Dimensional: OK give a MATZ the same status as a Rule 39 ATZ; fine, but then all civil airfields with instrument approach procedures should be given the same size ATZ. Also don't forget that a MATZ only exists when the airfield it serves is open for operational flying (JSP 318a - now superseded) and many military airfields open at odd times according to operational requirements.
I tried to suggest increasing the size of the ATZ to the CAA a couple of years ago (on the lines that things like 737's weren't protected in any way by even a 2.5nm ATZ), and was told that the present ATZ dimensions were agreed with various organisations after much discussion, and the ain't gonna be changed again.