I recently had a VFR flight from Lithuania to Alicante and it was a very pleasant experience with ATC in each country. Comunication in every country was slightly different, but it was nice :)
They allowed me to cross all the TMA and CTR that I requested through official visual corridors or sometimes (TMA) through waypoints that I set in FPL. It took a while to get used to the pronunciation of ATC in France, but it was fine. Indeed, the French and Spanish ATCs were very helpful. French ATC even filled a cross-country flight plan because they couldn’t find my FPL in the system. Of course, they suggested to land first and filling it yourself. However, I just asked to fill it in the air and they did it. It took 25 minutes because they had to check if they could fill the crosborder FPL in the air. Balrcelona ATC allowed to climb to A class space. Before that they simply asked if it was a VFR flight.
I always put entry and exit points on FPL into TMA/CTR and of course I make it as clear as possible in advance by radio:) But yes, I hear different stories from local Spanish pilots who fly here in Spain regularly. However, I’m just starting to explore Spain, so my opinion may change.
Ah it seems like that there are two sides to this story. Wish we had more pilots that operate like @Juozas confirm that actually if you behave like an IFR flight you get treated as such.
I think btw that this is a big problem in teaching PPL too. The distinction between VFR and IFR is taught wrong. VFR is not uncontrolled and IFR controlled without the need for obtaining clearances. It’s just about the flight rules that the PIC has to follow, the weather minima, comm rules, flight plan folling and deviation from rules etc. But both can be controlled and that is about something else. It’s about clearances and clearance limits and adhering to airspace rules and so on. And PPL isn’t taught for the most part what a controlled VFR flight is. How you have to speak on the radio, how you have to fly etc. You basically have to fly like and IFR flight and naturally if you don’t that causes problems for controllers. Like I said I am yet to experience getting refused entry into class D or C.
Lots of Europe treats VFR like IFR, if you facilitate it by e.g. (for Belgium) turning up at KONAN at FL70 and then you get the standard route (LNO etc) right across Belgium at FL70 or 75.
Much of the “game with ATC” is presenting them with a fait accompli which they like. Or even which they don’t like, in some cases… But you are an ATCO so you must know all this 
Another problem is old PPL who are stubborn and will not bend and amend their understanding of the system they operate in and change how they act. They think that because they got EIR 30 years ago to go along their license and have flown more hours than a fresh PPL, got a plane and greased enough palms to get a hangar, that their understanding of flying itself and the rules that govern it is absolute and they know better than anyone who can simply read the regs. Worse yet these are the people teaching new pilots all the wrong ways.
So it’s no wonder that we have what we have. Of course anyone trying to help these old pilots to understand the rules and how things may have changed is attacked personally with conspiracies of being an agent of the system trying to opress them since believing this is much more plausible to them than even considering the fact that they might be wrong for once.
The funny part about all of this is that if you do apply the correct approach life is still not too hard, despite these old PPL trying their best to create the wrong impression for the rest of the system.
hazek wrote:
It’s about clearances and clearance limits and adhering to airspace rules and so on.
To be fair, much ATC are pretty sloppy about VFR clearances. In my home area, Stockholm TMA (class C), VFR will essentially never get a proper clearance with route and clearance limit. Instead they tell you that you are “approved in Stockholm TMA.” What exactly that means has never been clear to me. Certainly it is neither in ICAO, EASA or Swedish CAA terminology! Possibly it is intended to work as an FAA style implied clearance where they follow you on radar and give you instructions if they don’t like where you’re going. I deal with it by following the route I requested/flight planned and explicitly ask for any changes.
Agreed, ATC could certainly do things more clearly for VFR but no limit is a limit in and of itself. But I would still always ask for clearance to change altitude or any significant direction or route. Also usually some limits are in the AIP such as how to cross the centerline for example. You will get the same clearance here in Lux in class D for VFR but if you read the AIP for ELLX, if you’re going to cross the centerline above 2000ft 11NM from threshold or closer they want you to speak to APP even if you are in G airspace below the 2500ft floor of the D TMA. So obviously crossing the centerline is something that should be done only with explicit approval. We have some ATCO in our club and the explanation is simple, they don’t really mind VFR as long as it’s not in the way of instrument approaches and departures. And this is another point, if you’re trying to transit in such a way where you’re going through a likely instrument departure or approach path well expect them not to grant you that. And unfortunately ATC cannot tell you how to plan your flight, their job is safe and efficient traffic. Only rarely will they offer suggestions and even then you have to pick up on that and make the right request. So it’s up to you as PIC to find the right request that is workable for ATC and that they can accommodate. And then usually they will. At least that’s my personal experience so far.
I don’t recognise what @hazek is saying about teaching and how new pilots are being taught the wrong ways.
I would be very interested to know what he thinks has changed over the years that makes us old PPLs out of touch.
I will start the ball rolling here on one change that @Airborne_Again mentioned re Stockholm. In fact they are correct in “approving” and not “clearing”.
According to EASA phraseology guidance the words “clearance or cleared to” should only be used under certain limited circumstances mainly as in “cleared to take off” and “cleared to land”.
Filed flight plans are the same as they have always been and are country dependent as found in the AIP. In France for instance they are required for IFR and Night Flights away from the circuit, crossing frontiers (even within Schengen) crossing wide stretches of water eg STP to Corsica. They are recommended for any flight over inhospitable areas.
In France the big change over the years had been a more joined up ATC and FIS and the more abundant use of radar, so that there can be a more relaxed environment between ATS and Pilot than there was when I started 30+ years ago. Today it is unusual to be refused transit without being offered an alternative.
Also ATC is less strict on enforcing such things as the semi circular rule.
But back then my PPL training included ADF, VOR, DME use, transiting and landing at controlled airfields, as well as the more airmanship items such as cross wind landings, leaning, flying on top and how to stay safe when turning 180° having inadvertently entered IMC etc
It also included how to file a flight plan both before flight and in the air, although we never did an International Flight.
gallois wrote:
According to EASA phraseology guidance the words “clearance or cleared to” should only be used under certain limited circumstances mainly as in “cleared to take off” and “cleared to land”.
For ground clearances the word cleared should indeed not be used. E.g. a taxi clearance should not use the word “cleared” . For clearance in the air, the word “cleared” is appropriate for clearances! (Although it is not used in all circumstances.)
The word “approved” is nowhere to be found in SERA as regards giving clearances. (In some cases it can be used for modifying clearances on pilot request.)
“Approved” is used a lot in France as opposed to "authorized " which would be the French equivalent of cleared.
If you read through the phraseology pamphlets produced by EASA and, the DGAC (I don’t know about the Swedish NAA) you will find they talk about clearance and being cleared as a description of the phraseology but it has limited use in the example phraseology. In France this means they either approve or simply say something like “call when leaving zone” or “over xyz”.
The one thing they are really trying to avoid is “go ahead”🙂
In France, “radar contact” is often used to mean “cleared for the whole mentioned route including any CAS”. It spooks pilots (like Brits) trained to fear CAS and fear ATC.
I have never heard “approved” in France. Maybe it is new; I tend to be IFR there.
