MATZ and ATZ info

[extra]

So, you are out a wandering and ahead lies a MATZ. You are at 3,000 on a fine day - question, do you legally need to do anything? You outside 2miles/2,000 for which you would need to do something, but a MATZ - I don't think so. Cavalier, Gung Ho, no - I am getting sick of Military controllers trying to control me in the FIR.
p.s. My brother is one and he said I should post this and watch it light up fffffzzzzzzzzz :D :D

[GoneWest]

Legally - provided you remain outside the ATZ - you have no reason whatever to call the MATZ guy.

Airmanship may dictate otherwise (why do they have the MATZ "protection" zone??).

Have you considered - as many do (including colleagues who fly for the CAA) - rejecting the instruction - if you are outside "regulated airspace"? Just say, "No" (I'm not advocating this, by the way, just saying you have the right).

[Chilli Monster]

extra

I would say good airmanship suggests that you do what you're told in the MATZ - it'll stop you gettting a Harrier or Tornado up your backside.

HOWEVER

Yes - our military brethren do need educating. I've often heard the phrase outside CAS (or MATZ's) "Fly AT ****ft" and a lot of PPL's are intimidated and treat is as an instruction. It is WRONG! If you're VFR outside CAS nobody can tell you what level to fly at. They can request you fly not above or below a level (I do that all the time to separate inbounds from VFR's operating in my area) but that is all. I think the problem is that some of them (not all I must add here) don't actually understand the concept of VFR in its truest form.

CM

[Flybywyre]

Extra
Cavalier, Gung Ho, no - I am getting sick of Military controllers trying to control me in the FIR.
So why bother talking to them then :confused:
Brize and Farnborough, just to name two are normally very helpful
and if I am not talking to them then I will listen out.
If I am talking to a military unit, perhaps for a FIS, then I am quite happy to comply with their instructions/advice/requests
I don't see what your problem is?
Regards
FBW

[Chilli Monster]

Flybywyre

Farnborough are civil (NATS)

CM

[Bright-Ling]

...and Brize have no MATZ......just a Class D CTR!

I think that the point being made is that VFR pilots are being told to fly at a level.

Obviously, this could 'force' you to IMC.

We use phrases like "Can you climb to 2000 feet and remain VMC" - Followed by "Report any change in level".

Helps ensure seperation if that is the point.

BACK TO THE TOPIC.....

Anyone who flies up to the ATZ of a Military airfield in a MATZ without speaking to the controlling authority is bonkers!! (EVEN if allowed to do so).

This is especially true in the Vale of York/Lincolnshire area where there may be 7+ aircraft fast in the visual (extended) circuit.

[extra]

So far so good, I agree that airmanship should prevail and normally call them. I wish they would 'request' more than 'tell', I think everyone would be happier

[Pie Man]

I agree it would be nice to request a civilian ac to fly at a given level to cross the MATZ but it is not standard phraseology. One reason military controllers may seem a little curt on the radio is they are probably also controlling fast, sharp pointy things on UHF. Quite often we do not have a lot of time to sort out potential problems.

PS Some airfield ATZ are 2.5nm and 2000ft

[Chilli Monster]

Pie man

Do you not think the 'curt' sounding is also because the stress levels in the average military approach room are somewhat higher? Having worked both sides of the fence it never ceases to amaze me looking back (and I still get it when I co-ordinate) the background noise in a military approach room is ridiculous. Why? Because you have an approach controller, a director, and possibly zone in the same room, for a relatively small amount of airspace, all trying to co-ordinate with each other to the detriment of external co-ordination and all round controlling efficiency.

Maybe it's time the functions were combined more sensibly - we manage it in the civil world after all and it produces a much calmer working environment.

In addition - the old chestnut of VHF/UHF controlling. Why don't Mil ATC units do what the rest of the world does and 'cross-couple'. By selecting 'con' on the panel on the two frequencies you wish to combine (App for example) you should get rebroadcast facilities. If you don't maybe it's time for the RAF to ask why - DERA sites have had that ever since mascot was introduced.

CM

[Pie Man]

Hi CM

Cross coupling does not work on our kit - we obviously bought the cheapest option. No doubt the cost of introducing the option would be prohibitive.

Combining the tasks would be a good idea if traffic levels were lower. As a unit we frequently have 10-15 speaking units under control. In the busy airspace of Lincolnshire, I would challenge anyone to give an effective radar service to that number of aircraft on their own or at times just two controllers (we sometimes struggle with 4).

Part of the problem is of our own making were we play at IFR/VFR and end up having to sequence VFR and IFR traffic.

PM

[Chilli Monster]

PM

Cross Coupling: The mod is there and is not expensive - the kit I'm talking about is identical to the one you use. Maybe it's time this was pushed forward on Flight Safety grounds

Provision of service: I know where you mean, and what you're talking about. Do all those speaking units actually require a radar service - or is it imposed iaw Station Flying Order Book. If the latter then you have my sympathy as it's a farcicle state of affairs. Levels of service should be by agreement between individual pilot and controller contract - not by command level imposition.

I still think though that the time has come for the miilitary to maybe look at civil practice in certain circumstances - times do change after all.

CM

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

There was some debate within DAP a few years back to make MATZs smaller whilst recognising them as CAS. Don't know where the suggestin went. IMHO, anyone who flys over a MATZ at 3001ft (or an ATZ at 2001FT) is asking for trouble. What's more, if you are VFR outside CAS and don't like the 'restriction' that the controller is imposing, just tell him. At least if you are talking to him he will have an idea what your intentions are and can plan accordingly.

Finally, from a personal perspective, there is nothing worse than a pilot who just doesn't consider his fellow airmen once he has strapped himself in.

[Bright-Ling]

WBS!

How's life at the dust bowl?

WU as busy as ever.

B-L

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

B-Ling - it was still hot and dusty when I left a few days ago. Now back in never never land.

Anyone seen a yellow brick road?

[Scott Voigt]

Pie Man;

We normally have upwards of 20 to 25 aircraft on freq when busy. Sometimes have had up to 30... <shrug>

Chilie Monster;

In the US we don't do the cross coupling. Has to do with the price of putting togehter the communication lines that are remoted. In the enroute environment, the boxes are designed for it, but the wire pairings for the radio sites aren't...

regards

[Chilli Monster]

Scott

You have to admit that 14 aircraft in a terminal environment (which we're referring to) is a bit different to 25-30 in an airways / area environment.

As for the cross-coupling the sites we're referring to are all on airfield - no remotes.

CM

[Pie Man]

CM

Too right and not all of the pilots we speak to have English as a first language!!

Have to agree that we (the military) have to look at the way we operate. Perhaps it might help in getting the skills gained in Mil ATC recognised by the CAA. :)

Scott
I am talking about providing a terminal service to large numbers of fast-jets in busy Class G airspace. I think 25-30 ac in that evironment would be a non starter.

Time for a beer

Pie Man

[Scott Voigt]

Pie Man;

Hate to say it, but we do have terminals with that many aircraft in it... I have worked at towers where my spotter was showing me aircraft that we easily 20 in line for the downwind. I personally have been told at VNY that I was number 25, follow the B25 camera ship <G> on left downwind...

Not to say that everyplace is that busy, but we just have a whole lot of aviation around here...

regards

[Pie Man]

Hi Scott,

I think we are talking at cross purposes here, I'm talking about giving a radar service with vectors to sequence arriving traffic. Sorry but 'follow the B25 camera ship' is not an option. If only we had a few B25s inthe UK to follow. ;)

Regards

PM