Note: the “new” Milan TMA went into effect today.
While I’m not saying it’s pleasant, you could also descend into the Valtellina (sector 24, ‘Sondrio’ in the map) and then fly low-level across the ‘pianura’. It’s been a long time for me, but I did that a few times when working in Milan. We are talking VFR here after all, so navigating the terrain should (should….) not be a problem.
Yes, but in all fairness, it’s not that easy for “them” either. As soon as it were all class D, people (like me) would have the expectation that they let traffic in (one way or another). This categorical “blocking out” of VFR traffic from class C and D TMAs is wrong and actually a violation by ATC. The Swiss do that (Zürich and Geneva), but it’s unreasonable, as long as the pilot demonstrates a certain flexibility in route or altitude across the airspace.
I have actually heard quite a few clearances to small aircraft through the Frankfurt Class C recently.
Great analysis, thank you very much for sharing and working this.
I fully agree, it is a total shame that they did not use the chance to finally do away with these ultra complex restrictions. And you may well be very right if you say that even in class D there is no guarantee at all that they will actually let you through. They can always refuse entry into airspace D. Which is why I really do not understand why the hell they keep insisting on these huge A blocks. Don’t they trust their controllers to keep the VFR traffic out of harms way or what? If all the A was D as it should be, the only difference would be that the controllers have the authority to clear VFR through there, they can however still refuse it if they feel it is not acceptable. So the only reason they insist on this A areas seems to be that they don’t trust their own people mixed with a pathological anti VFR attitude.
I have drawn up another possible route. This one is a bit shorter, but requires descending all the way to 4500 feet.
This starts with the assumption that you arrive overhead Locarno at FL115 (first red line). Then, you have to:
-be below FL95 at the second red line
-be below 5500 feet at the third red line
-be below 4500 feet at the fourth red line
…and the first bit, navigating between terrain and lowering class A airspace, is very demanding. It also requires a clearance from Torino Approach later on.
And this afternoon, I just flew right over LAX – twice – without any clearance (LAX special flight rules area). Just sayin’……
Peter wrote:
But in southern Europe there is less need to fly approaches, because the weather is generally better.
Hmmmm – I have lived in Milan and during winter you’d better have your CATIII autoland enabled… fog for weeks on end.
Thanks for that great analysis, Bosco.
It does make one wonder if this kind of nonsense will drive the EIR.
The full IR is – for piston GA anyway – mostly used to get access to CAS while flying in VMC, usually VMC on top, and flying instrument approaches to get back down again. And for getting out of airports which are in CAS when the cloudbase is below the 1500ft or so VFR minima…
But in southern Europe there is less need to fly approaches, because the weather is generally better.
I have made a very small study of realistic flight scenarios now. It basically shows that north/south flights will still be very difficult, whilst there are at least some improvements for west/east flights.
First: north/south, i.e. crossing the Alps VFR over Switzerland, with destination Genoa (LIMJ). (These Alps crossings are often done between FL100 and FL130).
If you want to (or have to) stay above FL95, then it’s still a big big mess, mostly due to the above mentioned sectors 2 and 14:
The easterly variant should be possible in practice; it requires clearances from Milano Radar only for sectors 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the TMA, which should not be a problem. It also requires clearance from Verona Approach, but that also no problem. Still, the detour is huge.
The westerly variant is less straightforward. It requires a pretty altitude in the first bit, due to high terrain in the Val D,’Aosta area. It also requires consideration of LI R-83 as well as the Gran Paradiso National Park area. Finally, it would require the cooperation of Torino Approach, since you would be crossing their final for runway 36. At FL115, it might be possible though. Still, a very very long and complicated routing.
If you are disposed to fly (at least partly) at or below FL95, then you can shorten the routes slighty:
The easterly variant is half-acceptable. It requires clearance for sectors 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. Shame on that class A in sector 7, which seems totally useless. Flying this at FL95 would usually require only a minimal descent after crossing the Alps.
The westerly variant is much more difficult. That is because Torino approach will likely not give you any clearance for their CTR (up to FL85) in that area (due to departures from runway 36). So, this probably works only at FL95. And still, quite a big detour.
Obviously, all this changes if you are able to fly IFR; then the classic “proceed Saronno, Voghera, Genova” will be no problem at FL110 or above. As if an aircraft flying IFR were less of a factor then the same aircraft flying VFR! It’s a shame.
East/west flights:
Here, the are some improvements. Let’s take as an example a VFR flight from Turin Aeritalia (LIMA) to Venice Lido (LIPV). This can in the future be flown even at “high” altitude (let’s say FL105), and with rather little overhead:
In the past, this was not possible at all, only very low above the ground.
Only caveat: on the first bit, up to the boundary of Turin CTR (see small red line), it will probably be necessary to stay below 1500 feet, because Turin Approach will usually not allow an early climb due to arrivals to runway 36. After that, this new routing will require clearances for sectors 10, 8, and 6 of the TMA. If you fly this at FL85 or below, you won’t even need clearance for sector 10.
In a similar manner, VFR flights between Genoa (LIMJ) and say Verona (LIPN) will also be possible at “high” altitude, and almost in a straight line:
Needless to say, all this requires the cooperation of ATC, and this will still have to be seen.
By the way, if these rules had gone into force two years earlier, it might have saved the life of that unfortunate Twin Comanche pilot…
As far as short VFR flights within lower Lombardy are concerned (the vast majority of VFR flights “affected” by the TMA, mostly by ultralights), they draw almost no advantage from the new design. “Thanks to” sector 1 of the TMA, these will remain crushed very low above the ground, creating hazards due to A) low visibility and B) collision risk. I’m not criticizing the fact that there is controlled airspace there – this in the case everywhere else in Europe in the area of major airports. What is bad is that (except in case of emergency) pilots can in no case get access to that airpace. Class A is categorical.
Summary:
What is a fact is that this new TMA is a nightmare in terms of user-friendliness. It will lead to lots of airspace infringements and lots of confusion on the frequency. The exact opposite of what incident investigators have been asking for. Note the above study was after a lengthy review of nice airspace structure. No “average” VFR pilot will do that in this detail before flying to Italy. Have fun with these guys!
With this re-design, Italy has basically passed from one catastrophe to the next one, i.e. from the dreaded “VFR-sectors” (totally unhead of in ICAO guidelines and total confusion for foreign pilots) to this convoluted TMA with 24(!!) different sectors and changing airspace classes from one (VFR allowed) to the other (VFR forbidden) multiple times over a few miles. Such TMA is nowhere to be found in the rest of Europe, which is laughing again over the “Italian way”. Third world!
boscomantico wrote:
Sorry for reporting back late. The main italian GA forum (mostly ultralighters) is www.vfrflight.net
No problem, I will take a look but not just right now. I am curious, though!
@Jan
Sorry for reporting back late. The main italian GA forum (mostly ultralighters) is www.vfrflight.net
@MD
I agree on the degree of complexity and the risk of airspace violations, or at least total confusion on the frequency. Immagine “n12345 negative, there is a five-mile wide bit of class A on this requested routing, but if you fly further to the west, descend to 4000 and later climb at FL100, then is it possible”…
What is more probable though is that they will downright refuse any drossings of the D where it gets “complicated”…
