that was a very hard C++ environment and anybody familiar with it would have to be very good.
It wasn’t even really C++, instead of using C++’s exception mechanism, they tried to implement exception handling with preprocessor macros! Needless to say, they failed, it was so fragile it broke all the time
I’d settle for doing it like either the UK or Maastricht, as they are the two best European ATC providers. German ATC has a bewildering proliferation of sectors, Spain try to kill you, the French are immune to change and the Italians hamstrung by chronic administrative incompetence.
I’d settle for doing it like either the UK or Maastricht, as they are the two best European ATC providers.
While I agree that NATS is quite good, it’s also the most expensive provider (roughly on par with Skyguide), and IMO the germans provide a somewhat better service, when IFR. Well, you can get a service at FL050, it doesn’t stop below FL100 (or 120 or 150).
German ATC has a bewildering proliferation of sectors
Eh? Maybe true around Munich. So NATS doesn’t have sectors around London? More than once DFS cleared me right through Munich during rush hour in climb, no problem (though you have to be attentive on the radio, you get a reclearance every minute or so). Try that in London (I tried, but they wouldn’t let me…)
Well, you can get a service at FL050, it doesn’t stop below FL100 (or 120 or 150).
In Sweden you can get a service at the MSA…. 
In Sweden you can get a service at the MSA….
I usually depart at 2000ft, so MSA isn’t that far away from FL050 over here 8-)
It’s not just at low level, but at higher levels that Germany has zillions of frequencies. You’re changing frequencies at high levels every few minutes with Rhein for example and it results in lots of people getting lost on the wrong frequency. If I were designing a model for provision SFC-100, I wouldn’t go near the UK.
NATS are expensive because they’re good at what they do. I’m not surprised they’re dearer than some of the more rustic providers.
