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?
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.
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.
Its class G airspace you have done the right thing speaking to them. If they then don't give you a service/ or a shite 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.
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.
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.
Its class G airspace you have done the right thing speaking to them. If they then don't give you a service/ or a shite 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.
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.
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 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.
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
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 20,208
Quote:
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....
Anyway, try asking for any military phone number and the Dumbarton call centre will probably tell you that the unit doesn't exist.....
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.
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.
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...
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.
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 shite. 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.
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.
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...
them. 
