chflyer wrote:
It has been (mostly) drilled into us that ATC is God and the Rules of the Air are to be respected like the word of God
Well, I must be the exception, then. It was drilled into my head that ATC are like police, they are there to maintain law and order but most of all they are a public service and I am their client. And where I have very occasionally come across police staff that were rude and/or under-educated, all ATC I ever talked to (info services mostly, so not really “C” 
) were able and service-minded and friendly.
For one example, though I have not yet tried it: ultralights like I fly are – here in BE – basically disallowed in controlled airspace. Yet there have been several cases where ultralight pilots asked nicely and were allowed in the CTR of EBCI, at least; and I reckon it has happened elsewhere too. As we say here “NO you start out with, YES you could perhaps obtain”. Goes in aviation as it goes in certain other domains :)
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
I flew VFR through Italian A-class airspace above the Alps by asking nicely.
Even though you’re trying to divert from the topic by throwing out an entirely different issue – I’ll bite. A very Italian solution: Let’s make strict rules that make no sense and then nobody will follow them when they feel like it. But you don’t have rights associated with this, your are at the whim of some individual closing their eyes to this rule breaking.
Not a good way with regard to the rule of law or equal treatment of citizens. It is rather a third-world principle worthy of banana republics.
If due to this mutual rule breaking there was some consequence, let’s say you crash with an airliner while flying VFR through A airspace; would the clearance of some controller relieve you of the obligation to follow the law? In other words, if a policeman tells you that he will look the other way while you cross a red light, and you cause an accident: can you argue “but the policeman said I could cross”?
ATC are like police
I prefer to think of them as waiters
I would say they’re partners. And actually in 23 years of flying I had only maybe 3 conflicts with ATC … 2 in Greece, and one time Zuricj would not let me fly through their CTR – on the day where every CAT was grounded due to the Volcanic Ash cloud. I had to circumnavigate and clear a ridge with 500 ft, which i found rather stupid. But that was about it …
Timothy wrote:
I prefer to think of them as waiters
While appreciating the 
: no, not really. Waiters one can – and should, on occasion – tip. Tipping police is illegal, and trying to is quite dangerous.
[ [ I did try to copy the : smile : in the copied source, too, it is quite relevant here – but the forum software in its wisdom decided to chuck it up ? ] ]
Of course you have to work with ATC.
The key thing is that an ATCO is operating the unit’s policy and if you don’t like it you have to change it at top level which in most cases is impossible.
Very occasionally an ATCO is doing something weird however.
In my experience it makes big difference how you ask. Very often the thinking of the ATCO is “I don’t have to agree to this, what’s the chances that I’ll regret granting this request?”. Even IFR it helps a lot. I often got speedy handling for approaching a busy airport by just adding “I can do 160 on the glideslope and a long landing for quick exit”. This gives the ATCO confidence he will not have to send the following airliner missed. Potential trouble caused by incompetent GA is a major factor in ATCOs’ decision making.
Of course repeating over and over again what happened one one single flight 15 years is not very conclusive to determine the policies of an ATC unit…
PS: The Italian VFR in A is a thing of the past — this is not possible anymore post SERA, is it?
No idea where the 15 years comes from. Some people just like to have a swipe at me. The policy was well known at the time. And nobody here has shown it has ended. Maybe asking in German helps but if so that would also be wrong.
Peter wrote:
The policy was well known at the time. And nobody here has shown it has ended
It was here I heard of this “policy” the first time and I do fly in Switzerland since 1983.
Granted, only since 2009 do I own an airplane which can go up there, but the few times I did need to fly higher in VFR it was a question of contacting the apropriate ATC unit and I got the clearance without any problem or, in one case, simply got a squawk and was told to let them know once I descend below again. I crossed the alps in VFR at FL150-170 several times and I never had a problem.
So while I have no idea whether such a policy ever did exist or whether it was some individuals in ATC who were wary about VFR in their altitudes I never have encountered it. Clearly, if there is a good reason, ATC can deny a crossing of a particular block of airspace, but I would not call that a policy or anything else.
OK; we have several data points on this one, which is fair enough. Unless Switzerland has a Class C ban on VFR (which it doesn’t) this is all you are going to get. We could have the same discussion regarding any piece of airspace in the UK, Spain, France, Italy…. one pilot got through, maybe many times, while another one doesn’t, maybe many times. And if you get a forum where somebody says they didn’t get through and several “jump” on him, then others who also didn’t get through won’t say so because they don’t want to get involved
Someone suggested asking politely. Well, I can’t speak German. If I could, this thread would have had me saying something to the self appointed policeman It has long been “known” in the UK that if you sound like you know what you are doing (or are flying a plane which is normally flown by experienced pilots e.g. a twin) you are more likely to get a transit. ATC have always denied that, but it is fairly obvious that an ATCO, being human, is likely to work that way. When I used to fly long trips VFR around Europe I already had a few hundred hours so what level of radio competence is needed?? There is also the big point about using standard terminology, especially in places where ATC ELP is clearly very obviously lacking, and your options for being “polite” are limited when you are doing that.
I suppose one general point that can be made is that VFR traffic should be always permitted if there is no conflicting traffic inside the CAS. Common sense supports this. It is really another discussion (this thread is originally about airspace design). The USA manages it OK so I wonder why Europe has issues with it?
