Peter,
I agree, this is the reason why VFR is no fun anymore in most of Europe. I should mention places like Germany which is still very good for VFR flying. Also Switzerland is not as bad a your chart leads you to believe.
But the main point you make is very valid. It also makes the major motivation for people to get an IR or at least the EIR. Flying IFR particularly in the enroute segment does away with most of this.
It also makes it very clear that digital charting as via Easy VFR or the likes are very much necessary for VFR today, as they allow you to filter what you need and what you don´t, such as all the high altitude stuff.
Come to that, what is that chart?
I think the key to getting to grips with airspaces like this is a chart which allows you to filter out what is relevant for you and what not (e.g. in France and elsewhere, there are LOTS of airspaces in altitudes you never will fly in, which clutter the whole map) and which lets you see what airspace is what type at a glance. The map you posted does neither.
In Switzerland, you can check which airspaces are active by going to
http://www.skyguide.ch/de/services/aim-services/dabs/
and then download the PDF for the day.
on the back page you will get the times and use of each airspace.
That is an exerpt of the Swiss ICAO Map, which already looks a lot less intimidating as what you posted.
BTW, the Swis ICAO Chart is available online at this address:
From there, go to the menu on the left, select Population and Economy, Transportation and from there the ICAO Chart.
The “weird” maps I posted are from Jepp Flitestar, the “Euro VFR” or “VFR” options. They should be current. AIUI their main issue is they may be depicting airspace which is notam activated.
A non-current (2013) Jepp Raster Chart of about the same area is here, and I don’t think it is much better
I too used to cross those bits at FL130 (FL129 actually because the Swiss would not let me enter Class C VFR).
München has 60% more activity, yet Oslo TMA uses 3 times more space, apparently for no good reason whatsoever.
I think they use “point merge” in Oslo. The same crap that we have in Dublin. It works great for the airlines, in terms off efficency, but takes up way more space that with traditional holds. GA loses out, but the airlines (apparently the only ones who count) are happy.
They did a comparison of München airport and Oslo airport after the latest fattening. München has 60% more activity, yet Oslo TMA uses 3 times more space, apparently for no good reason whatsoever.
Because München TMA is surrounded by class E airspace going down to 2500 AGL or lower, while Oslo TMA is surrounded by class G?
Because München TMA is surrounded by class E airspace going down to 2500 AGL or lower, while Oslo TMA is surrounded by class G?
German ATC never vector airliners in airspace E for Munich arrival/departure. That’s the whole point of the class C/D upside down wedding cake design. It’s true that “point merge” requires more airspace than traditional sequencing.
Munich is easy …, but VFR through France or Italy? I guess that’s the reason i did my IR … Unfortunately it’s beyond my intellectual capabilities to understand a French VFR map …
For yours, this is what I got at 2500ft, having excluded Class A-D and CTRs and TMAs.
That surely is a great route… for a tunnel drill. It will have negative terrain clearance.
While this route may have some bonus points for scenery (because it passes close to the Rhine Fall) (albeit not at that altitude), it’s otherwise the most inconvenient route, because of the large overhead and because it keeps you very close to terrain for a very long time.
Hence I stand by my claim that I don’t know of any VFR autorouter that reliably produces flyable results.
Achim’s probably right that it suffices to have an app that dynamically displays the map with only relevant airspace. The question is, do we have this? It seems to me that there’s no good solution for dynamic airspace activation. Parsing free form NOTAM text with typos is not very reliable IMO, digital NOTAM seems far away, and the individual countries graphical products like AZBA and DABS are not integrated in any app that could display an “own ship” symbol and are often not well known.
Unfortunately it’s beyond my intellectual capabilities to understand a French VFR map …
IMO you don’t need that, all you need to find is the nearest SIV (info) frequency, they’ll tell you if there’s something in your way.
I guess this is the thread for all the VFR pilots to look at the “IFR SkyGods” and wonder what’s so hard that they don’t understand 
France is one of the best countries in Europe to flyin VFR. It’s so easy! The airspace might look complicated at first, but the trick is to embrase controlled airspace (as distinct from restricted) and head straight for it! You will almost always get a clearance through directly on your route. And all the restricted airspace seems to disappears so long as you’re talking to the right agency.
VFR to France or Belgium, Italy – thanks, never. And getting IFR licence just to deal with this crap or airspace structures is surrender to the state organisations responsible for that.
Not flying to/through these countries is surrendering, as well.
While I can see the points made in this thread, I find it generally biased towards the negative side. VFR is still fun. Really! I love it. France, Belgium, Netherlands are perfectly flyable. NL is dead-easy to cross. In France, I suppose it’s a matter of planning a straight line and liaising with ATC along the way to make sure those restricted areas can be passed. Worked well for me, so far.
Just face it: Taking the plane for holidays to countries like France is nice for looking down a few thousand feet at the scenery. But still you are thousands of feet away from anything down there. You will be at some city with an airport in the end but don´t have any other transport then. You´d have to get a taxi or rental to see places. So in consequence we prefer to take the 64 Jag E-Type.
Wow – that’s a (fair) argument against flying in a touring sense in the first place. Certainly there’s pros and cons to both and it comes down to what you prefer emotionally. Currently, I much prefer long flying trips, although I used to enjoy road trips before I picked up flying.
