RNGrommits

c172
Matz= lots of traffic (often fast and pointy) climbing/descending.
Matz + C172 (C150, C152, PA28 (delete as appropriate)) bimbling along 3 miles away from mil airfield sub 3K' not talking to anyone = accident waiting to happen & big artcile in local newspapers.
You're the professional, you do the maths.
You don't have to ask, but common courtesy and AIRMANSHIP will go a long way to survivingl longer. You ask, we can co-ordinate our own traffic against you. If we can't we will ask you to climb/descend or take a small change in track so that we can. This saves the MOD millions in the mantanance hours inflicted in scraping off small pieces of puddle jumper from our aircraft.

You ask for a RAS, you will get turned from a/c you can't see. If the conditions allow you to see em, or you are desperate to stay on track, don't ask for a RAS.

Right, now that you have got me on a rant.

In my opinion, I think mil airfields should be applying for class A airspace around them like every regional civvy airport seems hell bent on doing. About 5 miles radius up to 3000' with little stubby bits out to 10 miles on selected final approach paths ought to do it. Then you would have to call us! Or would that infringe on GATs god given rights to plan routes over busy airfields without any thought to the consequences?

Sorry if our airfields and aircraft are in your way.

And, by the way, just how much do the GAT world pay to the Lars units (mil & civil) for providing an ATS? Shall we start charging by the mile? I can feel our tea boat growing! Can you attach chip and pin to your squawk and callsign?
Rant over.

PS C172, I see you are from leicester. Do you fly out of there? And if so, who do you get a radar service from when you go North, east or south (and don't tell me east midlands, cos I know they have got enough to deal with from the traffic inside their ever expanding zone to give too much thought to what is happening outside of it!

Pierre Argh

Sorry you had a bad experience, this is NOT the norm. However, it is fact that LARS is a lower priority than the Approach Service, and is provided from within a Unit's spare capacity (and what units have that nowadays?)... so an overworked controller may have to terminate service... BUT should provide warning where possible of the need to do this.

The 90 degree turn was probably for identifiction, much easier if a serviceable SSR is available in the air on the ground... but you do need to be identified on radar before the controller can give you a radar service.

You're totally right about the MATZ too... you do not have to avoid, nor accept any restrictions the controllers may try to impose. If you are unable to accept a restriction request PLEASE do NOT go off frequency... tell the Controller you are "unable to comply, and intend routing through the MATZ at ..... (altitude)" Some units might not like this but you are within your rights, and as long as you stay on frequency are known traffic... which means we have to take less separation on you than if you become unknown traffic.

The terminology "MATZ Crossing Clearance" should be read as meaning "Do you intend to route through my MATZ?"... please don't take it as anything more?

I am disappointed by RNG's self-confessed rant (I know him personally, and IMHO it is out of order!!!)... Please don't take his comments as standard. LARS is poorly funded, units are overstretched... but still manage to help out dozens of pilots everyday; one or two getting buggered about is unfortunately bound to happen. But, if you have a problem with your local LARS unit a request for a personal visit, or a trip along with your flying club, might help clarity on both sides?

I hope this helps?

PS RNGrommits... The MOD receives on average £8 for every LARS track my unit works (not too bad a rate... I wish it went into my pay packet?) This comes from a portion of the on-route fees paid by heavy GAT... because LARS is meant to simplify the separation problem of inbound and outbound traffic from transit traffic passing close to an airfield without CAS... i.e. the party line, whatever you may think, is that we do it to help ourselves as Controllers!!! Think it over?

flower

No wonder ATC has such a bad name in some areas and GA pilots don't talk to ATC units when they get flamed for offering an opinion

PPRuNe Radar

Now that would be fun to see ..... one of the fast jet bases trying to recover 20 jets low in fuel where VFR is not permitted

__________________
PPRuNe Radar ATC Forum Moderator radar@pprune.org

NorthSouth

grommit:only one airport in UK with Class A and regional it ain't. DAP who decide these things is full of blue suits anyway, so relax, your interests are secured.

Maybe things are different around navy airfields, but I have never heard any civil pilot advocate flying through a MATZ without requesting a penetration from the controlling authority. Some may get lost and do it unwittingly, but hey, plenty e.g.s of that with civil *and military* aircraft entering 'civil' CAS too, and that's not just a bad idea it's illegal.

NS

Matoman

NorthSouth

Interesting statement - "DAP who decide these things is full of blue suits anyway, so relax, your interests are secured".

I suggest you do a little more research, because I reckon there are only about half a dozen light blue suits and one dark blue suit in DAP. Yes, there are a number of ex-blue suits, but that is also true of every civil ATC unit as well. Civilians easily outnumber service personnel in DAP and I am not including AUS in the figures.

During my time in DAP it was very difficult to recruit any civil controllers to work there, and NATS had great difficulty in finding anyone who would accept a posting to DAP.

Perhaps if more civil controllers expressed an interest in taking up some of the jobs that do become available, there would be less ex-military ATCOs employed in DAP - the ball is in your court.

Matoman

Shagster

"Thought it best to get a ras. Big mistake."

It was if you wanted direct routeing! The airspace you were transitting through can get very busy. Requesting RAS will almost certainly involve re-routeing so that the controller can fulfil his part of the agreement (attempt to maintain separation). An alternative would have been to request a Radar Information Service (RIS). Under this service you would receive the same information on traffic but no re-routeing as separation would be your responsibility. You then make your own turns for separation as you see fit (after informing the controller of your intention to do so).
You are quite right about the MATZ status to civ pilots, you should not be "instucted" to remain clear, you are only required to remain clear of the ATZ portion. But please bear in mind that aircraft operating in a MATZ may be performing any number of high speed or rapid climb/descent manouevres and this (wrong) instruction to avoid the MATZ was probably made with your well-being at heart.

RNGrommits

Pierre
You may notice the little devil symbol in my last post - Think of him as an advocate. (And this thread was getting stale!)

£8 per lars track - thats cheaper per mile than the M6 toll.
And is it Poland where you have to pay before you can get a LARS service (or is that just another urban myth?)?

Pierre Argh

Careful you'll have the GA Fraternity on here next, complaining how Mode S will mean we can track them down and charge them... I agree LARS is a Billy Bargain? but as income for using spare capacity it's, in effect, money for nothing (hence my comment about my pay-packet... after all it is MY spare capacity that's being touted?) The whole LARS scheme is being reviewed anyway, along with a general look at ATSORA (or whatever they're calling it this week?)