LINTON MATZ [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

maxred

22nd Mar 2012, 17:13

I have been routing twice up through the Linton/Topcliffe/Leeming MATZ, heading south to north, and prior to the Linton MATZ, have requested MATZ transit, routing directly through all three. This has been granted by Linton. However, the first time I did this I was asked by Leeming to leave their MATZ, routing north east, to make way for an incoming aircraft, and he quickly asked that I go to 7000 squak, and dumped me in the Durham zone.
Yesterday, same thing, but me wise for it, this time though he delayed passing me to Topcliffe/Leeming, and when I queried if I had onward clearance, he again quickly pushed me out, leaving me orbiting prior to entering the Topcliffe MATZ. I eventually got the through transit, but a lot of buggering about.

North - South, no probs, Leeming transit you through. Are they to busy at Linton, or best avoided VFR in future?

Any thoughts?

GeeWhizz

22nd Mar 2012, 23:40

All three of those airfields are busy. But following the recommendations that GA request transit through MATZs it seems odd that you have been forced off your route after you've had your transit approved.

Much of MATZ crossing approvals is dependent on the height you wish to/can fly at. In general they wont want you below the radar circuit, and with the high ground to the West I'd suggest that a touch over 3000' would be preferable and therefore no reason for a MATZ transit as you'd be above the bloody thing and above any inbound traffic.

My thoughts on your experiences are that there has been a breakdown in comms between Linton and Leeming. Meaning that although Linton approved your transit, Leeming were unaware of your track until handover. Linton is a separate piece of airspace after all. This would put you and any Leeming inbound traffic in confliction. Although I find it very difficult to believe that the units in question do not speak to each other every second due to proximity. But it's possible, especially with fully trained yet inexperienced controllers and pilots at the same place. From the North Leeming would have more time to plan and co-ordinate your transit hence fewer cock ups.

The only other consideration is that during your transit recovering sorties popped up out of low level unexpectedly and you would be required to make way. This isn't unusual, and aircraft based at the airfield will take priority over everything other than emergencies. It could be coincidence that it happened twice, but unlikely imo.

The most worrying thing is that you were pointed at DTV and then sent en-route! If you were already within Durham's zone panic may have set in at Leeming as they shouldn't be able to control anything in Durham's airspace; if you're not on his frequency you are not his problem. The bosses at Durham may have had words.

Personally I'd try and fly above the MATZs, or not bother talking to them at all. Playing by the rules it's only mandatory to remain clear of the ATZs, if it's not the most mature approach to such a situation. ;)

Good luck next time!

GW

maxred

23rd Mar 2012, 18:52

Thanks GW. Yes my perceprtion was that the first time Leeming panicked when he realised where I was, quickly dumped me from his squak, to 7000, and asked me to contact Durham. The Durham guy mentioned I had bumped his airspace, I apologised, and was a bit pissed off with Leeming. Given it was his fault

However, the second time, with me wiser, I thought they have cocked it up again. Twice is not a co-incidence.

I agree. next time I will transit higher, and not talk to them. Either that or swing round them if VFR.

kevkdg

23rd Mar 2012, 19:02

I transit the Church Fenton, Linton, Dishforth and Topcliffe overheads often at 3100' but let them know I'm there and no problems what so ever.

Also, never had any problems through their MATZ.

Judging by the NOTAMS this past week has been very, very busy with millitary aircraft in the Vale of York.

GeeWhizz

23rd Mar 2012, 21:22

Hmmm its everywhere, damn Limpicks getting in the way of decent flying!

mad_jock

23rd Mar 2012, 22:50

Ask them for thier QFE, keep clear of the ATZ.

Go on route and :mad: them.

Its class G airspace you have done the right thing speaking to them. If they then don't give you a service/ or a ****e one. Stop speaking to them and keep clear of there ATZ as per the laws and then they might learn that its the good will of civilian who copperate with MATZ's and its is not controlled airspace.

AnglianAV8R

23rd Mar 2012, 23:35

Yes indeed, that's fighting talk forya

Alternatively, have a medical problem enroute, lose your vision, give them a call and a chap will come alongside and talk you down :ok:

The legalities of the airspace are beyond dispute, as is the effect of bumping into a Tucano. :ouch:

Something does seem to be amiss, but I'm sure that a phone call to the RAF might might prove beneficial for all.

mad_jock

24th Mar 2012, 07:09

What I am suprised at is the variation between Mil units.

Conningsby cracking service, pleasant helpful etc etc.

Valley again very helpfull despite having loads of tyros to deal with.

London and scottish mil area a pleasure to work with.

Portland ranges/plymouth Mil again a good bunch.

Its just the odd one or two units which spoil the hard work of the majority with stupidity and being less than helpful. I would have thought they would want everyone to speak to them so they could work in a known traffic enviroment. BUt some units seem to think its your duty to speak to them and then put up with over controlling/poor service.

Moli

24th Mar 2012, 07:57

As in most things in life there are two sides to every story so it's perhaps unfortunate to start bandying phrases such as stupid and $hite service around.

The OP asked for thoughts on the matter, here are a couple of mine.
1 Leemings runway orientation is 34/16, if you were transiting north and they had FJs on recovery they will in all probability be doing a radar to visual recovery at about 300 knots from something like 3000 feet descending to 1000, your profile sounds like you would have been inconfliction with them. These recoveries can and often do happen at very short notice.
2 If you didn't like the turn you were given, you could always ask can I go to the NW to vacate the MATZ
3. As another poster hinted at there has been higher than usual activity in the Vale of York this week and the zone controller may have had higher priority tasking elsewhere.
4 if you infringed the DTV zone, it was your error not Leemings as you had not gained a clearance to enter the zone.

I am not defending the zone controller as I wasn't there and he may well have been a less than average controller but these things are often not clear cut. If you have a problem in future with events like this, the best way forward for all parties is to call the supervisor at the unit concerned.

Hope that helps.
Moli

Moli

24th Mar 2012, 08:40

. Ask them for thier QFE, keep clear of the ATZ.

Go on route and :mad:them.

Its class G airspace you have done the right thing speaking to them. If they then don't give you a service/ or a ****e one. Stop speaking to them and keep clear of there ATZ as per the laws and then they might learn that its the good will of civilian who copperate with MATZ's and its is not controlled airspace.

Regarding the advice offered above ..... Leeming have Hawks there and when in the visual circuit they will at times climb for a PFL, this involves a climb directly overhead the airfield to 4500, I would suggest that anyone who flies through the overhead with that attitude needs their head feeling.

Moli

mad_jock

24th Mar 2012, 09:03

All the more reason for the controllers to proved a pleasant service which pilots want to use.

The mil doesn't exactly make it easy for civi pilots to get data on mil fields. That information should be listed in the AIP for the field and it might very well be. But as the mil AIP is now a revenue generator which the pilot has to pay a considerable sum for safety around mil fields has been reduced.

Also some units promote communication by bandboxing UHF and VHF so civi's can actually hear whats going on, can guage the controller work load and make a suitable call about remaining clear of the area. Leuchars is a good example of this, again a unit with lots of fast pointy stuff who provides a good service and seem to have very little problems with civilian traffic. Nobody I know would not speak to them in there area or be not willing to accept coordination to facilitate the safe expidious flow of traffic.

The controlling of pilots away from the overhead with no reason in class G is counter productive. A request with reason will very rarely be refused.

Moli

24th Mar 2012, 13:13

Again there are two sides to this. Band boxing has its place and most units do this, however Mil aircraft often ask to work on a discrete and don't want to hear any of the transmissions made by other civil or military aircraft because of the nature of the sortie they are on. To accommodate this Mil controllers can often be working 3 frequecies at once and all you the GA pilot will hear is him replying to your one freq. In the situation the OP describes he will have in all probability be speaking to zone and the R 2 viz traffic would be working approach or director..... Therefore the freqs would not be bandboxed as it was two separate control positions.

As for routing ac away from an overhead with nothing to affect, by whom and where was that mentioned?

MJ in one post you are quoting safety and in another you are advocating squawking 7000 and :mad: them.... Interesting.

There are excellent controllers in the UK both civil and Mil and there are some poor ones also, that's what happens when humans get involved. Equally there are excellent GA pilots around and there are some that are awful. Like I said earlier if there are issues where you feel you have been poorly treated, phone ATC on landing, they are always open to constructive criticism to improve their SOPs or educate their individual controllers where they have provided a less than satisfactory service.

Moli

mad_jock

24th Mar 2012, 13:43

Giving "no reason" was the way I meant it in reference to the PFL's from the over head.

We have the case that controllers want to speak to aircraft to allow certain functions to either be done or to be done easier.

Then you have pilots that are quite legally entitled not to speak to you.

You can scream airmanship and safety as much as you like, if the pilot has a bad experence with what they deem over controlling or poor service they won't speak to you. Most PPL's will not phone what they see as part of the big brother system. Most don't know that the military style of dealing with issues is not deemed to be rude in the military enviroment. When it does to huggy fluffy civi's.

Anyway its very noticable the reduction of mil airfields and of training in the last ten years and it is also noticable that the old boys/girls are leaving and the standard of RAF controlling is unfortuanetly suffering

BEagle

24th Mar 2012, 14:07

Like I said earlier if there are issues where you feel you have been poorly treated, phone ATC on landing, they are always open to constructive criticism to improve their SOPs or educate their individual controllers where they have provided a less than satisfactory service.

Another good reason why the UK MilAIP should be freely available rather than through the tax payer funded No 1 AIDU! A bit hard to phone up if you don't tell people what the phone no. actually is....:rolleyes:

Anyway, try asking for any military phone number and the Dumbarton call centre will probably tell you that the unit doesn't exist.....:\

Moli

24th Mar 2012, 14:21

BEagle

I agree with you, however that is not the fault of the coal face controller. A pilot can always ask for a contact number over the RT if the circumstances permit, I can't imagine it ever being refused unless ATC were too busy.

Moli

P6 Driver

24th Mar 2012, 14:35

Some of the replies and the implied attitudes displayed on this thread make me feel quite glad I'm no longer in the game of running a MATZ and having to deal with those who think as some do.
:ugh:

The end aim is, has always been, and (in my own opinion) should always be SAFETY. If a controller asks/tells you to do something in airspace they are responsible for, please consider that there might be a good reason for it, and that the controller might be a bit busy and unable to give a full explanation on air.

A phone call to the ATC Supervisor at the unit once landed, however, could clear the air quite nicely and calm will be restored to the aviation community rather than banging on about it on an internet forum armed with part of the story. ATC doesn't bite. Just a thought...

Moli

24th Mar 2012, 14:37

MJ

I see you are fairly entrenched in your opinions so I will leave you to it. As an aside I was an ATCO at Leeming when it was busy in the mid to late 90s, I am presently serving as a controller and supervisor at one of the Mil units you praised and as I have been controlling for over 20 years I fall into your old boys category.... So we haven't all left. I am also an active PPL with a share in an AA5B, I therefore hope that I have a healthy perspective on the interaction between GA and ATC and Mil ATC in particular ... I was merely trying to offer some perspective on the original post and I don't believe I ever "screamed" anything.

Good luck with your flying.
Moli

mad_jock

24th Mar 2012, 17:36

Not really just the same entrenched level as a mil controller who believes there arn't issues at some units.

The charging for the AIP is really taking the piss. And gives a very negative front to the mil ATC group.

BTW by far the biggest critics out there of the service are the civi ATCO's who are pilots. These game keepers turned poachers are the ones that really give the mil units a hard time. I would never be as brutal as they are. Especially if its a unit which they have to work with. They know extactly where to put an aircraft to cause maximum annoyance to the unit.

You next biggest critics are your own pilots both current and retired. They are actually the biggest advocates of giving a unit the "hey ho going on route" if they give you any sort of embuggeration.

I am just of the opinion that when talking to a unit if it stops providing you with a service and increases your work load or exposes you to clearances in class G you bin them. Obviously some units get it that aircraft talking to them is a two way thing, you give and you receive the benefits.

I am more than happy that you are working at a unit that I am praising. Not that it will do much good but try and feed back that the availability of the mil AIP or even a reduced GA information pack would promote co-operation and help mil/civi relations.

And getting rid of this multiple QFE's bollocks and using Mil lingo on the RT wouldn't go amiss either. eg report checks complete and other such ****e. You ask the duty pilot what checks they are on about cause the checks will only be complete at 500-1000ft not 15 miles out. Just say yes to keep them happy was the reply.

maxred

24th Mar 2012, 19:04

Thanks guys. I asked the initial question, because I have transited almost all of the UK mil MATZ, either at a lower level, or higher, always made them aware, and conducted my RT, in a precise and professional manner, as I should, and these two issues have cropped up at this particular MATZ.

I am a display pilot and regularly fly into mil bases, therefore I think I know what I am doing.

As mj points out, we do not need to talk, we can easily cruise through just above them with a 7000 squak, and they would have to get their aircraft out of the way:\

I always talk to them, common courtesy, when required, but as I said, twice now I have been dropped on, by this particular MATZ, travelling s/n. i.e Linton. If they cannot give me the transit, then dont. No problem, I will either climb, or re route. Do not dump me out into another CZ. It can get quite dangerous.

P6 Driver

24th Mar 2012, 21:08

If these two issues have cropped up with a particular ATC unit in mind, perhaps you would be kind enough to post the gist of their reply to your official complaint when received...

BEagle

24th Mar 2012, 21:16

It was when you asked a simple question, or tried to be helpful, only to be snapped at by some ATCO that I used to get annoyed:

1. Transiting the Benson MATZ eastbound towards White Waltham, I asked for the London QNH. For obvious reasons. The response was "You should be flying on the Benson QFE!!". "7000, en route, good-day!".

2. Mil this time. Climbing up to FL100 for hi-rot spinning I advised Brize Radar that I'd be climbing from south to north, remaining above the CTR throughout. The response was "Not above FL80!". "Sorry, I will be climbing to FL100 and this was for your information. 7000, to Stud 7, good-day!".

The best ever was when I said I was RTB and would like a radar-to-visual. "Controller isn't available", I was told. "OK, I'll just fly an NDB-to-ILS and call you when visual".

"I don't think I'm allowed to let you do that".

:uhoh:

However, I'm sure things will have improved since those days....

mad_jock

24th Mar 2012, 21:42

Brize was the same 5 years ago and it and Lossie I have heard the most bitching about by service pilots.

If you do complain.

1. As quickly as posssible they will try and move to the phone so I presume there is no evidence.

2. You will then be invited to visit so they can show you how busy they are.

3. They will try and keep it in unit.

Only time anything gets done is if a SRG ATC type person gets wind of it and brings it up outside the Unit.

Bring it up on PPrune and publically broadcasting issues with a unit have been quite successful in the past though. I am really sure the SATCO of Linton is not happy at all that his bosses down in London can see his dirty washing being discussed.

Moli

24th Mar 2012, 22:43

Blimey Guys lets get a sense of perspective here. Surely a constructive thread would be better than a lets just slag off Mil ATC.

Yes some Mil ATCOs are guilty of over controlling... as are some civil ATCOs.

Yes we can all recite incidents where I was told not above instead of for co-ordination request not above etc etc... but then I am sure most ATCOs Mil or civil, can regurgetate tales of GA pilots dropping clangers.

I had just written the above paragraph when I scrolled down to read MJs latest post... I'll come back to that in a moment.

Maxred
It sounds like you transit this airspace fairly often, If you feel that are are not satisified with the service you are getting whilst transiting the Leeming - Linton area, give them a call next time something happens that you are not satisified with. If you need any contact numbers then PM me and I will gladly put you in touch. Its only with feedback to the supervisors that these things will improve.

MJ

You baffle me. This thread is supposedly about an incident involving a specific Mil ATC unit (Leeming I believe from the OP). You start off your initial contributions with a ":mad: them" statement and then in another post mention 5 Mil units by name and make glowing reference to their standard of service.
You then go onto the Mil AIP and how it reflects badly upon Mil ATC that we charge for it.
Your posts then turns to the Mil ATC trade as a whole and we are told by you how Mil pilots are our strongest critics closely followed by civil ATCOs who fly.
Finally we get to the conspiracy part of your grievance.

Mil AIP. ATC do not charge for its access. It belongs to the MOD, to charge for it is a policy decision by them , not the RAF.
Mil pilots attitude to Mil ATC. I am guessing my interaction with Mil aircrew is a little more in the know than yours. On the whole we have an excellent relationship..... your broadbrush statements are based on what precisely? However I completely accept there are times when they can ocassionally get messed about by ATC.
The conspiracy of Mil ATC covering up. Laughable.
Bringing it up on Pprune as the way forward. Yes its a great way of having a bitch and moan and hearing just one side of the story... will anything change as a result of it...probaly not as if you think the SATCO at Linton (I thought it was Leeming that was in the firing line) is reading the GA thread on Pprune....

I completely get Maxred's post... yours however, aside from the swearing and bits I dont actually understand what you are on about I just find a combination of mildly entertaining and ... well, rambling hearsay and factually inaccurate guff.

I am sure you will come back at me with some more pearls of wisdom.... I am standing by to be further illuminated.

mad_jock

24th Mar 2012, 23:04

No pearls of wisdom.

Carry on with your head in the sand thinking all things are sweet. And wondering why traffic won't speak to you.

My interactions with crew are all beer related when they can speak without getting a no tea and biscuits. Which they are all aware can happen if the wrong thing is said within ear shot.

I have been through a complaint against a Mil unit and it was handled as I described.

Sorry for using the wrong SATCO.

Moli

25th Mar 2012, 00:25

MJ

When did I ever allude to "all things are sweet"? I think I agreed that there are some less than perfect Mil ATCOs, agreed that some can at times over control and that at times Mil aircrew can get messed around by us. Head in the sand... dont think so. I am beginning to think I know where your head is and it aint in the sand.

"Traffic wont speak to you" who me? or RAF LARS units... I dont work at a LARS unit.

If you think Mil crews are backwards in coming forwards when they wish to debrief ATC for fear of no tea & biscuits as you put it. :ugh:

As for you complaint handling story, after reading the accuracy of your posts on here, almost entirely based on woffle and heresay, quite frankly I dont believe a word.

Now toddle off to the bar and have a drink with your imaginary Typhoon mates.

To others who may have read this thread, I apologise for my part in it degenerating to this level, I tried to be constructive but just ran out of patience in dealing with the aptly named Mad jock.

Moli
Most definately over and out.

BEagle

25th Mar 2012, 06:46

Mil pilots attitude to Mil ATC. I am guessing my interaction with Mil aircrew is a little more in the know than yours. On the whole we have an excellent relationship..... your broadbrush statements are based on what precisely? However I completely accept there are times when they can ocassionally get messed about by ATC.

Back in the 1970s, when the UK's airspace was busy with military aircraft (unlike today), during TWU training we were told "Don't talk to ATC unless you absolutely need to - every transmission will probably cost you 100 lb of fuel!". Later, at Honington, staff pilots on my Buccaneer course used to refer to ATC as the 'Flying Prevention Branch'....:uhoh:

I hope things have moved on since those days? Mind you, some civilian pilots don't exactly make things easy - "Err, err, Golf Alfa, err Bravo Charlie Delta, err, err I'm flying to Stupidtown via the ABC, DEF and GHI at FL 6000 request err, Traffic Deconfliction.......err, over".....:confused:

Cows getting bigger

25th Mar 2012, 07:14

I presume we are talking about LARS here, the free ATS available to aircraft outside CAS? It seems to me that part of the problem is the lack of sensible phraseology to accommodate the type of mutual agreement required in the circumstance quoted.

A couple of other observations:

QFE - as a sprog, CGB used to float around on QFE and then, one day, was told that the RAF was switching to QNH. That lasted a few months until we were told to go back to QFE. At the time, rumour had it that the Canberra and Harrier fleet had whined so much about the change it was reversed. Maybe time to look at it again.

IFR procedures to airfields outside CAS. Personally, I think the is often a risky idea. Perhaps we should all be supportive of all these MATZ (along with places like Coventry) being redesignated Class D? Alternatively, a bit more ATC/pilot "love"? :)

mad_jock

25th Mar 2012, 07:32

I wouldn't have a problem with class D to protect our national assets.

At least it would get rid of the being controlled in uncontrolled airspace nonsense.

And BEagles comments are still the flavour on how the crew talk.

BEagle

25th Mar 2012, 08:05

And BEagles comments are still the flavour on how the crew talk.

Surely things must have improved over the last 40 or so years? Although some of the ridiculous TCIC things we were starting to hear in military RT a few years ago were particularly symptomatic of today's nanny-state yellow jacket mentality....:\

Talkdownman

25th Mar 2012, 08:36

Perhaps we should all be supportive of all these MATZ (along with places like Coventry) being redesignated Class D? Alternatively, a bit more ATC/pilot "love"?
If the Military wants to operate in a known traffic environment it will require appropriate regulated airspace designed to accommodate the instrument traffic patterns of individual bases. The standard MATZ dimensions do not do this. One size does not fit all, and its rules do not apply to all airspace users. Consequently the depiction of MATZs on civil charts is no more than worthless clutter. Airmanship and "love" are no substitutes for effective regulation with clear and robust procedures. Until that happens a MATZ remains an unknown traffic environment which Military ATSUs will have to tolerate.

maxred

25th Mar 2012, 08:43

There is no doubt that a percentage of GA pilots are apprehensive of going near or taliking to Mil units. The, at times, high staccatto approach in delivery, and unintelligble high speed talk, can be off putting. On occasion I have been left wondering what on earth the controller had not only said, but meant. I have often wondered were the RAF pilots a breed appart in that whilst coping with handling a FJ they also had to decipher the instructions coming through the headphone.

I think this has been improving,with ATC open days, an appreciation of 'other' air users, but it definately still exists.

Benson always very helpful btw.

maxred

25th Mar 2012, 08:45

Talkdown - that post is very valid, and may actually be at the heart of the issue.

mad_jock

25th Mar 2012, 09:07

The old "responsable for terrian seperation" stuff post cairngorms accident.

"But I always am" as a reply never went down well.

The training more than likely hasn't changed in 40 years, I think the lads said it was 6 weeks then posted to unit for on the job training. Compared to a civi which its getting on for a year with sim sessions. I am sure Milo can give us the proper numbers. Hence Mil controllers don't get any grandfather rights if they want to go civi when they leave the mob.

Everything seems to be, the pilot will do........ the pilot when instructed will.... When it should be the pilot may do... if the request is legal for them to do so or they have been requested in a polite manner and entered into an agreement.

No appreciation of the range of qualifications that civi's have and for that matter that certain aircraft types can't do certain things.

Which means you get stuff like "not below level xxxx" to VFR traffic.

thing

25th Mar 2012, 10:50

I don't want to get into this as a civ flying from a mil base but surely there's always 'Unable to comply'?

BEagle

25th Mar 2012, 11:29

The training more than likely hasn't changed in 40 years..

Regrettably it has. Like every other aspect of RAF training, it has been progressively eroded by yes-men eager for promotion.....

At CATCS Shawbury, simulator training was once combined with 'live' training. Civil pilots under contract would flog around the sky in whichever species of trainer the RAF had just finished using - Provost T1, then Vampire T11, then Jet Provost T3 / T4. It was also a good opportunity for trainee holding pilots to sandbag in aircraft they'd never get the chance to fly otherwise. But sadly all that finished in 1989, since which time live flying training has been absent from the course. All training is now done in simulators - even 'visual' controlling.

Nevertheless, the so-called 'busy' military ATCO should visit somewhere like Wellsesbourne Mountford on a summer weekend to see how the civil world manages to cope without over controlling 'amateur' GA pilots.

Moli

25th Mar 2012, 12:31

BEagle

25th Mar 2012, 13:51

Sorry said I wasn't going to respond to inaccuracies on here anymore but Beagle if you are going to quote examples please chose relevant ones, Wellesbourne Mountford is operated by FISOs, and as such they cannot issue any control instructions to ac in the air....pretty difficult to over control in those circumstances.

Which was my point. Despite the large number of aircraft, pilots of varying experience operate without problem at W-M, there is NO NEED for any ATC! Pilots cope quite happily with FISO information - and no "TriStar approaching 10 miles, orbit downwind" cr@p! SEP Class aircraft VFR minima equate to what you probably know as 'Yellow' and yet they cope without any need for an approach service, although admittedly at no more than 140KIAS below 3000 ft amsl and in sight of the surface.

Having flown in the Vale back in the 1970s, I know how busy it was back then. Leeming and Linton were busy FTS aerodromes; low level training was conducted on the low level link route and in the LFAs; once below FL245 we used to descend to low level visually without needing to talk to anyone. Unlike the wretched Tucano, JP flying occupied a much larger volume of airspace thanks to the ability to operate at higher levels due to pressurisation. Dominies, Jetstreams, JPs and Bulldogs flew a vast number of sorties from Finningley. At the same time, unlike today, Lincolnshire and East Anglia were absolutely heaving with military flights. Yet we didn't even turn our transponders from S'by at RAFC Cranwell and somehow ATC managed. The level of civil GA was comparable with today - yet the only mid-air I can recall was the sad Pawnee / Phantom accident on a low level link route which led to the CANP system.

There were over 40 more military flying locations in 1968 in the UK alone. So thanks, but no thanks, I have no desire to visit Yorkshire.

Moli

25th Mar 2012, 16:48

I started typing but do you know what... I just can't be bothered.

Lets agree to disagree.

Safe flying,
Moli.

Sensible Flyer

25th Mar 2012, 19:18

Maxred
I've never had a problem with military units, they have always been most helpful. The Americans at Lakenheath would fit your description, but then they seem to do their own thing anyway!

maxred

25th Mar 2012, 20:09

Well,apart from these two incidents, neither have I. However, there do appear to be some issues around. Just check through the posts:E

If you look at the op ,I asked for comments, because it was particular to this MATZ, and particular to the direction of travel.

The question I posed inferred - were they too busy?, were they training themselves?, were they unaware of what they were asking?, were they coherent as to my request? were they not bothered?, was it a qenuine error?

Dumping an aeroplane into alternate airspace, then relinquishing the service, was not part of the service I wished. Earlier it was inferred that perhaps I should have said 'unable to comply', but remenber I was under the squak code for the mil controller, complying to his wish, assuming all was ok, and then both of us almost at the same time realised I was in some one elses airspace, then dumped, by him, not me. Slightly inappropriate I thought.

Thats all.

thing

25th Mar 2012, 20:12

yet the only mid-air I can recall was the sad Pawnee / Phantom accident on a low level link route which led to the CANP system.

I remember that one. Pilot was the CO at Coningsby, Gp Cpt Bluke and his nav was due to be married the next weekend.

fabs

26th Mar 2012, 10:30

Without wanting to entirely blow my anonymity on an internet forum if your beef is with Linton send me a PM and I’ll reply with numbers, e-mail address etc and your situation can be discussed appropriately to ensure that this type of occurrence isn’t repeated. Contrary to what some contributors have posted here, we (certainly at Linton) encourage dialogue and open reporting if and when necessary.
I agree some of the less experienced controllers, particularly those still on OJTI can sound as if they’d like to own the airspace in and around the MATZ but I assure you that any request (even if it might sound like an instruction) made has the best interests of not only you but the other airspace users around you at heart; some of which are very inexperienced student pilots on a very demanding course.
As an aside, to describe Linton and Leeming as very busy last week would probably be over egging it a bit but stuff was happening that made things more complicated than normal due to various exercises that were taking place (all NOTAMed). Also if you are given a Basic Service it is likely that you will NOT be positively identified despite being given a transponder code. Which is why it is important (not to mention a legal requirement) for a pilot to receive positive clearance to enter CAS (i.e. the Durham CTZ).
PS Beagle, you’re always welcome to fly up to Yorkshire, we’ll even try not to mess you around too much.