MichaLSA wrote:
Unfortunately, we do not have the necessary positive or non punishing error culture in all of Europe, in case if. Specific: risk is not zero a pilot mistakenly takes such an accepted FPL as clearance to enter the FL >100.
It has nothing to do with “error culture” if a pilot that does not know the difference between a flight plan and a clearance is sanctioned.
There are “error culture” situations in this realm – like when FIS says “switch over to Radar for clearance” and the pilot mistakingly understands that he already got a clearance – but those are very rare.
I was actually shocked by a conversation between FIS and a Pilot recently (a bit abbreviated – but nothing made up as my phantasy would not go as far as to imagine such a pilot).
FIS: D-Mxxx you are about to enter Airspace Charlie Frankfurt in 5 miles – I suggest to descend below 3500ft or turn significantly west to avoid
D-Mxxx: That must be your mistake (!!!), we filed a flight plan from (somewhere in northern Germany) via MTR and RID to EDFM in FL110
FIS: I See you in FL70
D-Mxxx: Yes, because the last controller told us to stay below FL100
FIS: So you don’t have a clearance for airspace Charlie
D-Mxxx: But our flight plan got accepted
FIS: Still, this is not a clearance
D-Mxxx: But the last controller told us it is okay if we stay below FL100
FIS: D-Mxxx: Suggest to descent below 3500ft or turn heading 090 immediately VFR in VMC.
Agree to Frans: I’ve never been denied a reasonable request to climb into Airspace C above FL100. Reasonable is: Clear plan (“present position direct xxx”), reasonable routing (not crossing the STAR/SID of a major airport; not “I want to fly across entire Germany but was to lazy to do a flight plan”) and clear communication.
Having said that: for me that only applies if something special happens during flight (e.g. I fly VFR on top of a layer and the tops are higher than expected so that I could not keep required cloud clearance and had to significantly descent.). For planned flights above FL100 in Germany I always file IFR
Everything said already and I think @boscomantico gave the best hints here. I request to fly above FL100 regularly, also on my latest trip to Norway, and if you are aware of active ED-R and TRA zones, and don’t request something above Frankfurt below FL130 or so, your changes are quite good in general. As you experienced by yourself, always ask for full flight levels 110, 120, 130 etc.
One additional thing:
HBadger wrote:
“langen Info, HB-XXX, request climb to FL 105 and enter airspace Charlie, on a xxx heading. I’m Instrument rated.”AFAIK, this additional thing “I’m IR rated” is not gonna help you more. Either ATC can offer you a clearance or not. I’m not IR-rated, but never had any issues at all getting a clearance into general class C. They might refuse pilots with ‘bad’ radio calls quicker, but if you call in a professional manner, there is really nothing to worry about.
dutch_flyer wrote:
In my experience even when VFR a controller will usually give even altitudes as opposed to 500ft increments.
ATC has to keep at least 1000ft separation, ignoring the min2000ft very up high, for IFR and commercial above FL100 anyways. So, it does make perfect sense to get us low and slows in their scheme. I never got anything up high to the 500s we are accustomed to in VFR low airspace.
Well done!
HBadger wrote:
a few minutes later cleared to climb “up to FL110” which I took as a cue that they prefer 110 over my requested 105, so I climbed to 110. The last request they had was that I fly to an IFR waypoint instead of a heading, which was no problem at all, so probably better to request a waypoint routing from the getgo.
In my experience even when VFR a controller will usually give even altitudes as opposed to 500ft increments. This makes sense because the VFR altitude rules are based on visual separation, whereas the time spent under positive control is not visual separation. Also your experience re: the IFR waypoint is exactly what I was referring to above. Unless I’m VFR in a terminal area with defined VFR reporting points that the controller is expecting me to use, I always refer to IFR waypoints and even altitudes, because that’s the controller’s comfort zone and lets you mix more easily with IFR traffic.
👍👍👍 Three thumbs up. You made yourself knowing in advance, discussed your options and opinion here in the Forum, executed accordingly and got the experience what it is like to get the reward of being prepared. Perfect.
Here is what happened yesterday: initially checked in on Langen Info gave my details, didn’t file a fpl beforehand. Frequency was quite busy, and there were tons of gliders in the air, which are always tricky to spot.
Once frequency traffic died down a bit, I said “langen Info, HB-XXX, request climb to FL 105 and enter airspace Charlie, on a xxx heading. I’m Instrument rated.”
After some coordination by FIS, I was handed over to radar controller and immediately cleared up to FL 090 through Stuttgart delta airspace and then a few minutes later cleared to climb “up to FL110” which I took as a cue that they prefer 110 over my requested 105, so I climbed to 110. The last request they had was that I fly to an IFR waypoint instead of a heading, which was no problem at all, so probably better to request a waypoint routing from the getgo.
When descending out of Charlie nearby my destination, they even offered that I can remain on their frequency (which I down to about 5k ft) and gave me very useful traffic information.
Overall very impressive service, given that on a later IFR flight plan on the same day I had a 45 minute CTOT delay due to congestion/not enough staff.
I also felt there was a real convenience and safety advantage for me as a pilot as I was separated from all the airspace E VFR traffic which is often unknown to ATC. And yesterday there was really everything: I even encountered a non-motorized paraglider at FL080 nearby karlsruhe.
boscomantico wrote:
No matter how you shake it, every such transit or enroute segment of a VFR aircraft is always a „strip“ to create, some coordination to make, at least 5 radio calls to make, etc. Plus you never know what kind of pilot you get.
While I agree you may get initially denied for any number of reasons, and perhaps PROB99 should be lowered, but in my experience the difference comes down to this…
Pilot 1 (first transmission to any ATC): “X Approach, um, this is, um, oscar oscar whisky tango foxtrot, ah, 5 minutes east, I mean west of X, request permission to climb to 10.500 feet to enter your airspace”
X Approach: “Unable at this time. Remain clear of class charlie.”
Pilot 2 (on Information, with whom he has been in contact already): “X Information, oscar tango foxtrot request climb FL110” (already knows this means a freq transfer)
X Information: “For permission to enter class charlie, contact X Approach 123.456”
Pilot 2: “X Approach, oscar oscar whisky tango foxtrot, TB10 over ALPHA (IFR waypoint) at FL090, request climb FL110, routing via BRAVO, CHARLIE, DELTA (a sensible route using IFR waypoints)”
X Approach: “Cleared as requested, squawk 1234.”
In the first case, the request comes from nowhere, uses up nearly the same amount of transmission time as the second, and creates work for the controller to figure out what this guy is actually going to do. He also makes mistakes and shows signs of orientation issues. If I’m the controller, this sounds like a guy I don’t want to deal with.
The second communicates everything the controller needs to know: 1) he’s already in the system, so it’s more of a handoff; 2) the information is complete and concisely communicated; 3) he offers a reasonable route, so he knows the area, has a plan, doesn’t need hand holding, and is unlikely to wander off unexpectedly; 4) he uses IFR waypoints, which is a non-subtle cue that he’s instrument rated, and which helps the controller who is accustomed to working with IFR traffic.
I won’t say this is a 100% model for success, but it dramatically increases your chances!
In Germany, the difference between „TMA class C“ or D, and the „general class D above FL100“ is very little. The only one being that in the TMAs there is often some IFR traffic to deal with, whereas the general class C is totally devoid of any traffic (except occasions al climbs and descents of high level traffic of course).
But traffic density is not the point. No matter how you shake it, every such transit or enroute segment of a VFR aircraft is always a „strip“ to create, some coordination to make, at least 5 radio calls to make, etc. Plus you never know what kind of pilot you get. If ATC is staffed at the minimum (Covid and summer vacations of stuff), then they will just refuse a VFR entry, without offering any alternative, as that reduces the workload to just one brief radio call.
Obviously, from a VFR GA pilots point of view, this is not a great situation, when ATC cannot warrant a general accessibility of its controlled airspaces (although DFS will hardly admit this) but it is what itis and they won‘t adjust their resource planning to the VFR GA pilots needs.
We are talking VFR in general Charlie, even in France & US you can get refused one if ATC can’t separate or handover.
Make that Delta for Spain.. Often enough, asking for a VFR transit in D comes with a a negative. Especially near major airports at tourist destinations in summertime. Depends on the controller though. If he knows/likes or flies GA you’re often good to go 
Sorry for the thread drift, back to Germany..
