ATZ within a MATZ

[TotalBeginner]

Does approval for a MATZ crossing also allow penetration of the ATZ within the MATZ?

For example:

Farnborough Radar approve a crossing of the Odiham MATZ, will this also allow the Odiham ATZ to be penetrated or will I have to make a seperate call to Odiham?

[Genghis the Engineer]

No it doesn't.

MATZ penetration is in any case a courtesy, not legally required - but never assume you're allowed into the ATZ unless specifically told so. Also, if the air-trafficers have gone off to the mess bar, and nobody will talk to you, still assume that the ATZ is active.

G

[Pierre Argh]

I disagree with gehngis... Normally (for what that's worth) I would suggest a MATZ crossing clearance will include clearance through the ATZ (unless specific routing instructions are passed e.g. route no closer that 3nms etc)

In the example you quote, the situation might be more complex... I would hope that Farnboro would liaise with ODI before issuing the clearance... and unless otherwise instructed negate the need to speak to ODI themselves, but that may not be reflected in the letter of agreement between the units... so "if in doubt, ask!"

[Grainger]

Simple really - if you want to enter the ATZ, then ask for it.

I would never assume that clearance for MATZ penetration includes the ATZ unless explicitly stated.

Always ask for what you want !

[Max Contingency]

Farnborough provide the lower airspace radar service for Odiham and there will have been discussion between the respective ATCOs before your MATZ crossing was approved. This MATZ crossing approval will have contained a height restriction and presumably you gave an intended track. If your clearance was for below 2000' and your track took you within 2.5 NM of the centre point of the longest runway (1850m+) then I believe that you also had permission to penetrate the ATZ. When a MATZ has been active I have never heard of a military ATCO giving an additional clearance specifically for the ATZ.

However I cannot fault the statement 'if in doubt ask' :ok:

[ShyTorque]

Max C,

From experience I must disagree. Unless a specific statement was made by the ATCO, an embedded ATZ clearance is NOT guaranteed or implied by a MATZ clearance.

The only exception I can think of is where the request was made to cross through the airfield overhead or within 2nm / 2.5nm as appropriate) at 2000 feet or less and a positive reply was received, in which case the ATZ clearance would normally be mentioned by ATC in their reply. In that instance ATZ clearance is assured because effectively this is what was requested.

Farnborough DO normally give (us) a clearance and mention either yes or no, avoid, to the Odiham ATZ clearance.

I heard one instance last Sunday where someone was getting a telling off from ATC because he flew through an active ATZ (Benson) whilst under a flight information service from Brize Radar. Brize had obviously followed up his request to penetrate only the Benson MATZ by landline, but he went straight through the ATZ as well.

If you wish to enter an ATZ, you must make your intention perfectly clear to ATC before you do so.

[FlyingForFun]

I would also say that the MATZ penetration does not allow you into the ATZ.

But, as others have said, if the ATZ penetration is what you wanted, that's what you should have asked for in the first place, and if that's what you do the controller will no doubt be quite explicit in stating whether you've got the clearance you requested. So any discussion about what the controller might mean if you just ask for a MATZ penetration and that's approved should really be nothing more than academic.

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

[neilmac]

I agree with most of the chaps, having worked at Benson ATC previously and a flyer being shocked at the amount of ATZ crossers when we were Tower Ops only and no radar manned. Not only was this dangerous to our circiut traffic but our police helo , our ATZ was notified 24/7!! The Brize incident I guess is poor communication on the their controllers part, but Brize being Brize ........enough said.

[fireflybob]

Funny then that the MATZ procedures in the UK AIP dont carry any warning to this effect then?

[BEagle]

What actual justification is there for somewhere like Benson to need a MATZ at all? How often does their traffic ever fly at 3000 ft except on climb out?

Tried to call Benson yesterday; no answer so a blind call advising that I would be transiting the MATZ but remaining clear of the ATZ. Which is all that's needed.

[tmmorris]

I must say it's high time the whole MATZ system was overhauled. The answer to BEagle, of course, is that it's seen as protecting the IAPs - hence the stub being in the direction of the ILS - but in practice it does no such thing, though the mil ATCOs seem to think it does - hence the prevalence of 'instructions' to aircraft who are actually in class G. The whole 'voluntary participation' thing is pointless and just leads to more civil/military arguments.

Make them all class E?

Tim

[eyeinthesky]

Check out the rules from the ANO.

You must have permission to enter an ATZ from whoever is responsible for it. That may be the airport owner who delegates it to an air traffic function or whoever. Think also about non-radio entry to an ATZ. Some of them require you to ring up beforehand: that is obtaining permission of the responsible person..

A MATZ does not require permission to enter it. Common courtesy/sense might suggest you should at least say where you're going to prevent surprises from noisy pointy jets.

In the case of Farnborough/Odiham: crossing the MATZ does not include permission to enter either the Farnborough/Odiham (or even Blackbushe as it is very close) ATZs unless specifically stated. It seems simple enough: two different types of airspace.

[High Wing Drifter]

You must have permission to enter an ATZ from whoever is responsible for it.
That seems too restrictive a description compared to the Rules of the Air. They state that during hours of watch if the ATZ is managed by ATC then you need permission, but if it is managed by AFIS or A/G then you are merely need sufficient traffic information to enter. Outside hours of watch there are no restrictions.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that's a point of law I'd not stand on. An ATZ is not large - go around the thing unless you can establish 2-way and get permission, it's not unreasonable purely due to courtesy and safety, regardless of legalities.

G

[aardvark the bagger]

as an ex controller at a very busy military base this exact problem came up and we had local orders specifically detailing what we should do

and that was to give a clearance specifically detailing where to cross at what level leaving no uncertainty as to whether you could enter the ATZ or not.

ie the powers that be were not sure what the legality was so made sure that at a local level it wasnt gonna occur!

[aluminium persuader]

tmmorris - a bit harsh, I think. Mil ATCOs are too well aware of the lack of protection a MATZ affords, and I would suggest that a pilot who crosses a MATZ without calling the appropriate agency is showing an alarming lack of airmanship

That said, it would be a poor controller who approved a MATZ crossing but then hammered a pilot for not requesting an ATZ transit as well. Personally, I want position (assuming they're not already identified), heading, next turning point and level. If I need a restriction (eg - remain clear of the ATZ) or a change I will specify it.

Don't forget; military aircraft (trainers excepted) are painted the colours they are so that they are hard to see. The air traffickers know where they are, and can stop you from hitting one!
:ok: