they have no reason, and thus no right to restrict your flying
Is that formally true?
It may be so; I don’t know. I don’t think it is formally true.
We are arguing fine legal lines here. As Jan says, you are not in a position to question it anyway. You could question it afterwards but that will just piss them off, with no useful result for you.
The bottom line is that a VFR pilot must be prepared to execute the whole trip OCAS. If going to/from CAS airports, he/she must be prepared to follow the published VFR routes.
In the USA you have extensive Class E which needs no clearance, and you get automatic Class D transit on a 2-way radio contact. There is no dispute about this; they cannot refuse. Europe has no equivalent (except e.g. France has a lot of Class E too).
The practical effect is on trip planning. Some European CAS is very entangled and hard to work out.
Jan,
as said, it requires a bit of Fingerspitzengefühl. But one route amendment request is always legitimate, except if the frequency is really busy. And if a denial ensues and a reason is totally non-apparent, one might ask for the reason. BTW, controllers are usually required to state a reason for any denial right away, if workload permits.
The bottom line is that a VFR pilot must be prepared to execute the whole trip OCAS.
Sure. But don’t forget the option of holding outside CAS until the traffic permits a transit. This works except in airspaces with a totally constant stream of IFR traffic.
If going to/from CAS airports, he/she must be prepared to follow the published VFR routes.
Sure.
