Summary of actual VFR/IFR GA flying procedures per country?

Alpha_Floor wrote:

Well SERA can say whatever but if the national authority operates in a different way the pilot has to comply in practice, there’s no way around it unless you have the time, money and patience to take that NAA to court…

People can complain formally to EASA and EASA can force Germany to change. That has happened before when countries have “gold plated” the rules.

Ibra wrote:

As far as I know, only US does this, ATC in the rest of countries will never let VFR get anywhere near IFR in Class D, especially heavy metal, even if you confirm visual & own separation, VFR will still get challenged to orbit/hold or change heading/altitude…

In Estonia we have a local rule that you must keep 500ft separation under TMA ,unless in radio contact with the tower. Once you are in radio contact they treat you more or less like IFR. And indeed,they take the separation from “suspicious things” like gliders seriously- before heavy metal arrives inside Tartu TMA, the ATC calls gliding club and all gliders are told to keep south of highway xxx – providing 20km + separation from TMA boundary :) well, we don’t get more than 1 or 2 CAT flight per day, 0 after covid..

Alpha_Floor wrote:

But, firstly there is usually a difference between what’s stated in the AIP as the “theory” and what actually happens in practical flying. And also, a summary of the most important things to bear in mind while flying in different countries would be a very useful addition to the kneeboard of a pilot who flies around Europe a lot, because the AIP contains a lot of useless information for practical flying, and sometimes it’s not clear what actually is important and what isn’t.

If there isn’t maybe we could start one! It’s just a matter of putting the collective experience of the EuroGA’s users together.

I think the last several posts in the thread show exactly this: There is a lot of knowledge in the community, a lot of it is not in AIPs or not easy to find and a tool to summarize it would be useful for a lot of people.

Is the idea of the thread to gather such rules in it, or to think about implementing this in a more organized way? @Peter: Do you already have something like this in yoru tools and/or as part of Euroga?

Alpha_Floor wrote:

In Spain (and Croatia), when VFR and in radio contact with air traffic control, the airspace class you are in seems to be irrelevant, they will often provide you with instructions and separation, even VFR in Class E. If you behave like IFR (constant altitude and heading) they will treat you as such. It’s a case of “if it has feathers like a duck and quaks like a duck, then it must be a duck!”

I’ve had this feeling also more or less in Denmark, Norway, Poland and Slovakia, at least when flying with FPL. Those countries do have also FIS-frequencies (except for Norway), but there is mostly also IFR-traffic on it when they fly trough airspace G. I know from Denmark and Poland that the people behind the FIS-frequencies are actually official air traffic controllers and not some FISO, and they hand you over automatically to Tower, Approach, Radar or Control if you’re about to penetrate some CAS. In addition, Norwegian and Polish ATC did even gave me full departure clearances on parking position like in Croatia for VFR and a direct handover to Approach after takeoff.

In Italy, one could get lucky to get cleared through airspace A while flying ‘normal’ VFR. I’ve had this opportunity two times already, but it’s by far not quaranteed or even officially possible. One needs to be lucky with the controller. Are there other countries who let you fly VFR through airspace A (at least by occasion)?

Frans wrote:

In addition, Norwegian and Polish ATC did even gave me full departure clearances on parking position like in Croatia for VFR and a direct handover to Approach after takeoff.

Same in Baltics and Finland

Do you already have something like this in your tools and/or as part of Euroga?

This has come up in the past, in contexts such as this. It is difficult to get people to contribute in an organised way to a “wiki” and to continue doing so. I think developing a discussion thread like this one, together with the search facility (which does work if you read the details near the end of here) works well enough.

A lot of this “flying around Europe” stuff is ad hoc and difficult to describe formally. And a lot of it varies around a given country, varies over time, and varies with how well the particular ATCO slept the night before

A lot of bits of this are spread around EuroGA e.g. this and this famous piece which got NATS ATC really worked up elsewhere on social media

Alpha_Floor wrote:

In France, you can be VFR in radio contact with ATC and they’ll happilly let you bust a milititary restricted area.

It’s the same in Norway, sort of. It’s probably the easiest way to bust airspace. You can be in contact with Polaris for hours, but it’s all your responsibility to say goodbye to Polaris, switch to the appropriate TMA and ask for permission to enter. Also, within controlled airspace, it’s you responsibility to stay out of any eventual restricted air space, ATC couldn’t care less.

Below TMAs you are expected to contact the corresponding tower/approach, and ATC may very well give you instructions for alt and heading. On the other hand, sometimes when entering a TMA, the ATC might simply say “cleared to land” without any further talk, even if you are far away. I once left Meråker (ENMO) close to the Swedish border, climbed to approx 3500 feet to get in radio contact with ENVA tower. I simply got “cleared to land RW 27” (ENMO is straight east of ENVA). The was the longest final I ever had, 20 min cruising in a straight line down to the runway at 0 alt

At AFIS airports, you have to use the special AFIS talk: “runway free” and so on.

Airborne_Again wrote:

That is debatable. Germany has no authority to override SERA which says that IFR is class G is permitted. On the other hand, the airspace structure makes (enroute) uncontrolled IFR unfeasible. I know that German ATC issues clearances with the phrase “IFR starts at (level)” to traffic departing non-instrument airport, but it is not at all clear that they have the right to impose that restriction. (And AFAIU, it is generally ignored by pilots anyway.)

I guess there is what is allowed by SERA/NCO and there is what is allowed by FPL system, ATM procedures and AD minima
I am sure putting MAX DCT = 0 nm outside SID & IAP kills uncontrolled IFR departures/arrivals to non-instrument runways

Same thing in France, uncontrolled IFR require ATC contact above 3kft amsl and ATC will still insist on “remain VMC, IFR start at xx” even in Class G, I am usually at FL60 in Class G and bloody sure it’s legal to be IFR since takeoff as long as you stay away from Class E

So, it’s not just SERA/NCO, you need airspace structure, ATM practices & AD minimas which are under old good days national laws I peronally still don’t know what are aerodrome minima for uncontrolled IFR takeoffs in France? I digged recent changes in legal texts and now it only mentions “visual maneouving” to leave room for SERA interpretation, I guess that means 1.5km & 500ft ceiling?

Just to clarify it’s not cowboy zero-to-zero IFR in UK grass strips, it’s for 2km airport with SID/STAR/IAP but outside ATC/AFIS hours and CTR/TMA are reverted to Class G late afternoons