Without being on the otherside of the scope its hard to make to much comment but it does get frustrating being vectored on your track heading for 5 mins then told to resume on nav to the point you were going to anyway.
Or when making first contact with London on arrival across the channel you are instantly told to fly a heading, then turn right 5 degs or something.
This just doesn't happen anywhere else around europe.
If an aircraft is supposed to be flying LNAV and it deviates from track then that is a pretty serious equipment or crew error which should be reported.
But the majority of other european controllers have sufficient faith in our on board equipment to let us fly the SID or STAR ourselves.
Also, this step climb business has always created confusion and I still have to check two or three times to make sure I've spotted the correct initial altitude.
Most clearances on the continent are issued "... Fly PZR3B departure, 5000 feet, sq 6969, QNH 1013"
And it states clearly on the chart above the written instuctions of the SID the initial altitude.
The UK SID's have that many cross this point at this height but not below that one or only here at this height and so on that its any wonder there are level busts and traffic conflicts.
I appreciate its a tough job to manage the traffic in the airspace but I agree that it seems that ATC makes more work for themselves and the pilots by taking on too much responsibility and not having clearly defined and seperated SID's and STARS.
I'd be happy to get airborne, blast off to the west, climb up to FL150 or more then head east over the top of it all. Inbound traffic is that low that early that surely thats feasible.
8tor