point where they will simply not agree to plan in the first place, as 9 out of 10 trips get cancelled anyway.
As for national particularities which would keep me out flying in a country VFR they have mostly to do with airspace mazes and lack of suitable aerodromes which feature customs and immigration, Avgas and reasonable rates. I will fly to France, Italy and places like Belgium again hopefully, but IFR and IFR only.
Experience of the last few years have shown me that planning larger trips VFR is a waste of time as they never happen. So I have decided for me that until I get my IR back, I will focus on one to two day trip flying where weather and conditions can be adequately assessed rather than waste time and money in planning trips which won´t happen anyway. Q.E.D already this year as the prospects of the first of my planned trips are just about to fly out of the window again due to bad weather (next weekend to Northern Germany).
If you upgrade from TB20 to SR22, you should also upgrade from Symbian to Android
I think the SR22T is the better airplane than the TB in just about everything besides one important point: range/endurance. Owning an aircraft with identical range/endurance as the TB20, I would feel severely restricted by what the Cirrus offers.
