Frans wrote:
but most of those public German airfields have still a PPR regime for UL’s and in some cases also for TMG’s.
As always things in Germany are complex: The “Verkehrspflicht” refers only to airplanes (and helicopters). ULs according to German law are not regarded as airplanes but as “air sports equipment”. And for sports equipment there is no such thing as public obligation to accept traffic (notwithstanding any emergencies).
For TMGs I’m not aware of any such restrictions.
My view on ATC instructions is that they sit with their feet on the ground on a chair while you fly in the air, so I will not let them push me to instantly talk back when busy with a single pilot operation in e.g. a departure. Just a simple “standby” is enough to have them wait. Isn’t there a saying: aviate, navigate, communicate and in that order?
As for asking for vectors, I know that flying IFR to Schiphol Airport (EHAM) is a lot easier than flying there VFR. Arriving IFR you get vectors to an approach. On flying VFR to Schiphol, they will have you report “passing the sony building” and phrases like that and they will never issue vectors or let you fly a specific heading, while that would be just so much easier to comply with.
Malibuflyer wrote:
For TMGs I’m not aware of any such restrictions.TMG’s are also “official” (certified) airplanes, it’s just Germany that makes a difference to it in the EASA-world for landing permissions. In practice, most airports that require PPR for TMG’s will accept you anyway, sometimes it’s just for parking problems, due to the wide wingspan. So far as I know, only Karlsruhe-Baden (EDSB) doesn’t want TMG’s at all. I don’t know why, because it’s a quiet regional airport with a big apron. According to the airport OPS, it’s a “political decision”. Even just a quick stop for customs and refueling is not possible.
On flying VFR to Schiphol, they will have you report “passing the sony building” and phrases like that and they will never issue vectors or let you fly a specific heading, while that would be just so much easier to comply with.I remember doing a touch & go on a VFR-flight in Schiphol last year, the tower gave indeed very local orders, for example: “Fly towards Badhoevedorp”. Now I know what he meant with Badhoevedorp, but for a foreigner, such orders are indeed very difficult. For example in Düsseldorf, the tower gives vectors also to VFR-traffic.
AeroPlus wrote:
As for asking for vectors, I know that flying IFR to Schiphol Airport (EHAM) is a lot easier than flying there VFR. Arriving IFR you get vectors to an approach. On flying VFR to Schiphol, they will have you report “passing the sony building” and phrases like that and they will never issue vectors or let you fly a specific heading, while that would be just so much easier to comply with.
The thing with vectors is that ATC assumes the responsibility over terrain separation for that flight. So giving vectors to a VFR traffic is something that ATC understandably don’t want to do. Most often VFR flights are flying under the controller’s MRVA (minimum radar vectoring altitude), so the controller won’t be able to provide any radar vectors. What if there are clouds or terrain on the direction of the vector? They will only tipically give you instructions like “Fly to ABC”, with ABC being a visual reporting point, or known local feature/town, and it’s the pilots responsibility to get there VFR.
The other option is to give an instruction such as “Fly to the Sony building, QDM 120 degrees, 10 nm”. They give you a QDM, not a vector, which is different conceptually.
Alpha_Floor wrote:
The thing with vectors is that ATC assumes the responsibility over terrain separation for that flight. So giving vectors to a VFR traffic is something that ATC understandably don’t want to do.That’s why German controllers always tell: “Headings are suggestions only. Remain VMC all the time, report when unable” to VFR-traffic, as soon as ATC starts to give vectors. If you ask for an ILS, you get it too while VFR with the words: “ILS-approach runway 24 VFR approved”. Did it several times in EDDC, EDDP and EDVK. First ask FIS, then they send you over to Radar. Radar gives vectors and hands you on final off to Tower for the final landing clearance. Works very well. You can also get a GCA-approach under VFR without any hassle at German military airbases.
My first instruction received when landing at an ATC airport without flight plan etc is typically something like “make right base runway 28 right, report turning final”. If they instead ask me to report some VRP that I don’t know, I’d tell them I’m unfamiliar and the response would be “roger, disregard”. Some traffic advisory might follow, and a landing clearance when I report turning final. This would be at an airport with 600 operations mixed VFR/IFR per day and everything from biz jets to 10 hour students. What’s being described here is basically nonsense, the result of no radar or ADS-B feed to the tower and over-Amp’d ATC staff with limited experience in directing high traffic volume.
In relation to the original question, I don’t think ATC has anything to do with property management and again this is symptomatic of overstressed people not understanding their job, or the proper limits of their authority. If somebody wants to walk up to you on the ramp and say “Hi there, I manage the ramp, you can’t park here”, that would be more appropriate but it’s then your job to figure out what to do, they can’t reasonably order a pilot to fly away!
