An easy way is not to go on the FIS frequency in the first place… in the days and age of electronic gimmicks such as ADSB, Safefly, Flarm, etc, all associated with a good lookout, should minimize collision risk.
One can then concentrate on monitoring the successive TMZ frequencies, as well as setting the applicable transponder code, returning to 7000 in-between.
Or has FIS contact become mandatory now?
Dan wrote:
An easy way is not to go on the FIS frequency in the first place… in the days and age of electronic gimmicks such as ADSB, Safefly, Flarm, etc, all associated with a good lookout, should minimize collision risk.
One can then concentrate on monitoring the successive TMZ frequencies, as well as setting the applicable transponder code, returning to 7000 in-between.Or has FIS contact become mandatory now?
Dunno about you, but I still hear and sometimes receive warnings from FIS about primary returns – ie, non transponder aircraft. Let’s not forget you don’t NEED a transponder. Nor a radio. So at a stroke, all your electronic gimmicks are reduced to just a very expensive paperweight you are carting around. And we don’t need a degree in ophthalmology to understand that “a good lookout” won’t fully mitigate the risks, indeed the number of accident reports concerning mid air collisions often report that “see and avoid” failed. So, knowing FIS is there, I’ll use them to aid my situational awareness…..
Steve6443 wrote:
So, knowing FIS is there, I’ll use them to aid my situational awareness…..
I’ll probably keep doing the same, unless the dire scenario you painted really happens 
Generally speaking I don’t talk (but listen to, switching to 21.5 if there’s too much talk going on…) to FIS for short flights, which means the whole of CHE, or CHE – GER – CHE but to open an eventual FPL (wish one could not only close, but also open a FPL using SD).
On longer international flights, typically from Switzerland to northern Germany, I will talk to FIS. Of course, on these flights I’ll be at some flight level, and will very rarely if at all, be affected by conflicting traffic.
Guess there is not much we can influence right now, and we will see how it all works out.
Well SERA does not make it that complicated :-). It looks like the TMZ is coupled to an RMZ in the German Situation without identifying the RMZ part….
Reading SERA:
(b) Transponder mandatory zone (TMZ)
(1) All flights operating in airspace designated by the competent authority as a transponder mandatory zone (TMZ)
shall carry and operate SSR transponders capable of operating on Modes A and C or on Mode S, unless in
compliance with alternative provisions prescribed for that particular airspace by the ANSP.
(c) Airspaces designated as radio mandatory zone and/or transponder mandatory zone shall be duly promulgated in the
aeronautical information publications
In Belgium we have something similar its called an RMZ/TMZ area to allow better protection for IFR traffic around EBKT eg. To my understanding applying SERA this Area as in the German VFR is an RMZ/TMZ as there is the obligation of RADIO listening, without RADIO this would be hard to do…just my interpretation…:-). Unless the ICAO airspace already implies radio required. The text in the German VFR AIP seems interesting when reading it….
TMZ with air-ground voice communication watch
Unlike a radio mandatory zone (RMZ) where all
VFR pilots are required to report to ATC before
entering the airspace, the "TMZ with mandatory
air-ground voice communication watch" does not
require pilots to actively establish radio contact.
There is an obligation that pilots select the
(appropriate ATS unit’s) frequency published for
the relevant TMZ on the ICAO chart 1 : 500 000
when entering the TMZ and maintain air-ground
voice communication watch
Steve6443 wrote:
I can imagine that they will become painfully aware on the first reasonable flying day after 23.03.2023 – I’m wondering how many pilots around EDDG, EDLW, EDLP etc will actually be aware that they have to switch squawk and monitor radar when in the past they would remain on FIS frequency and how they will react to FIS telling them:Your example is the exact reason why I dislike the way on how Deutsche Flugsicherung (DFS) deals with VFR traffic in general. Just to give an idea how it works in Denmark through airspaces G, E, D and C:
The old system: Call up the operators of the Class D (non CTR), get cleared through and keep their squawk was much easier…That would be much easier, indeed.
Class D (non CTR)This is also a typical German thing. Every other country calls it a TMA (Class D). I’ve managed to confuse a FISO once, with my question to transit Stuttgart TMA in 8.000 ft. He answered me confused like: “Say again, what do you like to cross?!”
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)?Sorry, I’ve managed some confusion here. I didn’t mean Langen FIC doesn’t have radars, but I did mean they don’t work on ATC radar positions (e.g. approach or control). In Switzerland, Skyguide requires real ATCOs working on FIS frequencies as well. They might work on FIS in the morning and on Zurich Arrival in the afternoon, for example.
Generally speaking I don’t talk (but listen to, switching to 21.5 if there’s too much talk going on…) to FIS for short flights, which means the whole of CHE, or CHE – GER – CHE but to open an eventual FPL (wish one could not only close, but also open a FPL using SD).In Switzerland, I like to talk to FIS in order to let them know, where I am around the mountains. The whole idea for this “next report” thing is, that in case you get lost, SAR might find you faster. They also warn pretty good for active (military) airspaces. Sure, you can find it on DABS as well, but things might change spontaneously during flight. And yes, Zurich or Geneva FIC do inform SAR even without an activate flightplan, once you get lost and nobody can confirm you’ve landed safely… Already had this experience on a flight to Locarno, where I lost Zurich FIC and Locarno Tower was not manned during a Sunday.
Airborne_Again wrote:
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)?
I’m 100% sure that the reference to a radar position is meant to mean an ATC (ATSO) position, not whether radar is available to the position. Often the call sign even makes this clear: xxx RADAR. FIS may have radar and be able to see aircraft, but that doesn’t make it a radar position.
How was this change promulgated? via NOTAM? AIC? AIP?
Has Switzerland documentation also been changed accordingly? Swiss FIS and ATC manages some of this airspace in southern Germany. Swiss documented procedures clearly state that if not entering controlled airspace and currently with FIS the pilot has the option of remaining with FIS or changing squawk and monitoring the ATC frequency.
As always in Germany… via one of those well-hidden (and German-only) NfLs…
It will obviously also be changed in the AIP at some point before 23/3…
So a non German speaking pilot can safely continue with the old regime until an English-language version is published via ICAO standard information distribution means.
It will come. But which occasional foreign pilot flying to or across Germany reads the ENR part of the German AIP beforehand? Luckily, most UK pilots use Skydemon, which in fact gives this info to pilots.
As mentioned above, the German TMZs are actually more like TMZ/RMZs.
But not quite, as an RMZ requires the pilot to establish radio contact, and DFS does specifically want pilots NOT to contact ATC in a TMZ (monitor only). Hence they only call it TMZ, and explain deep down in the AIP that pilots not only need to squawk, but also monitor a specific radio frequency.
