I wonder how you can say “It’s not that complex” when there’s thousands of pilots who don’t understand it! Okay, if i made it one of the priorities of my life to understand these stupid maps, I probably could.
I have flown VFR through France, a couple of times. But: it’s much more stress than to fly IFR. IFR I have time to look, make pictures, eat something …
Zurich is one of the biggest obstacles I know. I will only fly IFR through there in the future. The last time (on a VFR flight from Municjh to Yverdon) they would not let me cut through a corner of their TMA (it was about 5 miles I needed!) but insisted that i fly over a mountain ridge with very little clearance because of low clouds, in turbulence. And there was almost no traffic that day. …
Zurich is one of the biggest obstacles I know.
Unfortunately you’re right, they’re quite inflexible, they’re not letting anyone through VFR through their airspace, and it’s getting worse since TWR/APP has a new boss, who seems to be very inflexible. Yet if you call any of the frequencies on certain times of the day, you first think your radio died, then someone answers in a way you think you’ve just woken somebody up.
I’ve flown to Sarrebourg in the south east of France before and had CAS restrictions imposed on me.
Excuse me for being pecky, Steve, but if I were a controller I’d have my misgivings too about a pilot who thinks Sarrebourg is in the south east of France… ;)
It looked pretty much like Airspace A starting at about 2500 ft AMSL for the whole flat part of the country or 1500 AGL whichever is higher, G below.
That’s IMO a false dichotomy.
I’ve flown to Sarrebourg in the south east of France before and had CAS restrictions imposed on me.
Excuse me for being pecky, Steve, but if I were a controller I’d have my misgivings too about a pilot who thinks Sarrebourg is in the south east of France… ;)
Ok, Jan, I’ll give you that one. I know it’s the eastern part of France and it’s further south than I am hence my first thought – without looking at the map – that it’s south east. Doesn’t change the fact It’s still a bugger of an area to get through on weekdays when a lot of the Zones are active…..
It looks complex to me but that’s because I am only familiar with one style of chart (UK CAA 1:500000)
If all the national authorities in europe were forced to used the same chart style it would make it significantly easier and I also suspect safer.
It’s still a bugger of an area to get through on weekdays when a lot of the Zones are active…..
I’ve never been there, Steve, but I wouldn’t think twice – French FIS would tell me if I were going to bust some airspace, wouldn’t they?
But I would not expect many (military?) zones to be active at the same time, that is a phenomenon unknown here in BE.
I think they use “point merge” in Oslo.
Yes, that is what they say. Some months ago they started using that also in three other airports. It is supposed to be efficient somehow, but I don’t know much about it or the alternatives. I see the results of it though. The result is they grab airspace, still they are less efficient than Munich (60% higher activity than Oslo), and Munich does it with 1/3 of the airspace. Something is very wrong about this “point merge” and/or the implementation.
Trouble is, asking for “easier” airspace will often enough end up with the opposite of what we want.
The complex upside down wedding cake struktures are there for the benefit of VFR. Nothing else.
I disagree. The best for VFR would be all travelers took the train and left the air to us who needs it 
Seriously though, I think everybody understand big jets need some space when landing and taking off. It’s not the cake that is the problem, it’s the size of the cake.
Absolutely, the wedding cake is necessary; however keep it within a reasonable size. Compare the NY EWR/LGA/JFK airspace with any other TMA in Europe and the difference is abismal, yet those three see a lot more traffic combined that any airport this side of the pond.
