Aviathor wrote:
France requires a flight-plan and adherence to VFR routes for crossing to Corsica
Not sure I agree this is much different than what is needed anywhere else? You’re 50NM out over water and there are not other visual reporting points possible.
Also that route involves the bizzare way Nice control their airspace. They have A380s flying low over the sea, at 1000ft, up to 40nm offshore, without climbing, so all GA has to fly around there at 500ft. I have a great video with the plane getting a good shaking at 500ft in 40-50kt winds… (only kidding about the a380s).
Otherwise, Class G is Class G. No modern country can enforce VFR routes in Class G.
VFR routes are normally published to provide preferred routes through CAS, like the famous ADRIA1 which goes down the Adriatic. You still need ATC clearance in all CAS.
You still need ATC clearance in all CAS.
As was correctly pointed out to me here on another occasion, that is not the case for e.g. VFR in class E or F.
Peter wrote:
Otherwise, Class G is Class G. No modern country can enforce VFR routes in Class G.VFR routes are normally published to provide preferred routes through CAS, like the famous ADRIA1 which goes down the Adriatic. You still need ATC clearance in all CAS.
agreed. However the obligation to file a FP when more than 50NM over water exists. How else are you going to find VFR reporting points where there simply are none?
As was correctly pointed out to me here on another occasion, that is not the case for e.g. VFR in class E or F.
Sure, but in the context here i.e. recommended VFR routes through airport CTRs which tend to be Class D, E or F is not CAS for VFR 
How else are you going to find VFR reporting points where there simply are none?
“Nobody” flies using visual nav 
One flies with GPS.
VRPs come into use only because ATC is entitled to send VFR traffic to them, and in most countries they do just that because it is how they have always worked, for previous 50 years. But not always; on Sunday I flew to LFAT, DCT from EGKA, and they just told me to report downwind RH. But when they are busy, they send VFR traffic to the various VRPs. Actually not having to find VRPs is one of the biggest advantages of the IR
LFHNflightstudent wrote:
the obligation to file a FP when more than 50NM over water exists. How else are you going to find VFR reporting points where there simply are none?
I don’t see the logic. How would a flight plan substitute for visual reporting points when talking to ATC? Why would you need to talk to ATC at all when VFR in Class E or lower?
Peter wrote:
Actually not having to find VRPs is one of the biggest advantages of the IR
I think it’s even better talking to nobody on the radio, in Class E or lower airspace, whether VFR or UK-style IFR
LFHNflightstudent wrote:
Not sure I agree this is much different than what is needed anywhere else? You’re 50NM out over water and there are not other visual reporting points possible.
Take a look at AIP France ENR 1.2.16 and the way it is worded there. Although I strongly dislike the French « Guide VFR » because 1/ I find it is just a mash-up of nformation from the AIP I do not wish to pay x euros for every year, and 2/ the last editions blatantly ignore Part-NCO and only refer to the now obsolete French legislation, and 3/ they are trying to make everybody believe it is compulsory to have it take a look at that too.
The shortest distance from mainland France to the Corsica coast is 99 NM I just measured it on AirNavPro.
One of the few times I flew VFR last year, I was en route direct Cherbourg to Deauville, ie off the invasion beaches, I was told by Deauville I should have filed a flight plan because I was crossing an extended body of water. I did not see any smileys in the subtitles so I suppose he was serious, but I just ignored him.
Peter wrote:
VFR routes are normally published to provide preferred routes through CAS, like the famous ADRIA1 which goes down the Adriatic. You still need ATC clearance in all CAS.
When it comes to France, take look at the AIP:
In accordance with the article 6 of the decree of December 20, 2012, flying over the western Mediterranean by aircraft on a flight in accordance with visual flight rules must be made on the described routes below.
This is different from the recommended route through Class D,and for those “maritime” routes are using IFR waypoints like OMARD and MERLU (which by the way are sea food in French – lobster and hake).
Peter wrote:
“Nobody” flies using visual nav One flies with GPS.
Smiie noted, but I dont think the history is relevant. They do of course come from distinguishable visual features but you can of course plot these using GPS co-ordinates. Either way though they must appear on your chart or electronic map, and then in a way that they are easily identifiable. The trouble is that they are often not there in the first place, and, if they are, they dont stand out especially well, which all explains why when suddenly confronted with “you are cleared via Burnham, not above 1,000 feet, VFR”, if you are not expecting it you have no idea where Burnham is, or what it looks like.
I use PocketFMS and it does do a good job of enabling you to switch on the VRP and most of them are there. They dont necessarily stand out all that well but a short study beofe departure usually does the job.
lmsl1967 wrote:
ATC is not formatted that SEP are usually or most of the time flown by single pilot, without autopilot and instructions, or more stupidly, information requests on critical moments of the flight only creates confusion and excessive workload to the pilot.
That happens to me too. Up to now, a short “single pilot operation, call you back” usually does the trick.
I also had an example of that a few months ago. I got my descent clearance not a moment too soon, along with a request of an ETE to a reporting point (which is also basically the point one should be at/close to circuit height, about 4nmi from the ARP). I decided to first establish my descent and I’d think about the ETE then. ATC insisted to get the ETE, I answered something along the lines of “busy, estimate later”; in hindsight “busy, call you back with estimate” would have been better.
Another, this time recurring, TWR at my homebase always calls you with a “reminder” of your taxi clearance as soon as you stop after vacating the runway for your after landing checklist. Which on a somewhat more complex airplane, I’d rather not multitask with the taxi. I’ve tried everything, nothing really helps. Trying to warn them while still on the runway just confuses them, they don’t seem to grasp what you say. Answering their reminder each time with “30s, after-landing checklist” seems a bit… suboptimal.
