Nav Exam

[PompeyPaul]

This question came up in my nav exam today:
Whilst enroute you request clearence through a MATZ but don't receive any reply. Do you:

1. Divert to the left of the MATZ
2. Climb to 3000 feet over the MATZ
3. Descend to 1000 feet to be under the MATZ
4. Some answer that it obviously wasn't
I was confused. The good arimanship part of my brain was saying (1). You don't know what is going on, is there an emergency ? You have no idea what they may be dealing with so leave well alone, divert to the left.

The NAV part of me was saying (2). If you divert left then you are diverting off track and although their are ways to do this you'll arrive late and stand more chance of getting lost. May as well climb to 3000, fly over the MATZ and remain on track.

Anybody hazard a guess as to what the correct answer was ? As it was the nav exam I went with number 2. No doubt the answer was number 1.....

[JP1]

Thats what I was planning on my nav exercise today if the controller did not respond. (weather precluded the exercise)

Since I am yet to take my NAV exam I am interested in the answer.

[Flying Farmer]

Nothing in the question to say what time of day, or if they are Notamed closed?

Off the top of my head I think you need to call them 3 times for a MATZ crossing, if nothing heard, go ahead and cross the zone.

[BEagle]

If it's the exam I'm thinking of, diverting to avoid it puts you in the middle of nowhere, with no decent features either to recover to track or to know when you've flown clear. But the planned track through the MATZ actually keeps you clear of the embedded ATZ.... You can't go over, because the cloudbase prevents that - and you can't go underneath because the base of the section involved is ground level.

No doubt the intended answer is to divert around; however, if I was in the situation I would fly the planned track after asking London FIS to confirm the frequency and availability of the MATZ crossing service and asking them to relay my intention to the MATZ controller.

[DX Wombat]

That sounds horribly like the exam which I did and which was declared void because that was one of the questions which had a highly dubious "correct" answer. If it is the same exam then that was only one of several incorrect right answers and the CAA reviewed the paper and made the appropriate changes. PM me if you like as we shouldn't be discussing this openly in case it influences someone who gets the same paper. I hope you passed. If by any mischance you didn't, I should ask your examiner to check that you were given the amended paper. I was very fortunate in having someone who was prepared to support me and have the matter investigated by the CAA. Beagle, where are you getting the cloud base from? As far as I can see there is no cloud base mentioned.

[DSAA]

Well a MATZ extends from ground level to 3000' - so climbing to 3000' will put you only just above the airspace - plus you don't have their QFE so you have no idea at what reading on the SPS or the RPS you are in relation to the airfield. Whilst you could legally fly over it, you would be doing so without a FIS - so any departing traffic could potentially conflict with your track.

Unless you're transitting through the STUB for instrument traffic then you will be in violation of airspace at 1000'.

Turning to the left will put you off track...but using appropriate techniques - such as the weather avoidance technique - to fly around the MATZ you can regain track, without violating the airspace, and having lost a calcuable figure of time.

If you could not raise the ATC, I would decend to 1000' to be clear of the stub...a MATZ is 5nm in radius, so I would turn left or right (whichever would give me the shortest route)...turn to avoid the matz then regain a parallel track, fly a course that would take me past the airspace, then turn to regain my original track, still unless you can write an extended answer that's not much use.

In terms of the answers there...probably turn to avoid.

In terms of airmanship...if you're at low level it makes more sense to go around it, if you're flying at 2,800 it would seem logical to go over it. However, assuming your radio box isn't broken, if the airfield haven't replied after several attempts at calling them - they're probably closed (still...assumption is the mother of all f**k ups!)

[BEagle]

Actually I think I was wrong about the cloudbase. The 3000ft RPS thing is a trap answer for an obviously different reason!

When marking a question like this, I discuss the answer with the applicant afterwards (if he's passed) - to point out the impractical nature of the 'correct' answer and to elicit his/her understanding of the options given.

One option, which is supposedly the correct one, also causes the aircraft to manoeuvre close to the instrument approach route for a nearby civil aerodrome. Not a good idea, in my opinion.

'tis a most silly question for a black-and-white answer.

[Whirlybird]

'tis a most silly question for a black-and-white answer.

There IS no black and white answer!!

If the chances are that the MATZ is closed, and there's good visibility, why not fly through it keeping a very good lookout.

If the cloudbase allows it, climbing to 3000 ft solves the problem altogether.

If you were only planning on flying through the stub anyway, and there's good visibility and no high ground or congested areas, why not descend to under 1000 ft.

And if there are good ground features and you can do so easily, why not divert around.

BLOODY STUPID QUESTION!!!! Whoever set that as an exam question should be made to ask for MATZ clearances and fly through, round, under, and over the MATZ for twenty-four hours non-stop!!!!

DX Wombat,

I was very fortunate in having someone who was prepared to support me and have the matter investigated by the CAA.

You don't need anyone to support you; you can email the CAA and get these sort of things investigated yourself. I've done it. I initially failed my CPL(H) Principles of Flight exam by two marks. When I started re-revising, I remembered a question that I was sure had had four wrong answers. I asked a more experienced pilot, who agreed with me. I emailed the CAA, and got back an email saying that as many of the standard texts agreed with me (but not the almost unheard of book which they were using) they were giving me the two extra marks....AND A PASS!!!!! It was great; it would have been my only resit, and I had a free summer instead. :) :) :)

(Before anyone comments, yes, I know I probably should know more than 75% worth of P of F, and I probably do now, but that's not the point)

[jamestkirk]

I have not read the question, but it seems familiar from one of the exam papers.

Does it have anything to do with the fact you do not need permission to enter the MATZ (just the ATZ). Just a thought.

And before anyone pipes back with 'so do you teach students to enter a MATZ withouth permision' ; NO i don't.

[DX Wombat]

Whirly I had the matter taken out of my hands - in fact it never really got into them. The examiner marking the paper noticed the errors, took the paper to the CFI and asked him the questions (without letting him see the published answers) and he came up with exactly the same answers as I had done. The result was an immediate call to the CAA followed up by various bits of correspondence and the offending questions were apparently altered. I love your suggestion of what should be done to the person who set the questions in the first place, it's an excellent idea. :ok: :E Whirly, BEagle, James, I'll pm or email you as soon as I have an opportunity.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

'so do you teach students to enter a MATZ withouth permision'
Well, that's what I was taught to do ... outside their published hours, after calling three times and getting no reply, and having stated my intentions in a blind call.

[jamestkirk]

OK, I forgot that caveat. What if it's a tuesday, it's raining and the aircraft is coloured light blue.

next time i will attach a copy of the ANO.

[Whirlybird]

James,
The point is that while it's legal to enter a MATZ without permission, in many cases it's totally stupid, if you know or suspect it's active. But if, for instance, you know Shawbury has nothing going on after 5pm or at weekends - which is indeed the case - then you call up, and receiving no reply, fly straight through. As I did for several years when I was based at Sleap. That's why there's no one right answer.

If the exams were essay type, then asking the student what he/she would do, and why, would be an excellent question. But a right/wrong answer has to be right or wrong in all situations and circumstances.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

But a right/wrong answer has to be right or wrong in all situations and circumstances.
Well, given the question as phrased, and given the nitpicking pedantic nature of how you are supposed to answer some of these things, an answer that is "right... in all situations and circumstances" (although almost competely useless) would be:

5. Call a second time.

[BEagle]

The top of a MATZ is 3000ft QFE. As flying cross-country is normally conducted on RPS, climbing to 3000ft will not take you clear of the MATZ.....

Just transmit blind that you will be transiting the MATZ, remaining outside the ATZ, and will maintain VMC throughout.

[Spotless]

your point was my point. Thats why i stated that i teach that students must get a crossing clearance etc. I think though we are talking about the same thing but using different intonation.

My point to wombat isw that if we give an opinion and have to caveat it with every circumstance/experience/conditions, our posts would be extremely long.

That is not really aimed at him/her, i'm just feeling a bit emotional. I think i'll have a bar of chocolate and find someone to hug. There is a lovely waitress working downstairs, so she'll do!

[DX Wombat]

James and Spotless may I take it that you are talking to Gertrude not me? :confused: :confused: Because if you aren't then I am even more confused than I normally am. :{

[PompeyPaul]

But the option of climbing to 3000 feet doesn't specify whether it is QNH or QFE. One would presume that it was QFE since that's the top of the MATZ and so, imho, that is acceptable.

It's a shame. I failed by one question, had I of stuck with "divert to left" I would've passed. It's a sneaky question designed to catch out but then the Air Law was a bit like that too...

[BEagle]

If you can't talk to the station, how can you obtain their QFE?

If you'd failed the exam by failing that question, personally I would have 're-marked' that question......and would have asked you:

What are the dimensions of a MATZ?
Are you legally obliged to request MATZ penetration?
May you transit the ATZ of a military aerodrome without clearance if you receive no reply to your crossing request?

I'd be far more interested in making sure you knew the rules concerning a MATZ than answering a poorly-written exam question.

[jamestkirk]

yeah, i think so.
I am confused now, but that doesn't take much

And, the post by Spotless was written by me. I am not spotless but i just noticed that he must not have logged off before i sent the post.

[DX Wombat]

Paul, please check with your examiner that you were given the amended exam, if you weren't then you started off with more chance of failing than passing and he/she is the one who has made the mistake and should rectify the situation. At the very least you should have that one voided, (assuming you have been given the wrong paper that is.) I failed that paper by one mark and that was what set the alarm bells ringing with the examiner. If I remember correctly there were three wrong answers and one question on something not included in the PPL syllabus on that paper so you set off with a disadvantage of 20% before you had even started and that left only one question leeway. :(

[PompeyPaul]

Paul, please check with your examiner that you were given the amended exam, if you weren't then you started off with more chance of failing than passing and he/she is the one who has made the mistake and should rectify the situation. At the very least you should have that one voided, (assuming you have been given the wrong paper that is.) I failed that paper by one mark and that was what set the alarm bells ringing with the examiner. If I remember correctly there were three wrong answers and one question on something not included in the PPL syllabus on that paper so you set off with a disadvantage of 20% before you had even started and that left only one question leeway. :(

I have been at my school for a while and I convinced that they are a well ordered, well run school. So I'm sure I was given the correct paper, just one of those things.

Can't wait till I'm flying for real and come across a MATZ, I will divert left straight away :)

[SmoothFlyer]

This is an excerpt from the CAA's "Guide to Visual Flight Rules in the UK", which does not really address the exam question, but does explain what to do if there is no reply:

Availability of the MATZ Penetration Service
A MATZ penetration service will be available during the published hours of watch of the respective units. However, as many units are often
open for flying outside normal operating hours, pilots should call for the penetration service irrespective of the hours of watch published. If,
outside normal operating hours, no reply is received after two consecutive calls, pilots are advised to proceed with caution. Information on
the operation of aerodromes outside their normal operating hours may be obtained by telephone from the appropriate Military Air Traffic
Control Centre