Originally Posted by
gasax
So no takers in justifying MATZ?
ISTR that establishment of MATZs was the result of a 'career development' project by a Flight Lieutenant some five decades ago. From my experience of providing approach radar service for a MoD-Air MATZ the dimensions certainly did not afford 'protection' for much of its traffic. To civil operators MATZs are neither one thing nor the other, and, as such, are simply a nuisance to all. 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. The UK's busiest gliding centre operates within a MATZ. The military have sectorised that area an 'avoid' area, and it is marked as such in station ops docs, which begs the question why encompass it with the MATZ 'rubber stamp' in the first place.
The MATZ Penetration Service is neither one thing nor the other. Airmanship is no substitute for effective regulation with clear and robust procedures. Until that happens MATZs will remain an unknown traffic environment which Military ATSUs will have to tolerate.