Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Change to TMZ in Germany w/e 23.03.2023

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.

There is absolutely no provision in SERA for that. If Germany actually has a law that says so (which I doubt) it is void as it contradicts EU legislation.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Frans wrote:

while German FIS operators only have a FISO license and never work on any Radar position.

I don’t know what the inside of Langen FIC looks like, but if they don’t have radar positions, why do they ask you to squawk and how can they call traffic information without asking pilots for position reports (which they don’t)?

Not to mention that they ask you to change frequency when you approach a FIS sector boundary. Without having radar (or position reports) that would be pure magic.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 24 Jan 17:18
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

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.

What is the difference other than requiring two way radio contact for Class D entry, versus a clearance? Class D is regardless the threshold for airspace in which ATC radio contact is mandated, and should be used for that purpose.

The only issue with that US versus Europe distinction in Class D is that the European reason for requiring a clearance to enter Class D is because European ATC uses Class D where it doesn’t want to give you one! Otherwise the distinction in the entry requirement would only be a formality. That then leads to the Class D not being used widely for ATC at small airports, as it logically should be used to require two-way radio communication in their vicinity, and distinguish them from surrounding Class E or G. That then further leads to the ‘requirement’ for European national systems of junior-grade quasi-ATC conducted in uncontrolled (!) airspace. Instead of using the ICAO system as designed they add an extra, unnecessary layer of complexity and pervert the requirements for the relevant area of Class E or G in doing so.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 24 Jan 18:21

Silvaire wrote:

What is the difference other than requiring two way radio contact for Class D entry, versus a clearance? Class D is regardless the threshold for airspace in which ATC radio contact is mandated, and should be used for that purpose.

The same as the difference between class B and class D in the US. A clearance is for a specific route and level (or possibly an area and/or a block altitude) and has to be obtained before entering the airspace. In US class D a VFR pilot can fly however (s)he wants unless ATC says otherwise.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

The area and block altitude for Class D entry can very easily be the entire Class D area, or some easily delineated portion of it. In other words what would otherwise be the entire RMZ. As per my original post, the solution is proper application of the simple lettered airspace system that already exists. The requirement (or not) for a clearance to enter Class D is almost irrelevant except in places where the precedent is Class D being used wrongly to keep traffic out.

I cannot BTW remember a single instance of entering US Class D without (in effect) a clearance having been issued. The slight US variation in entry requirement might be helpful if you don’t want to screw around on the edge of Class C or D waiting for an ATC instruction, but in practice that doesn’t seem to occur. You ask, they deliver, done.

In e.g. the UK you hear that a real ATC system is impossible to implement because of the costs. I think its a totally ridiculous proposition in a country that otherwise finds funding to invade almost every aspect your life. And the same is true in most other places that make the same excuse.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 24 Jan 19:12

Silvaire wrote:

I cannot BTW remember a single instance of entering US Class D without (in effect) a clearance having been issued. The slight US variation in entry requirement might be helpful if you don’t want to screw around on the edge of Class C or D waiting for an ATC instruction, but in practice that doesn’t seem to occur. You ask, they deliver, done.

The FAA doesn’t seem to agree with you.

AIP USA, GEN 1.7 Differences From ICAO Standards, Recommended Practices and Procedures: “Air traffic control clearances are not needed for VFR flight in U.S. Class C, D, or E airspace.”

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

My point was (and is) that while the entry requirement is as you’ve stated, the delay in ATC response is so short that I have never crossed the line into Class D without compete instructions before I reached the line. The FAA and I agree, we both know only two way radio contact is required to cross the line, but they work fast enough that their not requiring a clearance to enter Class C or D has made no difference to me. I have also BTW never been delayed or routed oddly or had any other issues when requesting US VFR Class D landing or transit instructions, and (again) that is the key point. The airspace requires ATC contact but understanding and working with it is SIMPLE, without endless ambiguity, two separate ATC systems for the same airspace and a million extra acronyms.

The opportunity to cross into Class D with only an acknowledgement from ATC while waiting for an instruction, or that they don’t use the word clearance, is not the issue and it is AFAIK the only US difference to the ICAO recommendation for Class D. The issue is that the ICAO structure is implemented worldwide with varying degrees of competence.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 24 Jan 20:57

For those who don’t fly in my neck of the woods, here’s a picture of the old Airspace around Münster ca 2019.

Imagine you are flying south / north at, say 4000 feet, from Sierra to November. What I would previously do on departing would be to call up Langen Information on 129.875, climb to 4000 feet and ask them for clearance to transit through their airspace – after all, they operate the class D (non CTR).

You will note that the TMZ is not taken any notice of. I will remain squawking 7742 and talking to Langen. With this new rule, I will talk to Langen whilst climbing, before entering the TMZ I need to request leave and switch to Radar – but not before I have cleared my transit through the Class D (non CTR)….

The new rule says you HAVE to leave FIS when transiting, in the past, they would keep you on frequency. This applied to Paderborn and Dortmund in a similar manner, but worse: The TMZ of Münster only extends to the south. Imagine you are flying from, say, Siegen to Münster, want to transit Dortmund CTR at 4000 feet from Sierra to November. You would typically call FIS when you leave Siegen. Approaching Dortmund, you’d need to ask for clearance to cross the Class D (non CTR) before you leave their frequency and switch to Radar for the few miles of TMZ, then switch back to FIS whilst transiting the Class D (non CTR), then request leave as you exit the Class D (non CTR) to rejoin the TMZ, only to rejoin FIS once you’re clear of the TMZ.

In each case, you’re not only switching from frequency to frequency – which is relatively simple – but lets not forget you will need to switch each time from 6102 to 7742 on the squawk.

The old system: Call up the operators of the Class D (non CTR), get cleared through and keep their squawk was much easier….

EDL*, Germany

Taken from AIP_VFR_ENR_1_18_19_28TMZ_HB_neu_29_pdf

you can see the following:

If the pilot is on a frequency of the Flight Information Service (FIS) before entering the TMZ, one of the following procedures applies:

1) The pilot reports leaving the FIS frequency and changes his transponder code to the transponder code contained in the ICAO chart and has tomaintain air-ground voice communication watch on the frequency published on the ICAO chart.

or

2) Upon request and after confirmation, the pilot may remain on the FIS frequency and keep the transponder code assigned by FIS.

The procedure under 1) is applied in the following TMZs as a rule: Dresden, Leipzig, Memmingen, Nürnberg.

The procedure under 2) is applied in the following TMZs as a rule: Hamburg, Hannover, Niederrhein, Dortmund, Münster-Osnabrück, Paderborn, Hahn, Friedrichshafen, Wittmund.

As you can see, procedure 2 has been withdrawn which means more superfluous changing of frequencies…. However FIS controls the Class D (non CTR) which means you would need to be in contact with them when crossing, correct?

Last Edited by Steve6443 at 24 Jan 20:08
EDL*, Germany

Since when does FIS “control” a class D not CTR? Radar does in my opinion.

EDLE
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top