Dan wrote:
Well, I meant what I wrote… there are Licensed Air Traffic Controller, or ATCOs. Those man controlled airspace chunks as in CTR, TMA, and yes TMZ, plus the ones I missed.
And then there are the others, whatever they are locally named, advising users of non-controlled airspace such as RMZ, ATZ, and uncontrolled airspace in FIRs.
So in what sense does anything change in class E for VFR as regards the authorisation to give instructions if a pilot talks to ATC rather than FIS?
Vref wrote:
The logic behind was that the ICAO airspace classification was not covering the specific situations in Europe….
It’s a shame that the ICAO classification didn’t from the start foresee the need for RMZs. We’re rapidly getting to a mess just like the one the ICAO classification was intended to replace when there are all kinds of additional rules overlaying the basic airspace classes. Having the TMZ and RMZ concepts standardised by EASA help somewhat.
Before the alphabet classification, ICAO had four airspace classes, Instrument Restricted, Instrument/Visual, Visual Exempted and Uncontrolled, roughly corresponding to the current A, B, E and G classes. Very few countries actually applied this classification, at least in Europe. The mistake ICAO made when introducing the alphabet classification was not having an option for mandatory radio communication in classes E and G.
If I understand correctly, ATC in the US can give instructions to anyone they are in radio contact with and such instructions must be followed.
IIRC ATC instructions must be followed in US Class E, but of course you don’t have to communicate with ATC in Class E, including within the Class E transponder + ADS-B mostly-mandatory zones (Mode C veils) surrounding Class B airspace. That includes no special squawk being required in Mode C veils.
The mistake ICAO made when introducing the alphabet classification was not having an option for mandatory radio communication in classes E and G.
That’s called Class D. The issue with lettered airspace in Europe seems to be under resourced ATC, resulting in all kinds and variations of half-done junior ATC for VFR only. Plus the European application of Class D airspace being over regimented instead of being much like Class E with the addition of mandatory ATC.
Airborne_Again wrote:
So in what sense does anything change in class E for VFR as regards the authorisation to give instructions if a pilot talks to ATC rather than FIS?
Not at all the subject of this thread… nevertheless a good question 
The controller must be licensed to give instructions, if not licensed can only give advisories.
In a TMZ the airspace becomes, notwithstanding its classification, controlled when the ATCO decides so, usually to protect some IFR arrival or departure leading into a CTR.
Dan wrote:
In a TMZ the airspace becomes, notwithstanding its classification, controlled when the ATCO decides so, usually to protect some IFR arrival or departure leading into a CTR.
@Dan, where is this written in law? My understanding was ATCO can only suggest something in Class G in any xMZ, control only available in Class A-E (depending on type of traffic).
The change of this regulation makes it slowly, but surely a mess in Germany. Langen Information is often very busy, it will get even more hectic if more people need to leave and tune in again on frequency. Why just not send VFR traffic to local APP frequencies in general, just like in Denmark (or France, Croatia or USA), and keep FIS for the bigger uncontrolled areas and general (weather, flightplan etc.) questions?
Dan wrote:
Well, one explanation might be that, AFAIK, the TMZ is being manned by an ATCO, in opposition to the FIS. An ATCO is de facto authorised to give you air traffic instructions, a FIS only suggestions or warnings.That is the case in Germany, however in a country like France, FIS is mostly also the APP ATCO of the same sector and therefore has full authorization to clear VFR traffic through any civil airspace. Dutch Mil works also similar, as one ATCO operates the FIS and APP frequency at the same time. Switzerland works more or less like Germany, however, Swiss controllers working for FIS do need an official ATCO license (they work also on Radar positions), while German FIS operators only have a FISO license and never work on any Radar position.
It’s a shame that the ICAO classification didn’t from the start foresee the need for RMZs.Wasn’t airspace Foxtrott forceen by ICAO as some kind of RMZ? Germany switched from airspace F to RMZ zones inside airspace G a few years ago. I never understood why there was the need to change it actually.
Frans wrote:
Switzerland works more or less like Germany, however, Swiss controllers working for FIS do need an official ATCO license (they work also on Radar positions), while German FIS operators only have a FISO license and never work on any Radar position.
Thanks for that @Frans, and yes it is exactly what I meant.
As a reminder the title of thread is Change to TMZ in Germany w/e 23.03.2023, and does not mention neither the US, nor the UK, nor Sweden, nor others.
Steve6443 wrote:
Was preparing a flight plan this morning and noted that there will be a change in the way Germany handles TMZ with effect 23.03.2023.
I don’t get the point here. We already have TMZones (I don’t know for how long already), where it is exactly this way. For instance around Erfurt EDDE. You fly on FIS. You enter TMZ. You leave frequency and squawk the code indicated. By squawking the correct code, everybody involved knows what you’re doing. No radio transmission necessary if sky is congested. When you leave the TMZ you can return to FIS, but as everybody knows it’s not required to do so (however, if I had to leave FIS without prior notice I’d return on the frequency to let them know).
By the way: Skydemon shows this very well. Just prior to entering the TMZ Skydemon sounds its alarm where the transponder code as well as the frequency is highlighted. So you cannot even forget it, in case you didn’t catch it before.
So if there’s an actual change in March, does this mean that in future all TMZones will have this?
Frans wrote:
while German FIS operators only have a FISO license and never work on any Radar position.
Just to clarify. They typically see the Radar image in Germany and see where you fly and what you do. It’s not called Radar for obvious reasons.
Silvaire wrote:
That’s called Class D.
No, it’s not. What the US calls class D works differently from the ICAO definition of class D. I’m not saying that the US definition is worse, just that it is not the ICAO standard. I’m sure the US has filed a difference with ICAO.
