Peter wrote:
There is no business case in Europe for services to GA – other than ICAO-obliged FIS, and cases where airline traffic would be endangered if a radar service was not provided.
Business case or not, most European countries offer a good, radar-based FIS even in situations where airline traffic would not be endangered.
Business case or not, most European countries offer a good, radar-based FIS even in situations where airline traffic would not be endangered.
From my experience, Croatia, Slovenia, Italy, Austria, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro. I don’t remember much VFR flying in other countries recently but IIRC Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary are also ok in that sense. I can’t say about France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Greece, Sweden, Denmark because I flew there IFR only but I’m sure others can comment.
Emir wrote:
I can’t say about France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Greece, Sweden, Denmark because I flew there IFR only but I’m sure others can comment.
Certainly Germany, Denmark and Sweden have good radar-based FIS. (Based on personal experience from several trips.)
Yes; lots of countries have radar-capable FIS but that is not the same as getting cleared through CAS and/or mil areas by FIS.
Yes; lots of countries have radar-capable FIS but that is not the same as getting cleared through CAS and/or mil areas by FIS.
It seems that all (or almost all) European countries except UK have radar-capable FIS willing to provide pilots with whatever service they can. Clearance through CAS and/or mil areas is not dependent on FIS – they can only coordinate.
Peter wrote:
but that is not the same as getting cleared through CAS and/or mil areas by FIS
That’s exactly what it means. Just came back from a fly-in at ENBN (where we, about 30 aircraft leaving at the same time, completely swamped the poor AFIS lady customed to two Widerøe flights each day 
but that’s another thing, it was quite funny actually, even though I felt a bit sorry for her).
I flew at 5k straight out of ENMO, and got cleared there and then for the TMA at ENVA (C), at 3.5/4.5k there (I could have chosen 6, 7 or whatever). Then over to Polaris all the way through Helgeland TMA (D), got clearance without asking, and down to G (RMZ and TMZ) for Brønnøy AFIS. Helgeland TMA goes down to 2.5k. Back again, I flew another route, but got clearance without asking for 5k in Værnes TMA (C). When approaching ENMO the ATC asked me to report before switching to local frequency, and I just answered, I’l switch now. He then said a could not because I was still in C airspace. I just said “Roger”, and felt a bit stupid , and continued my descent. When just passing 3.5k, he called me (before I could push the button) and said, now you can switch. It’s all radar based, or rather WAM mostly nowadays.
The way it usually works in and out of the TMA’s along the coast is you file a flight plan. You can write “VFR” as altitude. The when opening the flight plan, the ATC ask which altitude (if you have written just VFR). Then you just chose whatever you want, and whatever the weather allows. You will get cleared through it all, but you could get vectored around conflicting areas. You could also simply say you want to fly low level (underneath the TMAs). Then you can fly wherever you want. The catch is that it’s the pilot’s responsibility to get clearances, and the ATC don’t always remember, or don’t bother doing it without being asked or whatever. 9 out of 10 times it’s just like a knife through butter. The practice here is also to keep in contact, even if you do go “low level” underneath the TMAs in G. You could get vectored there as well in special cases. A couple of times I was asked to go up into controlled space, to clear for ambulance helicopters. Those helicopters also have their own IFR routes below the TMAs.
How this is supposed to be easier with IFR (for practical purposes), is not clear to me, unless weather interferes. The downside with IFR is these humongous approaches. In general VFR is more efficient (faster) because you can go the straightest path from A to B.
Maybe Norway is not the best example for FIS, as Polaris Control ATC offers it directly, instead of having dedicated FIS frequencies and working positions, like in Germany or Italy. Otherwise, I fully agree: Norway is doing a great job on easily handling VFR traffic. You even get an individual transponder code and all following stations know upon initial call, how you are. It feels almost like a kind of “flight following”.
Most European countries have however a dedicated Flight Information Center (FIC) with multiple FIS stations, often also seen as a pure ‘VFR’ service, even if that’s not true. They do have radar and offer quite some detailed services, which goes beyond the ICAO required basics for flight information service. It seems to me that the UK is the exception to that and only offers a very basic “basic service”.
Emir wrote:
Clearance through CAS and/or mil areas is not dependent on FIS – they can only coordinate.Indeed. There are some countries however, where FIS is delivered by real ATC. France is a good example, where you have so-called SIV (Secteur d’Information de Vol) sectors, where FIS shares the same frequency (and controller
) with Approach. If you’re in contact with a SIV station, you’re entitled to fly almost anywhere through CAS. (Just still be aware for military airspace, as SIV is civil ATC and not military!)
Frans wrote:
Maybe Norway is not the best example for FIS, as Polaris Control ATC offers it directly, instead of having dedicated FIS frequencies and working positions, like in Germany or Italy.
FIS in most of Sweden works the same way. (Southern Sweden does have separate FIS frequencies, but not a separate FIC. It is still enroute ATC that handles the FIS.) There are both pros and cons compared to the German system. The advantage is that the same controller talks to all traffic in the sector and if you need to climb into controlled airspace no coordination is required as you’re already talking to the right guy, This is particularly advantageous for uncontrolled IFR traffic – outside of TMAs all airspace in Sweden below FL95 is class G, so light piston IFR is to a large extent uncontrolled.
The German system has the advantage that the FISO deals 100% with VFR traffic and thus has the opportunity to offer a more detailed service.
SIV (Secteur d’Information de Vol) sectors, where FIS shares the same frequency (and controller )
Sometimes. True in Provence SIV but not Nice for example. Though I doubt it makes much difference.
AFAIK, FIS in France can also be a so-called CIV (Centre d’Information de Vol) station, which is a dedicated FIC like in other countries. I know of Paris, Seine and Marseille being a CIV, but maybe there are more?
