nats,
I never check my PMs (don't even know how to!). If you have something to say that will add to the debate or be of use to pilots in the future then post it here. If not then surely it would be a waste of time looking at said PM would it not?
Timothy,
If you file a VFR plan you can specify a level i.e. placing VFR in the level field is not mandatory. However, I believe that what alphaalpha says is correct - the VFR fligh plans are ignored at the ACC - even if they plan via that ACCs CAS.
There in lies the reason why even if every VFR flight planning to fly within the STMA files a full flight plan 4+ hours in advance (as the IFR ones do), the ACC will not be aware of or make any allowance for the VFR flights that will no doubt cause a loading on the sectors.
Overall, the system at National level does not suit the pilot and also does not suit ATC. Makes one wonder why since both parts of the system find the situation less than ideal nothing is done.
The AOPA/GSACO/CHIRP fill in a form if denied class D access acheived nothing mainly because even when denied access full stop, few pilots ever put pen to paper.
Spoke to someone today that told me the reason why ATC (at an ACC) will try to separate VFR flights from IFR flights eg in the STMA and suchlike places is that the separation is monitored by a computer that does not make any allowance for VFR/IFR. Thus if ATC place you 2nm to one side of another flight at the same level, the system reports a loss of separation even if the two are VFR. This means an investigation even if it is a short one. So ATCOs do not want the situation. Perhaps ATCOs can confirm this separation monitor?
Regards,
DFC