Catz, Satz & Matz

[Kolibear]

CATZ, SATZ & MATZ OK, its a slow morning, this is actually a question regarding MATZ & ATZ - the cat can sit where it wantz.

I'm sure the Mil bods here will be able to answer this at the drop of a hatz.

1. You don't need permission at enter a MATZ, but its a very good idea to ask before entering.

2. You do need permission to enter the ATZ in the middle of a MATZ..

What about at the weekends, when therez no one at home?

I've been through Wattisham on a saturday and make a point of calling them to find out if the gliders are active. But if the time is outside their published hours of operation are both the MATZ and the associated ATZ active? Can one trespass with impunity?

[ThePirateKing]

No. Unless otherwise explicitly notified, you should assume the ATZ is active H24.

Rgds,

TPK:ok:

[BEagle]

Correct. Calling before entering a MATZ is a good idea, but not mandatory. So when some brusque milATCO snaps "Remain 3 miles clear", politely explain that you will be transiting the MATZ but will remain clear of the ATZ.

But, unlike civil ATZs where the "Call 3 times" procedure applies, you may not enter the ATZ of any military aerodrome at any time without specific clearance.

[Aim Far]

So when some brusque milATCO snaps "Remain 3 miles clear", politely explain that you will be transiting the MATZ but will remain clear of the ATZ.

Alternatively, think to yourself "I don't actually have to keep clear because the MATZ is uncontrolled airspace", congratulate yourself on remembering that bit of the air law paper, feel a little smug by all means, then magnanimously keep clear anyway since (a) you no doubt called 10 miles out so its no big deal to alter course by 10 degrees to keep clear and (b) you probably want a service from his LARS friends up the road who are always co-operative and co-operation is a two way thing.

[J.A.F.O.]

Kolibear

I echo the above, the ATZ is H24.

You mention Wattisham, it can be extrememly busy there at any time. The AAC don't tend to fly much at weekends but SAR can be airborne at any time, the police helicopter is forever in and out and it's gliders a go-go at the weekend.

Not only is it mandatory to remain clear of the ATZ it's a damn fine idea.

[bookworm]

But, unlike civil ATZs where the "Call 3 times" procedure applies...

Never heard of the "Call 3 times" procedure. During the notified hours of watch of the ATC, AFIS or A/G unit, you may not enter an ATZ unless you have permission or information as appropriate from the unit in question.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

The ANO (Section VI Aerodrome Traffic Rules part 39 para 2) states that "an aircraft shall not fly... within an ATZ... unless the commander of the aircraft has obtained the permission of the ATCU at the aerodrome...".

However, since we are considering a military (hence government aerodrome) para 1 also applies and this means that you only need permission during "such times as are notified".

If it were a civil aerodrome in question, then you need permission "during the notified hours of watch...". (para 1 again)

I can't comment on Wattisham in particular, but if you are transitting outside of the published (and thus one would assume notified) hours, then permission would not seem to be required.

I am not sure about BEagle's "call 3 times" method. I can't find it written down anywhere - but would be happy to be corrected.

Incedentally, if anyone has an interest in transitting ATZs which may or may not be active, Airprox 117/02 (C130 vs Robin DR36) could be worth a look - depends how slow your day is!

G W-H

[panjandrum]

Bookworm is right. Stick to what it says in the ANO for civil.

What if you were calling 3 times, but you were on the wrong frequency all along?

Happens regularly where I work!:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

When an aircraft station is unable to establish contact with the aeronautical station on the designated frequency it shall attempt to establish contact on another frequency appropriate to the route being flown. If this attempt fails, the aircraft station shall attempt to establish communication with other aircraft or other
aeronautical stations on frequencies appropriate to the route.

= Call number 1


The pilot may still be unable to establish communication on any designated aeronautical station frequency, or with any other aircraft. The pilot is then to transmit his message twice on the designated frequency,including the addressee for whom the message is intended, preceded by the phrase ‘TRANSMITTING BLIND’ in case the transmitter is still functioning.

= Calls numbers 2 and 3

[J.A.F.O.]

The majority of military airfields are H24, therefore you cannot enter the ATZ without permission.

[bookworm]

BEagle, that, presumably from the AIP or CAP413 is all very well, but it doesn't give you authorisation to enter an ATZ.

[BEagle]

What constitutes 'permission' to fly within an ATZ controlled by an ATC unit under Rule 39? A pre-flight telephone call accepting the inbound movement from ATC? I see no specific requirement to have 2 way R/T contact in Class G airspace (except where the aerodrome operator has stated that non-radio aircraft will not be accepted).


Obviously a FISO or A/G operator cannot refuse permission to an aicraft intending to enter an ATZ, but may pre-flight approval from an ATCU at the aerodrome be reasonably considered to constitute 'permission' to enter the associated ATZ? I consider that it reasonable to assume that this is the case - and if there has been no response to 3 R/T calls on the relevant frequencies, then it would be entirely reasonable to continue, making the required blind transmissions.

[DFC]

BEagle is describing the correct procedure to use when inbound to or outbound from and aerodrome within an ATZ in class G airspace. (R/T failure procedures in part).

However, this topic is about making an enroute transit of an ATZ and I can't think of a case where it would be safe and legal to continue a flight in VMC but impossible to route outside an ATZ in class G airspace.

The AIP/NOTAM contain the activation times for all ATZ's and all of the Mil ones that I am familiar with are H24.

Heard the following on Boscombe some time ago -

[I] Boscombe radar, Yak formation request MATZ penetration and FIS

(silence) folowed by the same again twice followed by

Boscombe radar nothing heard YAK formation is a .......routing via your overhead at 2000ft QNH 1005 will call overhead

(5 minutes later) Boscombe radar YAK formation overhead the field at 2000ft QNH checging to Compton Abas on .....[I]

Boscombe ATZ is H24.

The above pilot just recorded the evidence that the CAA requires to convict on the ATC tapes........lucky that the Mil guys who were operating on the local frequency didn't have a problem with the unauthorised transit!!!! :E

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

Whereas 2001' QFE would have been no problem, of course!

Agree that en-route penetration of an ATC-controlled ATZ without any prior permission is unacceptable (except in emergency, of course).

As for the ATCO who tried to tell me that I couldn't overfly a certain military CTR (top 3500' amsl) whilst climbing my Bulldog from FL 50 to FL 100, well, she shouldn't have been surprised at the "Squawking 7000, to en-route, good day" response which she got.

7000 + Mode C off, just to make the point to her! A bit silly, I agree (and I wouldn't do it nowadays) - but I'd only been trying to help in the first place by telling her what I was doing!

[FlyingForFun]

BEagle - you admit that your frequency change was "a bit silly", and you wouldn't do it nowadays. But it's probably still worth pointing out, for the less experienced readers, that if the controller asked you to not overfly her CTR, there was probably a good reason, like she was trying to keep you out of the way of something big and fast.

Although I know where ATC are allowed to give me instructions and where they are not (and I also know that I can always refuse an instruction if I don't consider it safe), I would personally always follow ATC instructions unless they are not safe, whether I am in controlled airspace or not. ATCOs are not in the business of giving instructions for no reason whatsoever! Would you agree, BEagle?

FFF
--------------

[UL730]

BEagle

Respect for that call.

Just trying to help a wimmin is a feckless task.

Wise words and the moral is always stay 1' out of reach :ouch:

[BEagle]

FFF - No, after the first info call to her she yelled "DO NOT CLIMB ABOVE FL65" at me.

So, bolleaux to the b£oody idiot. I said "Well, I tried to be helpful, but you weren't. Squawking 7 thou and changing en-route, Good-day"

Getting a Bulldog up to FL100 for hi-rot spinning took a long time. And I'd planned my climb to make sure that I wouldn't infringe anyone's airspace, so climbed initially to the west from Abingdon. Then when I was high enough I changed to Brize to let them know my intentions as I turned north and climbed over their zone. Being shrieked at by some ATCO-twatco in such a manner was distinctly off-pi$$ing.

PS - The fact that she was a female has absolutely no bearing on the matter. Most of the Brize lassies were excellent - but not this one!

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Beages, I take my hat off to you. Obviously you were one of the rare 'Ten' drivers who never once whinged about conflicting traffic as you were flying endless racetracks over BZN at FL40......

[BEagle]

Nope, I never did! Quite happy to take Radar Information Service holding in Class G above the CTR, thank you. Even in IMC. Possibly because, having done the balls-ache of the ATPL Air Law paper for my BCPL, I was far better informed than the average bear.