MATZ Penetrations - A Plea!

[Fournicator]

I'm aware that the issue of MATZ penetrations has been discussed to death on these hallowed pages, but I'd like to take a few minutes of anyone who's vaguely interested's time.

I have the great privilege to fly vaguely pointy aeroplanes for a living, as well as enjoying both PPL flying and gliding in my spare time (yes, I am an amazingly one-dimensional person). While "work" flying the other day, I observed a glider operating near to cloudbase inside our MATZ. At the time, our primary Radar was on maintenance, so only squawking aircraft could be seen by Air Traffic. This glider was operating unbeknownest to Air Traffic, which is indeed his legal right, and I accept that even if he had informed the controllers of his position they would not have been able to see him. However, had this happened, they could have at least vectored other traffic around his position.

On a Radar PFL recovery to the airfield, the inbound aircraft will be descending at something in the order of 4000fpm, relatively close to the overhead. Assuming (somewhat generously) that the glider was 100ft clear of cloudbase, then this gives the military aviator one and a half seconds to realise he's cleared cloud, transfer onto visual clues, spot the glider, and take avoiding action. A collision would have dire consequences for both aircraft, and the military operator at least has the luxury of explosive furniture if that happens.

Of course, when operating at or near cloudbase anywhere outside controlled airspace there is always a possibility that another aircraft will pop out and ruin your day; we rely on the big sky theory to help us out of trouble on such occasions. The big sky theory starts to break down when many aircraft are concentrated into a relatively small piece of airspace such as a MATZ.

I'm aware all too well that most glider pilots don't possess RT licenses, and the reasons why - the practical test being orientated solely towards powered aviation, making it a somewhat daunting prospect for many glider pilots. For fear of the Big Bother (aka the CAA) knocking on my door, I can't possibly advocate glider pilots taking informal instruction in dealing with Air Traffic agencies, and using the kit their aircraft is equipped with in order to actually help in flying safely. No, I couldn't possibly say that.....

OK, I've ranted long enough, sure those of you taking the time to read this are somewhat bored by now. My moral? If you're transitting a MATZ - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE at least call the controller to make them aware of your presence to they can warn other traffic and vector their aircraft around you, thereby ensuring we all continue to live nice long, fulfilling lives.

[PPRuNeUser0172]

What a stunning lack of airmanship by said glider pilot, the sooner they are made to carry transponders the better.

Why would anyone do that? Only two reasons I can think of arrogance and ignorance, both wholly inappropriate traits for any aviator.

Everyone has a right to share the skies however, some people quite simply take the p!ss:ugh:

[Mike Cross]

At the time, our primary Radar was on maintenance, so only squawking aircraft could be seen by Air Traffic.
There's cloud and no radar, it's uncontrolled airspace, but what the hell, let's plummet through cloud into an unknown evnvironment anyway.

There are two ways to look at this scenario.

It's the gliding season. Gliders climb to cloudbase, it's not an unusual situation.

[Fournicator]

Mike:

I take your point, but a MATZ shouldn't really be an unknown environment. Military aircraft do need to operate above cloud, and will attempt to get VMC below in the safest manner possible. Even with only secondary radar working for us, we can get seperation on most other airspace users. With better airmanship from non squawking parties, we can get separation on all of them.

As a glider pilot myself, I know all too well that the best looking cumulus are always in the shark-infested custard airspace, and I have no objection to a MATZ being penetrated by civil aircraft, but a brief call to ATC can help increase safety for all parties.

As has been mentioned above, these kind of incidents do little to help gliding's case in the big mode S debate!

[Saab Dastard]

Y'know, what I would like to see is large areas of UK airspace with big dashes around them, like the "Areas of Intense Aerial Activity", labelled "Intense GA activity" aka SpamCans Only.

Entrance to said areas by any commercial / military traffic strictly prohibited unless cleared by a participating a/g radio unit.

:p

Actually, I think we should also ban private cars from motorways and urban areas, as they get in the way of the smooth flow of commercial traffic.

;)

[Mike Cross]

Whether or not you think a MATZ shouldn't really be an unknown environment is immaterial is it not?

Plummetting through cloud at 4000fpm in Class G with no radar cover might be considered by some to be slightly foolish.

[aluminium persuader]

Fournicator -

Just a tech point, but even if the glider is talking to ATC if we can't see him we can't vector you around him. Best we can do is give you traffic info along the lines of "glider, last reported x miles north of abc, y000'". Also, unless you're on a RAS you won't get separation at all from anyone.

It is a thorny issue, though, and one which requires consideration & good airmanship from both sides.

ap

[Talkdownman]

The busiest gliding site in the country is in a MATZ. That particular military base doesn't seem to have a problem. There's no getting away from it - a MATZ is an unknown environment where 'seperation' (sic) cannot ever be guaranteed whatever the standard of 'airmanship'. Perhaps the 'vaguely pointy aeroplane' base should apply for CAS then their pilots might 'get separation on all of them'. One glider doesn't make a summer.

[London Mil]

This is not about MATZ/CAS etc, this is about airmanship. Examples of poor airmanship I have seen:

Operating autonomously at 100 ft above the top level of a CTR within the area commonly used for IFR holds.

Flying over the top of a notified gliding site at max cable alt +100ft.

Using a landmark on the edge of CAS as a turning point.

Formating on another aircraft without prior coordination.

etc etc

In all these cases a bit of mutual respect and a quick chat on the radio would have sufficed. Personally, I choose not to do GH over the top of an active airfield/gliding site etc. Maybe it is just self-preservation.

[Fournicator]

Mike:
Let me spell this out for you - it was not NO radar cover, but secondary radar only. Even primary radar often has problems picking up slow moving contacts like gliders. I could also argue that glider pilots who cloud fly with no radar service at all are pretty damn foolish, but that too has been discussed ad nauseum here already.

Aluminium Persuader:
Yes, true, I couldn't technically be vectored around them, but if that traffic information was passed I would almost certainly reposition myself to approach from a different angle. Apologies for my poor air-traffic-speak! As I suspecy you're are, aircraft on a RPFL generally only take a RIS.

Talkdownman:
I am well aware that separation can never be guaranteed, and I don't believe MATZs should be transformed into yet another area of CAS. However, a little bit of thought from everyone can help increase EVERYONE's safety.

Saab:
Having done much of my flying in the aluminium coridoor of death north of London but south of Luton and Stanstead, with the TMA above and about 5 major GA airfields in the area, I am only too aware of what could possibly be marked as GA AIAA's! We're in danger of me starting my classic rant on how lousy many puddlejumpers lookout is, so I'd best go take my pills now.....

[WorkingHard]

I have to agree with what Fournicator and others say about good airmanship. It is folly to say the least to do what the glider pilot was doing, albeit quite legal. Perhaps Fournicator would advise what course of action to take when an RAF training aircraft drops from the cloudbase about 200 metres in our 12 o'clock inverted and no warning from the RAF radar unit that is giving us a RIS. When questioning the ATC, information was given that the said aircraft was not "painting" on radar and we should squawk standby and continue with on-route frequency. Not just my estimates as we were 4 up and 2 were instructors. So the question is what do we do about poor airmanship from our military colleagus as well as civilian ones?

[Mike Cross]

No need to spell it out, I know what SSR is and it provides no radar cover against non-transponding targets.
On a Radar PFL recovery to the airfieldYou must accept that you cannot maintain separation in an evironment where the use of transponders is not mandatory with SSR only. If you can't maintain separation perhaps it would be sensible to defer the exercise until you can. It is after all a practice.

I'm not attacking you here, just asking you to look at the issue objectively.

Mike

[Fournicator]

WH:
As with any walk of life, there are plonkers (can't use the words I'd like to use on here!) in my profession too; I can only apologise for their actions. I wonder whether the unit providing you with a service were working SSR only, in which case they would have advised you of this when they started the service. Even so, if going IMC the aircraft in question should have had a serviceable transponder.
At least if he was inverted he might have had a better chance of seeing you as he descended.............
While I have seen bad airmanship displayed by aircrew across the spectrum, it is unfortunately true that the most common instances I see are from puddlejumper PPL types. Please don't think for one moment I'm tarring you with that brush, just as I would hope you don't group me with the guys that gave you a scare.

Mike:
Sorry, no offence meant, just seemed before that you didn't grasp secondary radar. While I appreciate it doesn't give a full picture of the airspace, the majority of airspace users are transponder equipped. Aviation is by its nature a risky business, so while I agree that descending without a primary radar picture is distinctly non-ideal, I would still argue that within the confines of a published MATZ it acceptable to cloudbreak.
A slower descent profile would probably be just as risky, if not worse, with the descending aeroplane forced to stay longer in the layer of scud around cloudbase, making it travel through a wider horizontal area.

It is an imperfect world we live in, but I stand by my opinion that the glider pilot in question (again, not tarring all with the same brush here) should most definately have made ATC aware of his presence before entering the MATZ of one of the busiest military airfields in the UK.

[drauk]

Using a landmark on the edge of CAS as a turning point.


So how wide a margin should a pilot use in your opinion? Serious question. I've never seen a recommended distance, height or whatever. I suppose the reason is that surely you're either inside CAS or you're not? If you're not too sure where the boundary is then you'd be wise to leave a wider margin, but otherwise isn't the boundary just that - a boundary?

[GK430]

Good point drauk. If you're xxx feet above or below a notified CTR/CTA/CAS, you haven't infringed. Seen to infringe with Mode C by xxx feet, you'll get the wake up call.
Reminds me of descending to cross MID at 2,400ft when the tops were at about 2,520 feet and everyone else was down there. Never get into such restrictive scenarios if i can possibly avoid.

Best one I ever saw was a an Aerobat spinning on top of DTY from about 4,500 into clag.............:ugh: :ugh:

[englishal]

Operating autonomously at 100 ft above the top level of a CTR within the area commonly used for IFR holds.

Flying over the top of a notified gliding site at max cable alt +100ft.

Using a landmark on the edge of CAS as a turning point.

Formating on another aircraft without prior coordination.

The only one in that list that I would consider "bad airmanship" is the last one.

CAS is designed to protect IFR traffic, otherwise there would be no point in it. VRPs happen to be on the edge of CAS and are often used as turning points.

If the glider cable alt if XXX then surely XXX+100 keeps you clear of it.....but gliding sites are another story.

Our airfield is on the edge of a MATZ and although I sqwark mode C I don't always talk to them....I do sympathize with Fornicator, and myself I wouldn't fly through the extended centreline of their runway anywhere near IMC without a radar service........though I think a MATZ is a waste of time, as are AIAAs (I regularly fly through AIAA's maintaining only a listening watch)......Mind you the other day when I went to take off, at the end of the runway, a super puma zoomed across the upwind end at about 50'

[Flybywyre]

Englishal beat me to it ............... :ok:
FBW

[gasax]

This seems to be the classic - 'we're the military and we can do what we want' you'd all better be good boys and help us when we ignore the rules which you have to abide by.

Strangely enough the VFR rules were put together with the idea of making civil flying safer. That the military do not have to abide by them does tend to make the whole thing a bit of a nonsense.

Yes I'm sure it would be nice for everyone concerned with MATZ to have a known traffic environment, but that is not what the rules say and thus does not necessarily make it poor airmanship. Flying at high speed in broken IMC - that is poor airmanship.

At its heart this is all about the military having a mindset that they can do things which on any risk assessment basis would fail.

360 knots at lowish levels in broken IMC and no radar - is this smart?

The majority of traffic is transponder equipped - absolutely not, the vast majority of UK registered aircraft do not have transponders. Those who talk to MATZ might have transponders if only because they are trainers but remember over half the UK fleet are microlights and pretty much a quarter PFA types most of which would toil to power or house a transponder.

Any rational assessment of military flying shows it to be risky in itself - i.e. to the pilots and aircrew. They however choose that course, to the rest of us the risks have never really been assessed. The military splat light aircraft on a frequency of about 1 every 3 to 6 years. As and when they hit something with many more people on it military flying in the UK will change to be the same as that in the majority of Europe - controlled and compliant with the rules.

In the meantime I look out of the big windows talk to whomever I can but it would be nice if they didn't use the local strips as turning points....

[SAR Bloke]

Strangely enough the VFR rules were put together with the idea of making civil flying safer. That the military do not have to abide by them does tend to make the whole thing a bit of a nonsense.


What do you mean by that?

that is not what the rules say and thus does not necessarily make it poor airmanship.

Following the rules to the letter does not mean you have good airmanship. Flying on the extended centreline of a major airfield is poor airmanship no matter what the rules say (Just as an example - I am not suggesting that is the case in this incident).

it's uncontrolled airspace

Hence the problem. To Military traffic instructions are mandatory. i.e. it is controlled airspace, but not for everybody.

[London Mil]

Yet again this degenerates into an "us and them". Maybe we should be adult enough to realise we all all "us".

Pratting around where there is a heightened probability that there may be someone else without attempting to increase your 'visibility' is not clever. Both the mil and civil side need to understand this.

[drauk]

The notion that people who are flying purely for pleasure are "Pratting around" is, I would imagine, part of what makes some people feel there is an "us" and "them".

[Fournicator]

gasax:

I'm genuinely intrigued as to what has caused your little outburst. As I've mentioned a fair bit before, I have my finger in many aviation pies, and the military flying I do is without doubt the most heavily regulated and enforced sphere of aviation I know of.

Yes, the military are not bound by the civil speed limit for Class G airspace, and yes, the 500ft rule does not apply to us. We are, however, subject to very very stringent rules imposed on us by all levels in the chain of command.

I therefore take a wee bit of offence to your apparent allegation. Have you actually got any evidence to support your theory? I also wonder what you mean when you refer to European Air Forces. True, a much larger percentage of the UK is included in the UK Low Flying System than some other countries, but the UKLFS is amongst the most tightly regulated aspects of military flying. Of interest in this particular example is that there are many places in the UKLFS where it is mandatory to call a nearby airfield to advise them of your presence - the basic level of airmanship I would have liked to have seen from the glider pilot that caused me to start this thread is mandated on us.

I don't want to get into a cockfight here, I am both "us" and "them", but really would like to discuss what has rattled your cage and made you feel the way you do, in as grown-up a manner as possible, and perhaps even alay your fears that we are a bunch of hooligans wasting taxpayers money. I have the great privilege to work with deeply professional aviators. Whilst they may be lucky enough to enjoy what they get paid to do, the rules are rigidly applied right from the outset of training.

Maybe you should visit a squadron and experience this professionalism and regulation first hand? While I make no guarantees, do please let me know if so.

[Final 3 Greens]

Fournicator

I would like to say that I appreciate you starting this thread, which seems to me to have an honourable intent, based on flight safety.

Without wishing to denigrate glider pilots in general, some do appear to have superior stick skills and inferior judgment.

And it has always seemed ludicrous that some air law is different, e.g. cloud flying without any instrument rating and I just don't understand why they are not obliged to get an RT licence before being released on X-country flights, where RT is a positive asset at times.

A couple of years ago one glider pilot posted that if he needed to he would recover by flying a non standard circuit, without radio, because the powered traffic would have to give way to his need to land.

That did not seem to be an overly responsible attitude to me.

[Saab Dastard]

Before talking about R/T training and licences, can anyone supply reasonably accurate current statistics about what proportion of the UK gliding fleet actually carry radios?

In the early '90s my personal observation was that it was a minority. Perhaps 1 in 10 training gliders - or even less - and less than half single seaters.

SD

[Fournicator]

My personal observations would suggest that somewhere like 50% of training gliders have radios, and the vast majority of cross country machines are so equipped.

I am very conscious of offending people, but in my experience, many glider pilots are of the opinion that their's is the superior form of aviation, so yes, power pilots should get out of their way. That's probably a bit too strongly worded, but I have definately experienced something along those lines.

Many glider pilots do indeed possess superior stickmonkey abilities to their powered brethren, and indeed certain aspects of better airmanship, notably lookout, but do suffer somewhat from a distinct lack of knowledge of other aspects and areas of aviation - the "big picture", thus making them more likely to commit "crimes" of this nature. A sweeping generalisation yes, but I do think there is distinct truth in it.

(And yes, I fully realise the military aviator in me is about to be assaulted with cries of "plank from thine own eye" for the comment about thinking one's own is the superior form of aviation. Not true - I get much enjoyment out of each different sphere of aerial endeavour, but you'll have to take my word for that.)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The only negative feelings I have against military aviation is I never had the opportunity to be in military flying.

But I did get the pleasure of spending two days at RAF Kinloss and not only got a tour of the Nimrod but let two of their pilots do some hands on flying of the Cat I was delivering to the USA...:ok: :ok: :ok:

[J.A.F.O.]

Fournicator

Now, don't take this the wrong way - I've found myself in all sorts of aircraft over the years; military, civilian, rotary, fixed wing, big, small - I'm just trying to get an accurate picture.

You said that most aircraft have transponders and 50% of gliders have radios.

I'd actually like to see statistics of how many aircraft (don't forget gliders, microlights and PFA types, they'll all scratch the paintwork if you meet them coming the other way) have radios and transponders fitted.

In fact you can take all the commercial aircraft out of the equation due to the nature of flying they'll be doing and the slim chance that they'll be doing it in your MATZ.

I'd just like to know, that's all. If only 50% have radios and 25% have transponders then you might as well switch everything off and look out of the window.

[London Mil]

The notion that people who are flying purely for pleasure are "Pratting around" is, I would imagine, part of what makes some people feel there is an "us" and "them".

To clarify. In a few decades of aviation, I have found that the 'notion' comes from all sides of aviation. The comment was not aimed exclusively at GA/gliding.

[Fournicator]

JAFO:

It's a fair point. I actually believe that far more than 50% of the gliders likely to infringe would be equipped with radios. The 50% I mentioned referred to 2-seat training machines, which commonly (although not exclusively) operate relatively locally to their site. Single seat cross country aircraft on the other hand, are pretty much all equipped with radios so they can chat to their brethren about soaring conditions.

I would definately be interested to see some statistics about radio and transponder fitting in other types of aircraft though - anyone got any ideas?

[Mike Cross]

If I can drag you back to a bit of logic.

The use of transponders or radio is not mandated in a MATZ. Whether or not you agree with that decision should make no differrence to your own behaviour. If you want to carry on arguing that it is somehow right to plan to descend through cloud in the knowledge that your own primary radar is turned off you won't get my support.

In your scenario you have a glider operating in accordance with the rules of the air, VFR, clear of cloud and in site of the surface. You have a mil jet descending through cloud when there is no imperative to do so at a rate of descent that will give him no chance to avoid aircraft legitimately operating below it, knowing that he has no primary radar cover.

Who is being sensible here?

Purely out of curiosity, whas the primary radar off because it was under maintenance or was it because it was overheating in the hot weather?

Mike

[gasax]

Fournicator
"and the military flying I do is without doubt the most heavily regulated and enforced sphere of aviation I know of."

I'm sure it is - but to different sets of rules and using methods and approaches that are incompatible and/or different to civil aviation.

Look at the recent Operation Neptune Warrior - high energy maneourving, flive firing in the open FIR - without even a TRA, and in an area covering northern England and all of Scotland. As a NOTAM completely useless but what sort of risk assessment process states that live firing is OK in the open FIR? The answer - none, it's simply 'what we have always done'.

And that is the rub, with my working head on the saddest response I get during investigations is 'we've always done it that way', 'I cann't see how it is dangerous' etc etc.

My local strip has had a near 15 year history of being 'beaten up' and is still used as a turning point by low flying military aircraft, it sits in a valley which is 'convienent'. We've had all the usual RAF PR rubbish but the 'heavily regulated' military flying system will not acknowledge that flying through the circuit of an active airstrip (30 plus machines) is a stupid idea.

So every year we have a couple of close calls. Why? Because the RAF appear to be afraid that if they do start to take notice of the way they operate they'll end up like the Germans and Scandinavians - operating in known traffic environments only. Which would be very sensible - but of course not the way they have always done it.

I don't have a problem with low flying as such because if they say its necessary it may well be. But low flying through circuits must put them in conflict with other traffic. Similarly high energy manoeurving - in a known traffic environment it is a safe activity, in close proximity to advisory or routine scheduled traffic - it is not.

If the military are happy to state 'pilots will be unable to comply with the rules of the air' then they must take measures to ensure the safety of rest of us - at the moment that consists purely of a warning to stay away from 50% of the UK landmass when there is a major exercise on. That is very much like the sign in some carparks 'the management accept no liability'. In law the sign is meaningless, in many aspects the present military flying arrangements are pretty similar

[WorkingHard]

Fournicator - you have already perceived that your military flying and that of your military colleagues gives rise to a number of vexed questions when you "interact" with GA and CAT. Some I think are fair questions and perhaps you would do PPRUNERS the honour of answering those that you can. Maybe a new thread would be appropriate but lets start here.
Q1 Why are not military aircraft MANDATED to squawk and with Mode C?
Q2 Why with all the planning etc at your disposal do you still bust ATZs?

I will wait questions from others.

Not having a go at the mil just trying to understand so that we can all be in a safer environment.
Thanks in advance

[aluminium persuader]

WH -

1. They generally do, but
a) not all mil a/c have mode C fitted and
b) not all transponders are infallible & you generally won't discover yours is bust untill a nice
controller tells you!

2. The Two-Winged Master-Race is a myth. Fact is they are only human too, and can make
mistakes, errors & be generally as stupid as you or me!

Case in point - I was working SSR-only when a cab called up for radar pickup & vectors for PAR. He knew & I knew his transponder was u/s, cos I'd told him so about an hour previous. I reminded him I was SSR-only, upon which he asked me to ident him with turns. "you're not quite getting the point, are you?" I said.

[Docfly]

With the weather as you describe at the beginning of this thread and with your radar not srviceable I would suggest Fournicator that it was not a good day to do PFLs, glider or not!
Always a good idea not to make an emergency out of a practice.

[WorkingHard]

aluminium persuader - Thanks but I asked why they were not MANDATED so to do. I accept there may be reasons but I sure would like to know what they are. You see "generally" is really not an answer except it gets some "off the hook" if there is a loop hole

[Pudnucker]

Sounds like a good reason for the CAA to insist on Mode S.... For christ sakes guys why not make it easier for them (CAA) by potentially causing near misses with mil a/c?? Just turn the radio on and speak (or at least listen!!) - it's not that hard (and may save your life one day!)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just reading the latest edition of "Loop", there's a mention of somebody in a powered hang-glider (a doodlebug, not a microlight) asking for, and getting a zone transit at Southampton.

If they can do that, it doesn't give a glider pilot much excuse not to talk IMHO.

G

[chevvron]

Pudknucker: Mode S won't do the military any good; their aircraft don't even carry TCAS.

[WorkingHard]

So just let me get this straight. The military dont/wont/cant carry transponders BUT the rest of us have to spend a lot of money so that we can operate in a "known" environment. Someone's logic seems to be slipping here or are we going to restrict the mil aircraft to some far flung place with no other traffic? Of course not so why all the insistence on mode s when the fastest traffic may not use it. Is it not reasonable to expect everyone to work to the same rules?

[chevvron]

NO NO NO! They do carry transponders (even SLMGs), but not TCAS and not mode 'S'.

[Fournicator]

Blimey, quite a lot of activity here today!

First, a proviso to what I'm about to say - my experience of the front line is limited to say the least, I do, however, have current knowledge of the current state of play with mil flying training, and that's what I base most of what I speak about on.

Secondly, for the record, the gliders were at it again yesterday, and from the view out of window, one certianly looked to be well inside the ATZ, let alone the MATZ, potentially putting it into confliction with aircraft beaking into the circuit, even bearing in mind that I'm talking about a "proper" military oval circuit.

WorkingHard:
We can indeed operate without a serviceable transponder, although there are many restrictions placed on us in the event of that are relatively severe, most notably for this debate - NO low flying (below 2000ft agl), all low flying mil ac must be squawking to enable TCAS fitted to civil traffic and our own aircraft to work. I personally have never got airborne without a serviceable one. So I'm afraid we are working to those rules. Point dismissed.
As regards airspace busting, yes it does happen. Imagine, if you will, a route planned to pass by an ATZ by 2nm, flown at 420 knots. If, owing to pilot distraction, or any other reason, the pilot allows his heading to wander off by 30 degrees or so, that 2nm cross=track error will build up in 25 seconds. Alternatively, our unlucky hero could turn 17 seconds early or late at a 90 degree turn onto the leg heading, and in doing so introduce the same error. Now, obviously, as a professional aviator, one does expect much better standards of handling of handling and airmanship from a fast-jet operator than a weekend puddlejumper joyrider, but mistakes do happen, especially in the high pressure world of an FJ cockpit at low level, complete with many other distractions. And yes, despite all the modern systems available to us, we do still train to successfully achieve a time on target +/-5 seconds using only a compass (well, HSI) and a stopwatch.
To be fair, if one reviews the airspace busting statistics, GA pilots tend to be the main culprits.

Pudknucker:
As I've just mentioned, TCAS IS slowly working it's way into the RAF, surely you don't want me to call for all GA aircraft, gliders and the like to be similarly equipped?

Doc and Mike:
Would you rather we'd flown the slow descent profile I mentioned earlier, loitering at cloudbase for longer? Or would you rather we use a procedural type service common at many civil airfields, guaranteeing separation only from those aircraft in communication with ATC? There is a level of risk in doing so, just as there is a (lower) level of risk in operating SSR only, and indeed an (even lower) level of risk even when operating with primary radar - gliders famously don't show up very well, if at all, thanks to their construction and operating speeds. Risk is inherent in aviation, better airmanship from the glider pilot who has caused all this fuss could have helped reduce this risk for everyone, surely that's a good thing? What does he lose by talking to ATC?
The glider can (thanks to it's low speed) be operating legally VFR at cloudbase, whereas faster aircraft must maintain vertical clearance, I still persist that operating at cloudbase in an environment where it's patently obvious that high energy aircraft will be descending through cloud, without telling anyone, is absolutely shocking airmanship.

gasax:
Have you actually looked at the military regulations then? Because believe me, as someone involved in both military and civil aviation, there are a great many similarities, I would most definately never describe them as 'incompatible'. If your airfield truly is as busy as you make out then procedures exist to make it a low flying avoid, just as with most glider sites, GA airfields that are actually used frequently, nature sanctuaries, hospitals, and the like. The maps of our low flying areas are very liberally sprinkled with a whole variety of avoidances. I presume you have asked for such an avoidance, which mayt well have been turned down because, despite your 30 aircraft, I suspect you actually aren't that busy movements wise. Forgive me if I'm wrong. Also please bear in mind that your idea of a "close call" may be significantly different to the military pilot's, when he's been watching for the last several miles. Just talk to a glider pilot to get an idea of how different people can have differing ideas of safe separation - it's all about what you're used to!
As regards Neptune Warrior, I'll admit the NOTAM was poorly worded, but you don't seriously think they'd be loosing off live munitions in an uncontrolled area do you? Even published danger areas must be patrolled to ensure there are no intruders before live weapons are used.

[dublinpilot]

If you want people to see your point of view, then I suggest you stop calling us names.

I for one object to being called a weekend puddlejumper joyrider.

If you have already wound me up by calling me names, it makes it very hard to listen to the rest of your argument objectively.

dp

[WorkingHard]

Fournicator - keep the replies coming please. We are truly wanting to learn more about the mil operations. May i just ask if the rules on transonders have changed because not many moons ago we had a close conflict with a low level FJ when approaching to land and were officially informed (amongst other things) that the FJ was not required to use his transponder. I thoght they had a LL sqwark.

[Mike Cross]

Fournicator
The answer to your question to me is no.

What would be sensible is to think about the risk before you do something. If you want to do your 4000fpm descents in Class G and there's cloud in the way and your primary radar is inop and the use of transponders is not mandatory in the airspace and it's not CAS then you have a few choices.

1. Go ahead and do it anyway
2. Defer doing it until you have serviceable primary radar
3. Defer doing it until you have good vis and can achieve separation by visual means.
4. Stick someone outside the tower with a pair of binoculars to watch out for traffic underneath the clouds and make sure it's all clear before initiating the descent.

There are probably other choices as well but of the ones listed I suggest No 1 carries more risk than the others. It's up to you to make the decision.

Please let me be clear that I am not suggesting that it is good airmanship that the gliders do not make use of facilities that are available to them (even though they are not required to do so). Rather I am suggesting that it is bad airmanship to go hooning about on the assumption that they should and will.

On the matter of radar visibility, I've had gliders called to me by radar that I haven't been able to see even when they are only a mile or two away and I was being told where to look. If your primary radar can't see them when they are within your own MATZ you need a new one.

Mike

[Fournicator]

Dublin:
It's called friendly banter mate, dry your eyes. As I've mentioned many times, I fly puddlejumpers myself at the weekend, do you think I'm somehow attacking the other side of my flying schizophrenia?

WH:
Mil ac squawk 7001 at low level. If an air trafficker suddenly sees a 7001 squawk rapidly climbing on their screen, they know to probably expect a request from that aircraft for a radar service as they pull out of low level. More often than not, this will be necessitated by deteriorating weather. Staying within the low flying regulations for low flying weather is hammered into us from early on in our training, maintaining 500ft vertical clearance from cloud whilst still keeping your Minimum Separation Distance "bubble" (generally 250ft for fixed wing ops) from anything solid can be pretty tough work, often involving ducking into valleys to get around patches of low cloud. "Letterboxing" through a narrow gap between the top of a ridge and cloudbase is a big no-no.
Not sure of the causes for it, but as I mentioned before, having a serviceable transponder squawking 7001 is a prerequisite for using the UKLFS. The reason I think I remember hearing once was concerned with TCAS equipment on piepline inspection aircraft, but I'm not sure.

Mike:
The comment about primary radar was a bit of a conjecture, I do try to avoid going to Air Tragic as much as I possibly can. Take your point about picking up stuff inside the MATZ though, presumably it's not solely reliant on doppler type effects....... errrrrm ....... white man's magic ...... wiggly amps ....... confused stickmonkey!
I do take your point, but there are times when the big sky theory has to be used. By using it inside an area of airspace where you would HOPE that the majority of traffic is known, the risk is reduced, although obviously still present.
I also agree that it is bad airmanship to assume there will be no-one in the MATZ not talking to ATC, but I stand by my opinion that it is at least as bad to be one of those people not talking, if you are suitably equipped.
As I mentioned before, in my opinion our procedures are safer than those used at many civil airfields without controlled airspace.

[Dimensional]

Before I start: I'm a current GA and glider pilot, and a baby military pilot at the bottom end of the training pipeline; I like to think I can at least try and see this from both sides of the coin...

Mike:

I note that you consider practicing what is, effectively, an emergency procedure an unsafe practice. A military aircraft, at a military airfield, daring to carry out a vaguely aggressive manoeuver? How shocking! :8 </sarcasm> The airfield that F was using is a busy military training base, with more movements than you can shake a stick at. I'd hope it's a bit obvious it might not be a friendly piece of sky to be in... Would you honestly expect to go to somewhere like Coventry or Exeter (commercial air traffic, IFR OCAS) and expect to find CAT flying in a GA-like manner? I'd hope you, along with many GA pilots, would apply a bit of common and expect to see aircraft flying in a manner which would be incompatible with your GA flying practices.

Similarly, a military airfield will have procedures that may well be dangerous; that may well be inconvenient to you, and that you might well not be aware of -- that's why they stick a MATZ around it. In the same manner that the CAA have now started to publish all IFR approaches OCAS on the charts, the MATZ system is printed to alert people that within the area bounded by the MATZ, aircraft may be flying in a manner that may be hazardous to other air users (for example: RIABs -- discussed ad nauseam; mil stylee circuits, RPFLs and the like). Shockingly, I'd have hoped that someone attempting to carry out an exercise that will put them at risk -- namely, thermalling near cloudbase -- would endeavour to reduce their risk in whatever way possible, concurrent with continuous Risk Management (my Flight Safety types would be so proud); if that meant talking to someone, so be it.

Also, if you were to practice say, glide circuits at your home airfield, you'd expect a degree of consideration from the other airfield users, I suspect... similarly, you'd want people to give you a bit of slack when you're practicing something which is, by it's very nature, a risky business. While practicing a RPFL when ATC are operating SSR only ratchets up the level of risk slightly, the profile requires a high RoD to ensure the highest chance of survival for the aircraft and it's crew (without, of course, taking the yellow and black letdown option, which tends to get you featured in The Sun).

As far as I can see (and I talk as someone who has just got themselves a gliding Cross Country Endorsement) there is no excuse for anyone -- GA, CAT, glider or military -- with an R/T equipped radio not to be talking to the relevant unit if you're in somewhere which is obviously likely to be containing traffic doing odd things -- IFR holds or approaches OCAS, aerobatics in an airfield overhead, or emergency procedures in simulated or actual IFR.

--D

(sorry, in retrospect, this seems to be a personal attack on MC which was not what was intended -- I was addressing him as he was the last person I noticed with that argument.)

[Fournicator]

Nicely put mate.

I wuv wou..........

[Mike Cross]

Not taken as a personal attack but I'd refer you back to
Please let me be clear that I am not suggesting that it is good airmanship that the gliders do not make use of facilities that are available to them (even though they are not required to do so). Rather I am suggesting that it is bad airmanship to go hooning about on the assumption that they should and will.

I note that you consider practicing what is, effectively, an emergency procedure an unsafe practice. Where'd I say that?

Personally I prefer not to use words like "safe" or "unsafe". It's a matter of risk management. You cross the road where you have clear sight lines not because it is safe but because the risk is reduced in comparison to doing it where you don't. I put forward some suggestions that could reduce the risk of descending with a high RoD through cloud when radar cover is temporarily unavailable.

[gasax]

Fournicator
The answer to your question to me is no.
What would be sensible is to think about the risk before you do something. If you want to do your 4000fpm descents in Class G and there's cloud in the way and your primary radar is inop and the use of transponders is not mandatory in the airspace and it's not CAS then you have a few choices.
1. Go ahead and do it anyway
2. Defer doing it until you have serviceable primary radar
3. Defer doing it until you have good vis and can achieve separation by visual means.
4. Stick someone outside the tower with a pair of binoculars to watch out for traffic underneath the clouds and make sure it's all clear before initiating the descent.
There are probably other choices as well but of the ones listed I suggest No 1 carries more risk than the others. It's up to you to make the decision.

And that fournicator is the crux of the whole issue.
We have a notified airstrip, we've had 15 years of communications with the RAF who on many occasions have said "we are an avoid", "we cannot be an avoid" - it depends on who you speak to and how much complaining we have done. You say we cann't be THAT busy. So how busy is THAT busy? Here you have a place where there is some certainty that low flying jets will encounter light aircraft, how often one is sure. So naturally the RAF approach is to ignore the issue - you're not THAT busy, so the risk whilst substantially higher than it should be, is simply ignored.
As to the idea that someone is a military jet has a better idea of how close a 'close call' - nice idea, the steely eyed superman said it was obvious it was going to miss him by XX metres ,so it was OK. Believe me when a Tornado flies underneath you on final approach that remark is pretty contemptible.
As to no live firing in the open FIR - I was quoting the NOTAM, so either it was true or some interesting exercise in 'black ops' or military mis-information - very handy in the NOTAM system.
You are at the end of the day defending 'custom and practice', which pretty much ignores any real risk assessment. In that sense you are completely typical of what is wrong with the system and why one day something very bad will happen and things will then change.
In the meantime I have no problem in talking to anyone who has a radar system (preferably that is actually working!) or any airfield I'm close to. Strangely I don't want anymore close calls.
But when I see this rubbish being trotted out as an acceptable way of operating, where we are all facing having transponders but the military will not. Where 'see and avoid' is not possible and you rely on big sky, don't tell me that is acting responsibly.

[Fournicator]

gasax:

Can't help but feel I'm banging my head against a brick wall here - the military DO have transponders, and although in exceptional circumstances we can get airborne with an unserviceable one, in doing so we are bound by some very restrictive limits, it is therefore a very rare occurence indeed.

A great many light airfields, glider sites, microlight sites and the like do have low flying avoids, there will be a reason for yours not to be similarly classified, I suspect due to activity levels. In an ideal world every landing strip in the country would be avoided, but doing so would leave very little of the low flying system left. Out of interest, on an average weekday (when most mil ac operate) how many movements would be typical at your strip?

Ultimately, if you want the safety of relatively protected airspace, operating at a licensed airfield will offer you the protection of an ATZ, which will, in theory (am reserving judgement for the "in practice" side after witnessing some pretty lousy airmanship in an ATZ while flying this weekend) also protect you from other puddlejumpers, which a military avoid will not.

As regards a very bad thing making the military changing the way we operate - I'd throw that one straight back at you with some low flying complaint stats. It's interesting to note that the number of low flying complaints each year drops markedly every time the UK forces are involved in conflict. Please bear in mind that you have the freedom to enjoy aviation in your spare time thanks to the courage and skills of my predecessors; your continued freedom to do so may well depend on those of the current generation. Sprechen sie deutsch?

[Dimensional]

gasax:

Bearing in mind the entire SSR system has its genesis in IFF (Identify Friend or Foe); that the military have lost airframes in operational theatres due to faulty IFF systems (the well publicised blue-on-blue, Tornado vs. Patriot in GWII); and that as already stated crews are mandated to operate transponder systems in accordance with laid down procedures: can you please understand that the military *do* have transponders and we *do* use them?

--D

[DRJAD]

A valuable, in my view, thread - and good to see it being actively continued by the orginator and others to form a genuine debate.
However apposite or inapposite the examples quoted, the fact remains that operating near a MATZ as with any class of controlled airspace requires a degree of airmanship to be exercised. The presence of airspace so designated implies that there is a step up in activity concentrated therein in excess of that commonly to be expected in class G.
Whether or not the airspace has mandatory reporting requirements associated with it, a useful personal modus operandi would seem to be to regard it as such, and assist oneself and everyone else by reporting position.
One can remain fully aware of the legal position, but still apply a practical set of personal rules which allows for enhanced safety.

[WorkingHard]

May I just emphasise the last contributors comments and thank Fournicator for keeping this going. It is helpful to ALL of us who care to read and absorb. I should just like a consideration of this please.
"It's interesting to note that the number of low flying complaints each year drops" A neighbour had occasion to report a possible breach of low flying rules by FJs and when she telephoned the nearest RAF station and was put through to operations she was asked for the type and registration of the aircraft involved. Not a very good PR execise. If this is common then it may be why compaints are reducing.
I recently asked the ops at a FJ base about use of transponders and was told emphatically that it was NOT a requirement. I do not for one moment disbelive you Fournicator but it would be much nicer if everyone was singing from the same hymn sheet.
PLEASE keep the answers coming for as long as we all show some interest. BTW I am ex RAF (not aircrew) and have been flying a company aircraft for about 20 years so have a keen interest in preserving life and limb.

[aluminium persuader]

Mike - It's very hit-or-miss as to whether a primary radar will pick up a glider or not, regardless of its distance fronm the radar head or how new the radar is. There are just so many variables involved. Here are a few; wx, time of day, age of glider (metal bits vs composite), raw data or plot-extracted, supression used, relative attitude of glider, track & speed of glider and so on and so on. It's often just "a feeling in the water" when you call it.

Fournicator - However lightly you use the term, remember that especially in mil aviation "Air Tragic" are a part of your team & you should not be avoiding them. You've probably heard of CRM? When we do a "check gear" call it's not for our benefit! I suggest you spend more time with them rather than less to find out their abilities & limitations.

Dimension - it's not the practice of a mil emergency procedure in mil airspace. It's that you have to consider the WHOLE picture which includes ATC equipment serviceability. Personally speaking, if you want to stick your nose into the clouds outide CAS & in high-energy manoevres when my radar's less than perfect, that's entirely up to you. It's your nose!

ap

edited to add -

Remember, on SSR only a 747 could fly across the top of the ATZ at 2001' & not talking to the unit quite legally & the radar would not pick it up it he's not transponding. Not a 747 admittedly, but mulit-engine jet airliners HAVE crossed my ATZ at 2000 not talking to me. OK, so the ones I've seen have been transponding but have I seen all of them ?Your call!

[Mike Cross]

AP

Thanks for that. My admittedly limited experience is with marine radar where you have a full set of tools to adjust the image. I was hugely impressed to find I could pick up lobster pot buoys (basically a stick with a flag on it attached to a plastic float) using the radar on a cross-channel ferry where you have sea-clutter to contend with.

As you say, if you filter it out you an't going to see it. (Which leads us seductively into the Mode S debate:) )

[aluminium persuader]

No worries!

I would seriously recommend visits to ATC, and not just because I am one. I strongly believe that my controlling experience makes me a better pilot & vice versa. That's about 13yrs ATC & 300-ish hrs ppl, IMC & multi.

Oh, if you do go, don't forget the choccy biscuits and/or doughnuts!

ap:ok:

[Fournicator]

ali p:
Tongue very firmly in cheek before, but I do sometimes wonder about the quality of people joining the branch. A friend of mine had a gear snag last week, after 20 minutes flying round the circuit burning fuel off he'd exhausted all the cards could suggest to him, but was still lacking a positive down indication. He therefore committed to the hazardous landing drill, which involved shutting the engine down on short finals. He was therefore slightly amused as he called finals to be asked by the particularly switched on air tragicker to "check gear". Funny yes, but potentially capacity sapping at a time when it's needed most. Anyway, I'm in danger of getting off topic. In short, of course I'm fond of air traffickers; otherwise, who else would there be for us poor aircrew to lech over at happy hour and ultimately marry?

DRJAD:
Sorry, not sure if I made myself clear - the general trend each year is for low flying complaints to increase. This trend is bucked every time we are involved in major conflict, as there is suddenly a massive reduction in complaints, only to slowly build up again over time until the next major conflict. Having never made or personally received a low flying complaint I'm afraid I'm not really in a position to answer questions about what's involved in making one.
Transponder use in not an absolute requirement to operate at all, but it most definately IS in order to use the UKLFS.
Hope that clears any confusion up, feel free to tell me if not!

All:
More than happy to answer any more questions (obviously of a non-sensitive nature) such that we can all learn from each other and ultimately all become safer aviators, and get on with those long fulfilling lives. My young paduwan Dimensional is even more willing than me to regale you with tales of his derring-do, I'm sure.........

[aluminium persuader]

F - Know what you're saying. Knew a young lady controller no longer of these isles who had a habit of clearing gliders to land. As opposed to what I'm not sure!

As to marriage, I'm probably a bit too old, a bit too grey-haired & just a teensy bit too male for you! Obviously I'm making one assumption here!
:eek:

[Fournicator]

Ali
Yeah, not too sure if you're my type.......
Am doing fairly well at keeping the love life separate from the work life, at least at the moment, but it is scary just how many pilots end up married to air traffickers. Anyways, matz PENETRATION, yeah, errrrrrrrr.........

Edited to add: However, young Dimensional is single..... any young girly air traffickers fancy being whisked away to another dimension? He really is a very nice young man.

[chrisN]

Late to this thread (was away in Scotland last week - another story), but a few observations from another glider pilot, FWIW.

1. Positive - I have learned some things. Maybe F and others think I should have known, but I didn't, that military are apt to descend at high rates out of cloud in class G, erect and/or inverted, doing PFL's etc., above MATZ's. I have certainly flown over MATZ's in the past without contacting ATC. With that collision hazard I now know about, I shall be a reformed character. (I usually have monitored the MATZ ATC when single radio and workload permit, but often only contacted if likely to descend into the MATZ, or heard of possible conflicts. I hitherto thought recoveries were substantially into the end of the MATZ where the stub is, not near-vertically into the top. One lives and learns.)

2. A Negative, however - I'm with MRC in thinking that such PFL's in class G are a greater risk than mil perhaps realise - I doubt if MRC and I are the only ones who didn't know it was done. And a question - who, how, should tell the rest of the world of GA and glider pilots - or do you think we are all psychic and should have known? I believe parachutists are not allowed to plummet through cloud, not even above their own aerodrome. Why can quite heavy metal at various vertical velocity components and attitudes, without even being notam'd as such or labelled on charts (other than in real emergency/inadvertent loss of attitude which many of us may do on occasion)? Practice is good. Practice with danger to 3rd parties is not good. Practice with danger removed or lessened by sensible communication is OK in my book.

3. Something for F. etc. to learn, however reluctantly; this is a fact. I have no idea which MATZ's contain busy rather than non-busy mil units, nor am I an anorak that commits to memory which sorts of a/c operate out of which mil aerodromes. Why should I? Do mil pilots know which gliders types operate out of which gliding sites? Or which SEP's/MEPs etc. out of which GA aerodromes? I do expect Mil pilots to know which are the busiest gliding sites and areas - because they are labelled as such on 1:500,000 charts. If mil think we should know their busiest from the others, get your labels on too, then we can tell. Otherwise , we are still not psychic, and many of us have no interest in learning movement rates by rote, nor would we know how to find out.

In a spirit of friendship and cooperation, not flaming. There are lessons for us all in this thread, I believe.

Chris N.

(PS - that Scottish story - top marks to the mil types who put so much into searching for the lost glider pilot, and eventually finding him. Every glider pilot on the site was deeply appreciative of the professionals' airmanship and Mk 1 eyeballs, the resources put in, and the result.)

[Fournicator]

Chris - thanks for your input.

Just a quick point that occurs to me - there is very little point in just listening to the published VHF frequency when transiting a MATZ, without transmitting. Almost all of the military traffic in the MATZ will probably be spread between several UHF frequencies (departures, zone, approach, director, talkdown etc, as well as the tower frequency for the visual circuit), so the MATZ (and surrounding area, which will also contain aircraft being controlled by mil ATC) may be very very busy but with absolutely no indication on the published victor frequency of this.

[chrisN]

I perhaps did not make it sufficiently clear that I have on occasions flown over a MATZ, not penetrated it, while monitoring its frequency. Though legal to penetrate the MATZ (keeping outside the ATZ, though) without making contact, I don't intentionally do it, as a matter of courtesy and good practice. Unintentional penetration might be a fleeting incidence when gliding over, encountering sinking air, and failing to keep high enough when trying to clear the far boundary - it all happens too fast to make a call sometimes, if their radio is a bit busy. I do endeavour not to get into that scenario. But that is just me, of course - I can't speak for others.

Chris N.

[Mike Cross]

On a point of curiosity:-

If ATC can combine frequencies so that everything is heard on both why can't the mil?

That way you wouldn't have half the traffic not hearing the other half and it would be a win-win for situational awareness.

[Chilli Monster]

If ATC can combine frequencies so that everything is heard on both why can't the mil?

RAF wouldn't pay for the upgrade.

I worked at a DERA unit where you could (and did) cross couple VHF and UHF so that both sides could hear all R/T. It was the same Comms fit as is standard in Military ATC units but with an extra software upgrade.

However, it is dubious whether this would have any benefit with the Military set up in ATC. The Zone / LARS position may be standalone, in which case that's all that particular Controller is working, or it might be combined with Approach. If the latter is the case you may only hear traffic departing (though some units have a separate departures frequency) or traffic initially calling for join. SOP then is if they are VFR they tend to stay with Approach, IFR they will then get handed to Director - so you won't hear them anyway.

The Civil system of 1 ATCO - 1 bit of airspace is totally different to the Military system which is based on 1 ATCO - 1 particular task.

[Fournicator]

Chris-
While I appreciate your situational awareness, it may also be an idea to talk to the controller when operating near to the MATZ but outside its boundaries, either lateral or vertical. Don't mean to patronise you, but fairly obviously the mil traffic doesn't just disappear at the MATZ boundary, and the departure and approach phases of flight are likely to be sufficiently busy that the lookout of aforementioned steely eyed aviators may well be degraded.

As regards the combined frequency idea - while I can see the logic behind combined zone freqs (and indeed most mil zone controllers will transit all their messages on both VHF and UHF if they are working VHF traffic too), the whole idea behind separate freqs for deps/app/dir/zone etc is to avoid cluttering up a single freq! The zone controller will be able to deconflict you from the traffic being worked by the other screens, but you may well only know it's there if you bother talking to him.

[tmmorris]

I must say that I was left pondering the usefulness or otherwise of MATZs as I watched two Hawks in a day (one morning, one afternoon) carrying out aeros in the overhead at a Secret Yorkshire Fast Jet Base last week. There's no way 3000ft of vertical space, or even the 5nm radius, is enough to contain a Hawk shaking its booty in that way. A loop alone must use up 5000ft from base height (says he, not really knowing the answer for a Hawk, but basing this on the Red Arrows' tendency to fly a 'flat' show when the cloudbase is <5000ft AGL).

So in that particular case, I couldn't think of much use for the MATZ apart from IFR traffic, and even for that, most of the procedures I saw wouldn't have been contained in it anyway. Certainly the SID/radar approach I saw drawn on the Tonka sim boards wouldn't have fitted.

Tim

[Fournicator]

Tim,

If you had, however, checked the NOTAMs, you would have seen the Hawk display aeros practice clearly advertised.

However, you're right, most of our procedures do not fit inside the relatively limited (for the speeds involved) confines of a MATZ, just as civil procedures for airfields such as Cranfield, Finningley (anyone for a bite) and Humberside lack the protection of CAS. A MATZ does NOT limit the mil operations to its confines; as I said previously I would urge anyone operating anywhere near a MATZ to contact ATC, for the safety and security of everyone's warm and fuzzy feeling.

[London Mil]

Have we agreed yet that, despite the legalities, it isn't overly clever to play around unannounced in a bit of airspace where you know there is an increased risk of another, dissimilar aviation activity?

[chrisN]

LM, I don't know if "all" have agreed your proposition; but I do, where I know about them - with the reservation that I don't necessarily "know" where all these higher utilisation activities are or who to talk to about them. Like I did not know until now about F's advice that overhead MATZ's there are rapid descents from cloud into the MATZ top, by PFL's in erect and/or inverted attitudes. Who did know? And nobody has answered my questions as to who, by what means, has taken the trouble to propagate this effectively, and continues to do so to all new entrants to the world of solo GA/glider/PFA-type/microlite flying. I read it here - does anybody think this is the right medium?

I don't habitually hang about around the extended centreline of MATZ stubs where, in my innocence, I presumed the main entrance and exit of fast jets to be. If I need to use that bit of class G, I call. I did not expect mil a/c to enter or emerge much sideways, or up and down at the top of a MATZ. Seems I was wrong. I have to get round or over MATZ's somehow, using thermals and climb/glide techniques, and avoid other gliders as well as GA and the military - to say nothing of CAT cutting corners to save fuel (yes, they sometimes do - and BALPA has defended that practice in Airprox Board discussions).

And talking about "play[ing] around unannounced in a bit of airspace where you know there is an increased risk of another, dissimilar aviation activity" - well, I and other glider pilots habitually climb up to, and sometimes inside, clouds, because it is fundamental to our means of locomotion; which is also why the CAA when it regulated such things granted us the ability to do it; so the boot could equally be on the other foot - if others want to share that airspace, particularly in a rapid descent out of cloud, in a manner that e.g. parachutists are not permitted to because it is stupid, how about they should call out on 130.4 to see which gliders are there, rather than expect us to know if GA and/or mil a/c are on Mildenhall/Lakenheath, or Wattisham, or Essex Radar, or London info, or Cambridge, or illegally using 123.45, or non-radio and we need extra-sensory perception. Sauce for the goose . . .

Chris N.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Alternatively we can give all the mil fields a nice bit of Class D CTR as they do back home.

No problems some unknowns loitering about uninvited

:}

[chevvron]

As far as I know from what I was taught years ago as an ATC Cadet, the MATZ is established to protect traffic carrying out instrument approaches to the airfield they surround (hence the 'stub' in line with the instrument runway), it's NOT there to cover traffic carrying out aero's etc overhead the airfield.
I've no objection to military airfields with iap's getting class D airspace, provided all civil airfields with iaps also get class D airspace of equivalent dimensions eg Cranfield, Norwich, Humberside, Farnborough, Exeter, Gloucester, Biggin, Lydd, Manston, Filton, Shoreham, Walney Island and lots more!

[Fournicator]

FlyingD:
I am a big fan of the current MATZ system, UK airspace is regulated plenty enough without yet more class D.
As an additional point, it's just occurred to me to point out that the MATZ and it's surrounding area lie in a notified AIAA, yet another reason why I would argue that pilots operating nearby, let alone inside the MATZ, should talk to mil ATC.

[chrisN]

F., do all "MATZ and it's surrounding area lie in a notified AIAA"?

I certainly did not know that Wattisham is.

I do regard the whole Mildenhall/Lakenheath/Honington area as if it were one big MATZ, but I don't know how busy they are, and I certainly don't call them up when flying outside them unless I either hear of a potential conflict or I have reason to want to go in, or fly over with not much clear space between me and them. They often sound busy on the radio, but typically seem to be doing as much with passing spamcans as their own traffic. Do they really want to hear from me (in a glider) too? And from all other say 100 or so cross-country gliders that might be flying from the 6 clubs in East Anglia?

Chris N.

[Dimensional]

ChrisN:

Slightly dubious editing, I'd say: F stated that "the MATZ and its surroundings are in an AAIA, not that all MATZs are: in fact, I can only think of a handful (Wattisham, Lakenheath/Mildenhall/Marham) that aren't in notified AAIAs...

Lakenheath and Mildenhall can certainly get *very* busy, and once again you probably won't hear much on published VHF frequencies except GA calling for zone transits and the like as the controllers may well have their work cut out with mil traffic on UHF.

As for calling whilst gliding, it might well make sense, certainly if you're not part of a large-scale task; ISTR the latest BGA guidelines for task setting recommend contacting any ATS providers near the set route before the event, which would at least ensure the unit would be aware of increased gliding activity.

--D

[DFC]

Have we agreed yet that, despite the legalities, it isn't overly clever to play around unannounced in a bit of airspace where you know there is an increased risk of another, dissimilar aviation activity?

Oh. So you will not get heavy military helicopters operating outside the Odiham MATZ close to Popham - an area notified as being where there is increased risk of another dissimilar aviation activity.

Personally, I will avoid the MATZ when IFR but if VFR, I will simply notify the unit of my routing and level which will be based on QNH.

These days, there is no more risk of collision flying good VMC within a MATZ than flying in the rest of the Class G.

I often wish I had not bothered to call when we get all this waffle about QFE (there goes terrain awareness out the window) and fly at or below or above xxx height.

The Controller in a MATZ has the same ability to approve, refuse or control a MATZ transit as an AFISO or A/G operator has the ability to control a transit of their ATZ...........None

The response to a call indicating a flight (not getting a RIS or RAS) will transit the MATZ should be "G-ABCD roger, Traffic information......

That enables me as the person responsible for 1 the safety of the flight and 2 not colliding with other traffic to make an informed decision just like we do when transiting an ATZ with no ATC service.

Farnborough operate the Odiham MATZ. Never had to obtain a MATZ transit from them. Never had one approved. Always get traffic information (usually gliding at the field) and never had a complaint from Farnborough - one of the busiest LARS units in the country.

If Farnborough can operate that way why can't the rest?

Regards,

DFC

[Fournicator]

DFC:
Good rant. But surely it sounds like you agree with my point - that you should contact the MTAZ controller for traffic information. At no time have I ever tried to say others should not enter MATZs, just that airmanship should dictate a call.
"Waffle" about QFE. Mil ac operate on QFE, I for one agree with this policy, but its discussion is a separate issue. Fot you to be deconflicted with mil ac during your MATZ transit, it makes things a hell of a lot easier if everyone's on the same pressure setting. I really don't think it's too much to ask for you to go the massive effort of changing your altimeter datum. If you're transiting a MATZ VFR then terrain separation really shouldn't be an issue!

Chris:
As Dimwit correctly stated, I was indeed referring to the specifics of my situation, about which I'd originally complained. Don't actually think my original post about that was too confusing, sorry if it was.

Dimwit:
Thanks. You still bored? Found anything yet to entertain you besides the inevitable self-abuse?

[Dimensional]

DFC:

Another thing to consider might be the type of traffic: Odiham will be operating RW aircraft, often below 250' MSD, at low speeds and with little requirement to interact with ATC. A busy fast-and-pointy station will, however, not have the same luxury as controllers try and integrate your transit with anything that might be flying around.

I, personally, would quite like to see a MATZ given the same priority and legal status as a normal ATZ; after all, how much effort is it to call someone, really? As DFC so vehemently points out, there's no legal requirement to obtain permission to cross an ATZ, especially with AFIS or A/G service. However, I'd contest, it's not particularly clever; neither is flying over the top at 2,001' aal (or 3,001' aal for a MATZ).

Out of interest, what is the universal obsession with altimetry to ensure terrain clearance in good VMC? You can *see* the ground, it's the large, roughly laminar thing underneath the aircraft (hopefully), so why are you so worried about setting QFE and losing your all-important "terrain awareness"? The only reason I can think of is inadvertent IMC; in which case I would contend you have far more to worry about as a non-IMCR holder, or if so licenced should have little difficulty dealing with the situation. Either way, it's not much to ask to ensure you don't hit something.

F-up:
Shouldn't you be at work or something? Been chopped yet?

-D

[London Mil]

DFC, if you had bothered to read (and not spout), you would have realised that I wasn't pointing my comments at any particular element of the aviation community; they were aimed at everyone.

[Fournicator]

Dimensional has nicely expanded on my point - terrian separation by use of the altimeter should not be an issue for VFR flight; see and avoid applies equally well to the ground as other aircraft, only it's distinctly easier to do.

Dimwitduncehead:
I *am* (strewth, even catching your "*" disease) at work, and have been here since 0645, and have probably sweated more flying today than a big horrible sweaty thing, so get back in your slack doing-nothing box. Will probably harass you later with tales of how great I am.

[chevvron]

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.

[BEagle]

If you are refused access to Class D airspace - and that includes "Station calling, remain clear of controlled airspace", you should submit a CHIRP report after advising the Air Trafficker that will be doing so. The form is here: http://www.aopa.co.uk/newsfromaopa/ClassDInfringementReportForm.doc

A certain well-known Class D airspace 'controller' is often too busy giving unnecessary RIS to puddlejumpers in 100% CAVOK Wx to control its own ATZ crossing requests; if people submit CHIRP reports then perhaps that might change?

Incidentally, unless it's in a TRA, you cannot be refused access to a MATZ, although you may be instructed to remain clear of the co-located ATZ.

[PPRuNe Radar]

I think AOPA or CHIRP should rename the file name of the form. If it really is a 'Class D Infringement Report', then you'll find it is actually the Air Trafficker completing a MOR or Alleged Breach of Legislation form against you, that being a more relevant kind of report for an infringement ;) :ok:

[DFC]

Radar,

No it is correctly titled and it has nothing to do with infringements. Pilots who are refused access to class D as BEagle said are advised to file a report with CHIRP detailing the situation.

It's about data collection from both sides.

-------

Dimensional etc,

"roughly laminar " :} :} :}

Your assumption that one must be able to see the ground if VFR or if VMC is incorrect.

There are a number of legal obligations that require a pilot to be aware of their altitude at all times and to be able to relate that to obstacles, terrain and other information displayed on our charts as AMSL.

The assumption that altitude information is only used to determin separation from terrain is also incorrect.

As for QFE being used to "deconflict".......well if your circuit pattern is 1000ft above a field elevation of 400ft then you would probably find it easy to work out that provided you keep transist at 1900 QNH or above, (even though you are not required to provide any separation) there is no confliction. So you simply remember that all transits below 1900ft QNH are going to conflict with your traffic pattern. Do the same for your radar pattern and put it on a postit.

But do not ask me to do the same for the terrain, obstacles, built up areas, ATZs Danger Areas, Controlled Airspace etc close to every military aerodrome that I might talk to as I pass by.

An example where QFE can be dangerous is when one has to work out if one will enter a nearby civil ATZ when flying on a different airfields QFE. Normally I would simply say that if altitude - 2000 is greather than field elevation, one is above the ATZ. Try that one with the QFE of an aerodrome which you do not know the elevation of set! Even if one does know the QFE datum, there is more thinking required than is necessary.

----------

Chevvron,

The answer is to make a MATZ class E airspace. Same for civil fields with IAPs - give them class E. That makes it a legal requirement for those who can not see much out the window to obtain a clearance. It also increases the VMC minima from that in class G which improves the ability for the flier in visual conditions to see and avoid when in that airspace.

Regards,

DFC

[PPRuNe Radar]

No it is correctly titled and it has nothing to do with infringements.

DFC

When you read something, perhaps read it again carefully before commenting. I did not mention the 'title', I mentioned the 'file name', which is:

ClassDInfringementReportForm.doc

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Click on the properties of the link given by BEagle and tell me if you think it is anything different. :ok:

[Fournicator]

DFC:
You're missing the point - yes, the obstacles listed on your chart are listed AMSL, but you really really should be able to look out of the window (a shocking idea for many puddlejumpers I know) and avoid the big honking mast you can see visually.
More shocking news - military aircraft inside a MATZ will be operating at a whole range of different heights, doing a whole range of different things, manoevring with relatively high energy in a range of different directions, horizontally and vertically, very different to a civil airfield - not just in the vis or radar ccts. It therefore behoves you to set QFE, so that other MATZ users can take whatever action necessary to avoid ruining your day.
Being roughly aware of your altitude for the legal reasons you quote does not mean you have to keep QNH religiously set on your altimeter at all times.
Yes, there are a few civil ATZs inside MATZs, but:
a) If you're close enough that setting QFE or QNH will make a difference to whether you're inside the ATZ, maybe you should give them a call anyway.
b) The MATZ controller will generally be aware of their activity, many GA airfields inside MATZs have local agreements whereby they will call the mil zone controller on departure and recovery, for EVERYONE'S safety.
c) Is it really that much harder to compare the two elevations of the mil airfield and the civil one (chances are they're gonna be pretty similar anyway) and deduce your height above the cicil airfield from that?

Mil ac will often transit a MATZ other than that of their home base. When they do so, they will set the QFE of the controlling airfield. Somehow, amazingly, they manage to avoid any fixed objects, ATZs etc, while on QFE, and while travelling a good deal faster than I imagine you do. Setting the same altimeter setting as others using the same piece of airspace is fundamental to collision avoidance. Trust us, we do this for a living, and we do it rather well.

Roll that up in your post-it note and smoke it.

[Mike Cross]

DFC

There's not a lot of point in arguing with Fournicator. He doesn't just think he is right, he's convinced of it. It is to a certain extend our fault. We train people in the military to have absolute confidence in what they are told to do and not to question military perceptions.

When he gets older he will realise that life is not so black and white. I've been there, done that, been shot at and seen people under my command killed, and I have my own thoughts and my own views.

I doubt he's aware of the table at 6.3 in Section 1 Chapter 6 of CAP493.

Mike

[Dimensional]

DFC, MC et al:

Could it be, shockingly, that there's not one right way of doing things (outside of the rules), but instead that there are varying degrees of sensible, efficient and easy? We are, after all, merely discussing matters of interpretation: you think something is the way forward, both F and I disagree with you. We have our reasons, as do you.

For instance, to bring this back on track: it is no doubt easier not to contact someone before overflying their MATZ, but is it sensible? [Ans: I'd say so!] Is it efficient to call someone when passing ten miles abeam and asking for a FIS? Is it easy to negotiate a transit of Stansted Zone? Is it good airmanship to use QFE or QNH for the final phases of an instrument approach? Is it clever for an IMCR-rated pilot to operate to IR minima? :p

Shockingly, both F and I agree that nearly all the practices we're taught in the military are more efficient than the civil world. They can afford to be: we're training to fly fast-and-pointy things at meningyknots around hills with people trying to stop us in a most unpleasant fashion. Things such as MDR as opposed to an obsessive love for the Whizz-wheel, the use of QFE wherever possible, and the Run-in-and-break all have their place in military aviation. What's more, as we can select the best pilots, the best instructors et cetera, there is a culture of assuming that the military way is the best way (reinforced when you consider, for one example, just how far CFS teaching has pervaded through the civil FI world).

To be honest, much of what I see when I fly light aircraft for fun reinforces some of the absolutely dire impressions I have of the vast minority of civil, low hours, low currency PPLs. I'm fortunate, as is F, to be able to keep my skills as current as they can be thanks to the generosity of Auntie Betty's Flying Club. While I appreciate that most people don't have that, some of the airmanship and flying skill standards I've seen, most notably last weekend, drive me to wonder whether some people find their licence at the bottom of their morning cereal packet...

Incidentally, having just looked up your table 6.3, what pray tell does it tell me that, say, Vol. 2 of Trevor Thom doesn't or, dare I suggest it, the knowledge that one should really have before committing aviation anyway...

(For those that can't be bothered to look it up: the somewhat cryptic reference to the Manual of Air Traffic Services merely concerns the definition of words such as 'height', 'altitude' and 'flight level' and their common uses. Note: under QFE/Height it says 'normally on final approach'; my emphasis. I do hope you weren't aiming to look clever by quoting the rulebook at us...)

I can assure you, both F and I have been flying for a fair while; and while not as long as your venerable selves no doubt, we have our fair share of experience of flying light aircraft around. Both of us are very much near the bottom of the military flying training pipeline; F slightly further than myself. Neither of us have (hopefully) forgotten what it means to throw a small aircraft around as a PPL -- I certainly haven't.

How having people shoot at you affects your preferences for altimeter setting is somewhat beyond me, however...

--D

[dublinpilot]

What this basically boils down to, is two people doing something that is not as safe as it could be.

One is flying a the cloud base in a MATZ, which indicates it's a high movement area, without talking to the most appropriate unit. We are of course assuming that they are radio equipped. If they were not then that raises other questions.

The other is performing high energy manoeuvres in an environment where non-transponding traffic is unknown. They are treating a unknown traffic environment as if it were a known traffic environment.

I was going to say that each is asking the other to stop doing things how they are doing it, so that the other can continue. But actually no one asked F or D to stop doing things that they are doing. They simply asked them to consider how safe what they were doing was, before criticising someone else.

Men in glass houses and all? :rolleyes:

As an aside, out of curiosity, if the RAF go to a war zone and have to operate in high altitude environment (by this I mean use high altitude airports) then presumably they must revert to using QNH for landing?

dp

[Fournicator]

Dimwit:
Eloquently put, far better than me, as Mr "Subtle as a Rhino up the Backside" could manage before I went to work today.

Mike:
I have been known to make some pretty glaring mistakes; young Dimwit has witnessed a few of them. What he has also witnessed is me having the moral courage to admit when I've messed up and even have a joke at my own ineptitude; an awareness of one's own failings is another thing religiously drummed into us in the military flying training world, far more so than my experiences of private flying. The important thing is to learn from it so you do don't do it again; what's done is done (D - you have been known to occasionally mess up to - which river? ;) ).
However, in this case I believe that the shades of grey are distinctly favouring my side of the fence - transitting a MATZ without talking to ATC or on a different altimeter datum than everyone else in the MATZ are pretty blatant examples of bad airmanship in my view, whereas practicing a recognised procedure in a piece of airspace notified on civilian charts as containing a large number of fast-movers is somewhat more defensible.

DP:
Yes. An added "complexity" of operating at high altitudes in either peacetime or conflict. That doesn't mean we have to operate all UK mil airfields on QNH, just as one doesn't do a glide approach on every puddlejumper landing to practice for the day your donk gives out.

[Mike Cross]

Dimensional
Shockingly, both F and I agree that nearly all the practices we're taught in the military are more efficient than the civil world. They can afford to be: we're training to fly fast-and-pointy things at meningyknots around hills with people trying to stop us in a most unpleasant fashion.
Where, pray in the UK do you have that happening? I have absolutely no problem with you doing it in a war zone, however you are not operating in one. Your attitude and that of Fournicator demonstrate what I was trying to put over. You are reacting in accordance with the way you have been trained and assuming that you are in the right.

Your wording(For those that can't be bothered to look it up: the somewhat cryptic reference to the Manual of Air Traffic Services merely concerns the definition of words such as 'height', 'altitude' and 'flight level' and their common uses. Note: under QFE/Height it says 'normally on final approach'; my emphasis. I do hope you weren't aiming to look clever by quoting the rulebook at us...)is tosh.

1. There is nothing cryptic about the reference I gave, it's concise.
2. I have no need to try and look clever as you put it, I'm simply trying to get you to acknowledge that the Mil practice of using QFE for height reporting in a MATZ is not in compliance.
3. Your statement "merely concerns the definition of words such as 'height', 'altitude' and 'flight level' and their common uses." is wrong. The reference is prescriptive and uses the wording "is reported" and "are used" not "may be reported" or "may be used".
6.3 The table below shows the altimeter subscale settings, the terms in which vertical position is reported and the occasions on which they are used to report to air traffic services units.
QNH......
1. At, or below, the transition altitude (i.e. in the vicinity of an aerodrome).
2. Descending through the transition layer.
3. At the pilots discretion during final approach.
QFE....
Normally during final approach

I don't think any of us are disagreeing with you that it is good airmanship to make use of the facilities that are available, which was Fournicator's original point.
We are however trying to get the pair of you to acknowledge that a MATZ is not CAS, that you will encounter unknown traffic in it, and it is both sensible and good airmanship for us all to conform to a common standard.
While you may think that nearly all the practices we're taught in the military are more efficient than the civil world ignoring the civil world is not an option that is open to you. The civil aviation world in the UK is quite a few orders of magnitude greater than the military one.

Mike

[dublinpilot]

That doesn't mean we have to operate all UK mil airfields on QNH

I hadn't actually suggested that. I simply asked out of curiosity.


However, in this case I believe that the shades of grey are distinctly favouring my side of the fence -

I'm not sure you're reading the same thread as the rest of us. Seems only you & D refuse to acknowledge that what you are doing is equally increasing the risk.

dp

[tmmorris]

Shockingly, both F and I agree that nearly all the practices we're taught in the military are more efficient than the civil world. They can afford to be: we're training to fly fast-and-pointy things at meningyknots around hills with people trying to stop us in a most unpleasant fashion.
Where, pray in the UK do you have that happening? I have absolutely no problem with you doing it in a war zone, however you are not operating in one. Your attitude and that of Fournicator demonstrate what I was trying to put over. You are reacting in accordance with the way you have been trained and assuming that you are in the right.

Surely, Mike, you're not suggesting they're not allowed to practise before they go to a war zone? I don't know which station Fournicator is working at but at the one I was at last week they pop to and from various notified practice areas to do exactly that - they can hardly learn under fire, can they?

Tim

[Mike Cross]

Not suggesting that at all. However what you do in a battlefield situation when you're being shot at is different to what you do in training. The fact that the Army need to train for street fighting in Iraq doesn't give them carte blanche to carry out live firing in Salisbury High Street. They do it out on the training area where the exercise has been planned, the risks have been assessed and the exercise can be carried out safely.

[Dimensional]

Therein lies the problem with *not* doing this manoeuver (and other, similar ones) -- the pace of training as I understand it is so hectic that you can't *not* do it just because the radar is SSR only (training requirements) -- and if you're going to do it anywhere, surely it's better to do it under (at least a limited) radar service in an area notified to other air traffic as containing potentially hazardous activities...

[Fournicator]

DP:
I'm not sure you're reading the same thread as the rest of us. Seems only you & D refuse to acknowledge that what you are doing is equally increasing the risk.
dpFunny old thing mate, this being on the Private Flying forum there are a fair few voices saying that, yes. What do you reckon would happen if it were on the Mil Aircrew forum?

Mike:
I have AT NO TIME said that a MATZ is CAS, what on earth has given you that idea? I fully understand the legal rights of other airspace users to use a MATZ. However, just as you wouldn't fly through an active danger area, I still think anyone flying through a MATZ without talking to ATC is committing a gross breach of airmanship. It is a requirement for military aircraft to operate in, what would seem to you at least, a very high energy fashion. You do not understand these operations in detail; you have no need to. But you do need to understand that if you operate near or in a MATZ, or indeed in a notified AIAA, you are very likely to encounter mil ac doing their thing, potentially ruining everyone's day. We at least have the luxury of explosive furniture, I am as much thinking of your safety as my own.

Once again to make sure I am understood - I am not saying that a MATZ is (or indeed should be, unlike the opinion of many of my colleagues) CAS, I fully understand other traffic will be operating there. A great many civil ac transit MATZs talking to ATC, I am more than happy to go out of my way to do the lion's share of the avoidance if so. Why can't everyone stick to the same basic standard of airmanship?

Many people are using this thread for their own personal attacks on military aviation, that is not what I wanted to do. If you feel the need, then by all means start a more clearly titled thread for doing so. The point here is a plea for all users of a MATZ to make ATC aware of their presence if at all possible.

Edited to echo and amplify Dim's thoughts:
Where else than a military airfield, notifed with a MATZ, would you have us practice mil procedures? Surely you don't want us to have to establish controlled airspace to give us 'total' (except for errant PPL holders bumbling into it) protection for our operations? I certainly would much rather it didn't come to that.

[stiknruda]

Interesting series of topics and arguements on this thread.

However, am I alone in thinking that most of wouldn't enter a MATZ without at least trying to make contact?

Trying being the operative word when most MATZ's are shut after an early stack on a Friday;) when the service sky-Gods retire to the mess for Happy Hour or a posting barell and whinge about us pesky private flyers in our "puddle-jumpers"!

I quite like PJ as a new appelation for my "jet"!

Marham is the RAF zone that I enter most frequently and I have no problems with setting QFE. On handover to the first civillian agency (Norwich if homeward bound) they pass me the regional QNH anyway and if I was between stations I could always request the QNH from Marham.

Stik

[Fournicator]

Stik:
Damn straight, why go flying when there's ale to be drunk!

Glad to hear that logic prevails with at least some here!

[Fournicator]

WR:
Thanks!
All very sensible stuff, exactly what I do when PPL flying/gliding of a weekend. Is also quite painful hearing G-ABCD repeatedly (i'm talking 5 or more times here!) trying to get hold of a controller at the weekend, when we're all off pretending to be normal people.
Glad to hear some more voices being added to the side of common sense and airmanship, eh Dublin?

[unfazed]

Just to lighten things up a bit

Why do we ask for a "Penetration?" It sounds painful and a bit rude !!!;)

[dublinpilot]

F,

I don't disagree with anything that stick or WR have said.

Let me take you back to what MC said just a few posts ago

I don't think any of us are disagreeing with you that it is good airmanship to make use of the facilities that are available, which was Fournicator's original point.
We are however trying to get the pair of you to acknowledge that a MATZ is not CAS, that you will encounter unknown traffic in it, and it is both sensible and good airmanship for us all to conform to a common standard.


I don't think anyone has yet said that it's not a good idea to call ATC if operating inside a MATZ (which was your initial point).

We are just trying to get you to see that what you were doing yourself wasn't exactly the cleverest either.

But as MC has pointed out:

There's not a lot of point in arguing with Fournicator. He doesn't just think he is right, he's convinced of it. It is to a certain extend our fault. We train people in the military to have absolute confidence in what they are told to do and not to question military perceptions.


I think you've clearly proved his point.

dp

[Dimensional]

I don't think it's that, DP, it's just that F and I aren't convinced by your arguments -- I, at least, and I think F likewise, have listened to your arguments (such as they are) -- and we disagree with you. ;)

No inbuilt 'military superiority complex', it's exactly the same beliefs I held before I started mil flying training...

--D

[dublinpilot]

No inbuilt 'military superiority complex', it's exactly the same beliefs I held before I started mil flying training...

If that's what you think we are trying to argue, then I suggest you reread this thread.

dp

[Dimensional]

He doesn't just think he is right, he's convinced of it. It is to a certain extend our fault. We train people in the military to have absolute confidence in what they are told to do and not to question military perceptions.


Errr... wossat then? :(

(apologies for taking this somewhat off-thread...)

--D

[dublinpilot]

D,

That is MC explaining why F does not seem to be able to question his own actions, only those of others.

Take a look back to MC's very first post on this thread.

There's cloud and no radar, it's uncontrolled airspace, but what the hell, let's plummet through cloud into an unknown environment anyway.

There are two ways to look at this scenario.

It's the gliding season. Gliders climb to cloud base, it's not an unusual situation.

He's not defending anyone being in a MATZ without talking to ATC. He's not accusing RAF pilots of having a superiority complex. He's simply asking F to consider how sensible his own actions were. To look at the situation from someone else's point of view.

I'm surprised that this thread could continue for so long, and you guys still haven't managed to see that point. It's the point MC has been trying to get across since his very first post on this thread.

Try reading with an open mind. If you can understand where the other person is coming from the debate will be much easier ;)

dp

[Dimensional]

I can see perfectly well where you're coming from, but I still disagree with you -- it's a training objective, it's the safest place to do it, it's a manoeuver simulating a critical emergency where the other option is stepping out of the airframe and letting it do its own thing...

What, pray tell, would be your solution to a simulated engine emergency over 8/8ths cloud in a fast and pointy airframe?

-D

[dublinpilot]

What, pray tell, would be your solution to a simulated engine emergency over 8/8ths cloud in a fast and pointy airframe?


I think the point is not how to deal with the simulated engine emergency, but rather whether to simulate at all, in an unknown traffic environment under such circumstances.

As to what your options are to be able to train for such an emergency, I'll again draw you back to MC's earlier posting :

What would be sensible is to think about the risk before you do something. If you want to do your 4000fpm descents in Class G and there's cloud in the way and your primary radar is inop and the use of transponders is not mandatory in the airspace and it's not CAS then you have a few choices.

1. Go ahead and do it anyway
2. Defer doing it until you have serviceable primary radar
3. Defer doing it until you have good vis and can achieve separation by visual means.
4. Stick someone outside the tower with a pair of binoculars to watch out for traffic underneath the clouds and make sure it's all clear before initiating the descent.


I'd add
5. Go and do it somewhere else, where there is a known traffic environment.

dp

[chrisN]

I don't think I'm getting anywhere, but as a glider pilot I would like to add one more alternative for consideration before high descent rates through cloud in class G (whether over a MATZ or not, but I'm not sure how necessary in an AIAA): Call on 130.4, or have somebody do it for you, to see if any gliders are cloud flying or close to cloud base in the area. As I pointed out before, there is no one frequency that gliders can monitor to see if others are about, but there is one frequency that any cloud-flying gliders will be on.

Hope that helps.

Chris N.

[DFC]

DFC:
You're missing the point - yes, the obstacles listed on your chart are listed AMSL, but you really really should be able to look out of the window (a shocking idea for many puddlejumpers I know) and avoid the big honking mast you can see visually.

No. You are (shockingly for a pilot) unaware that;

There is no requirement for me to be able to see the surface or any obstacles (which could be in cloud). I am still VFR and am using the QNH to ensure MSD from the unseen obstacles, terrain and built up areas.

More shocking news - military aircraft inside a MATZ will be operating at a whole range of different heights, doing a whole range of different things, manoevring with relatively high energy in a range of different directions, horizontally and vertically, very different to a civil airfield - not just in the vis or radar ccts. It therefore behoves you to set QFE, so that other MATZ users can take whatever action necessary to avoid ruining your day.


The CAA say that - The purpose of the MATZ is to provide a volume of airspace within which increased protection may be given to aircraft
in the critical stages of circuit, approach and climb-out.

Seems that your using a MATZ for something that it is not intended.

Danger areas are required to be established when dangerous activities need to be segregated.

So either it is not dangerous or the RAF have a duty of care to complete such dangerous activities in segregated airspace aka danger areas.

If it is dangerous for a civil aircraft to transit a MATZ then perhaps you are not doing your job as well as you think!

I have gained one piece of knowledge from this discussion - Forget all that hardware on show at Farnborough. All one needs is a few puddlejumpers operating non-radio and the RAF have severe problems completing missions. Forget SAMs, puddlejumpers are the new weapon. :p

Regards,

DFC

[Fournicator]

DFC:
What I said in no way disagrees with the description of a MATZ you provided, but you seem unable to understand that aircraft departing or approaching the airfield may do so at any number of different directions and heights, not just aligned with the runway in use, or i the radar cct. To separate yourself from this range of traffic you really shoudl set QFE.
As regards obstacle clearance, I'm well aware that you can legally be VMC on top. However, a layer of low level stratus that would be the typical scenario for you to still be inside the MATZ but VMC on top would not stop you from seeing obstacles - they'd stick out in front of you. If you are VMC/VFR, then simply looking ahead will sort out your terrian separation - just don't fly into any bloody clouds, which might have solid centres.
If you are VFR, regardless of whether you can see the surface or not, you can easily get separation from any obstacles simply by looking out of the window. Trust me, I do this for a living.
It is not dangerous for civil aircraft to transit a MATZ, to do so without advising ATC may well be.

Dublin"Pilot":
You really are quite irritating. To echo Dimensional, I am more than happy to back down when I see that my case is wrong, but why should I here? A whole load of very experienced professional aviators I work with consider our operations acceptable, why should I change my mind just because a couple of PPLs get offended and start throwing their teddies out of the pram? I have listened to your arguments, considered them, and I still disagree.
You also display a shocking understanding of the mil avaition mindset - we live in a working environment where we contantly take criticism, and use it productively to improve our flying.

[PPRuNe Radar]

There is no requirement for me to be able to see the surface or any obstacles (which could be in cloud). I am still VFR and am using the QNH to ensure MSD from the unseen obstacles, terrain and built up areas.

DFC

But if you comply with the ANO, then you have to be 1000' vertically from cloud, and so will never come close to any unseen obstacle in the cloud. The pressure setting is irrelevant since however you determine your vertical separation from the cloud, it still requires 1000' minimum separation distance for you to be VFR.

If you are using a reported ceiling as your datum to calculate your 'separation', then you coud still be breaking the law as it will not be a uniform figure and could change at any moment from the figure you are using. But obtaining hard evidence and prosecuting you could be tricky ;)

[BEagle]

Quite so!

Below 3000 ft amsl, the alternative VFR limits (5 km flight visibility in Class B, C, D or E or if above 140 KIAS in Class F or G, 1.5km below 140KIAS if fixed wing in Class F or G) and 'clear of cloud' also mandate and in sight of the surface.

So if you are not 'in sight of the surface', to be in VMC you must be at least 1000 ft clear of cloud vertically, 1500m horizontally and have a flight visibility of 5km (8km above FL100).

And remember that it's 3000 ft amsl, so if you're using QFE in a MATZ you must also add aerodrome elevation to establish your true altitude when stating whether or not you're VFR.

[dublinpilot]

You really are quite irritating. To echo Dimensional, I am more than happy to back down when I see that my case is wrong

If I am being iritating, the presumably a little bit of what I am saying is actually sinking in somewhere. That's good.

As for D, I think until yesterday evening, he didn't understand what we were trying to argue.

If you think that we are trying to get you to "back down" then you are taking this the wrong way. We are simply trying to help improve your understanding of the environment that you share, and the risks that you take and impose on others.

You also display a shocking understanding of the mil avaition mindset - we live in a working environment where we contantly take criticism, and use it productively to improve our flying.

I think just about everything you've said on this thread, including your name calling "banter" shows a complete lack of abilty to take criticism constructively.

You have yet to comment on why MC's suggestions of what your options are for such manouvers when you have no Primiary radar available. Instead you fail to look at your own actions and either justify them or explain why you have no alternative. You just keep insisting simply that you have "listened but still disagree".

You already said that you don't consider it safe to be descending through cloud at 4000ft pm without primiary radar, which unknown traffic around...the whole point of this thread.

Given that, why do you still disagee that it's not dangerous to continue? As for your case being wrong....you have yet to make a case for continuting these actions under such conditions.

dp

[Dimensional]

dp:
Would it make it OK to carry out a RPFL if there was primary radar available? How about in controlled airspace? When, pray tell, would you consider it acceptable to carry out this manoeuver?

If you think the requirement is for a perfectly known traffic environment, then might I suggest that would lead to covering most of the East coast of the UK in controlled airspace?

Bear in mind it's either practice RPFL's or step out of the airframe...

-D

(incidentally, I've understood all along what you're getting at but I still think you're wrong... You've managed to display no concept whatsoever of what mil flying training is like, either from an operational or a cultural point of view; that includes banter, which is perfectly normal (and healthy) as far as I have seen in my limited experience of mil flying training, in short: please come up with a worthwhile suggestion that helps matters or dry your eyes.)

[TangoZulu]

I have followed this thread with interest - in fact was discussing a related subject last night over a pint in the club bar after a local flight.
To start with - PPL/IMC/Night - about 170 hrs total - if this makes a difference to a particular viewpoint I am not sure, however just being open.
It strikes me that there is a lot of discussion about legalities etc - when in reality surely this comes down to airmanship - whilst it may be legal to fly through, or in a MATZ without talking to the controller - is it really sensible?
After all what is it called again - ah yes, a MATZ - what does the M stand for - therefore should we really be surprised if the military choose to use thier bit of airspace as shown on a map?
Ultimately the information is there on the map and in my personal opinion it is fairly shortsighted, maybe even selfish for someone to operate in the MATZ without talking to anyone - just because they can - after all the controller is more likely to help you in my experience than the opposite (particular experience of MATZ controllers at Brize, Benson and Yeovilton all being very helpful when called).
But just my view for what it may be worth :)

Edited for spelling as I cannot type!

[tmmorris]

Caution: Brize isn't a MATZ, it's class D. Though someone needs to tell the Brize controllers that its ceiling is 3500' AMSL, as they often attempt to control traffic above that level...

Tim

[chevvron]

DFC: I don't know where you got the rules for Class E; in my book it says ATC clearance and RTF contact are not required for VFR aircraft, thus it would be of no use whatever for a MATZ to be class E.
Class E actually seems to be no better than F or G, so why bother with it anyway?

[rustle]

After all what is it called again - ah yes, a MATZ - what does the M stand for - therefore should we really be surprised if the military choose to use thier bit of airspace as shown on a map?
Ultimately the information is there on the map and in my personal opinion it is fairly shortsighted, maybe even selfish for someone to operate in the MATZ without talking to anyone - just because they can - after all the controller is more likely to help you in my experience than the opposite (particular experience of MATZ controllers at Brize, Benson and Yeovilton all being very helpful when called).
But just my view for what it may be worth :)

Edited for spelling as I cannot type!

I don't think I have read anywhere on this thread anyone disputing the "airmanship" side of calling a MATZ controller prior to entering a MATZ.

It goes without saying, I would have thought, that that is a particularly good idea notwithstanding that you are not bound to.

The other side of this discussion has been about the airmanship of the mil crew who have elected to carry out high-energy manoeuvres when they had/have no idea what else is in the area...

Despite protestations from two posters here, I am unconvinced that descending at x000fpm through IMC in a MATZ just because you can is clever or necessary, especially when it is known that primary radar cover is not available.

When discussions like this go on, I often think "what would the AAIB report (and/or the BOI report) read like"? IMO they would not be complementary about either the glider pilot or whoever authorised the high-energy descent in IMC for the mil aircraft.

Realistically there is room for improvement in "airmanship" on both sides of this discussion: Glider in a MATZ without speaking to anyone AND Mil Jet in high-energy manoeuvres without primary radar cover or the benefit of CAS/DA/RA/TRA status.

Only one side is arguing the toss about that from what I can see...

[PPRuNe Radar]

Just to return to the perceived difficulties some have with applying separation from terrain and obstacles which are shown on the chart as AMSL, when using the QFE.

Since we are talking about MATZ airspace, we must be talking about UK airfields. And since that is the case, I know of no UK military airfield (or otherwise) below sea level. Leuchars, Lossie, and Kinloss are probably the lowest you will get. Therefore if an obstacle or terrain is showing 1800' amsl on the chart and you decide you'd like to overfly it at not less than 2800' indicated on your altimeter, then the absolute minimum altitude you would actually overfly it at, if using QFE as your datum, would be 2800' PLUS the airfield elevation. In other words, the separation distance will always be more if you are using the QFE. So what's the safety issue there ??

Leaving the ATZ and entering another piece of airspace, or not as the case may be, would work on a similar principle if you were intending to overfly it. The only time you would need to calculate things would be if you intended to fly under airspace with a base above the surface. Subtracting the MATZ airfield elevation from your indicated height gives you that calculation in a nanosecond.

They're both non issues in my mind.

[Mike Cross]

I have no problems with using whatever the controller wants me to use. I was just highlighting that the practice of using QFE throughout the MATZ is not in compliance with what is written in MATS Part 1, which perhaps explains why those users who know and understand the requirements are expecting it to be QNH.

Incidentally what happens when the MATZ controller does not answer? So I'm flying happily through the Wallop/Boscombe CMATZ making blind calls. What am I supposed to set my altimeter to? What for that matter is a Mil a/c doing the same thing going to set his altimeter to? Common sense suggests the RPS.

And the club aircraft operating out of Boscombe? Presumably they're flying outside their ATZ with QFE still set if that's the Mil practice while Old Sarum, which is a licensed a/d within the CMATZ are using their QFE within their ATZ and QNH outside it.

It's all part of the wonderful joined up safety-conscious aviation world.

As PPRR says, it's a non-issue.

Mike

[London Mil]

I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused how anyone can assume that a RPFL is a 'high energy manouevre'. It is no more 'high energy' than me carrying-out aeros in a T67M or the like.


Mike X

I have no problems with using whatever the controller wants me to use. I was just highlighting that the practice of using QFE throughout the MATZ is not in compliance with what is written in MATS Part 1, which perhaps explains why those users who know and understand the requirements are expecting it to be QNH.

Of course, MATS Pt1 (and indeed much of CAP393) doesn't apply to military aircraft. I thought we all knew that.

[London Mil]

Sorry, damn computer doesn't allow me to edit.

Mike X, I agree with your final statement - sometimes we just need to accept it is a bit of a jungle out there.

[Fournicator]

Dublin:

You have failed to listen to a word I've said. The actual rate of descent in this instance is somewhat irrelevant; as Mike agreed a few days ago, a standard instrument recovery, with a much lower rate of descent, would actually increase the risk of collision between the recovering military aircraft and the conflicting traffic at cloudbase.

As also discussed, gliders and other slow moving traffic may well not show up even on primary radar. Therefore, the only logical conclusion of your argument is to only ever perform instrument recoveries, both civil and military, in CAS, thereby requiring much much more of the UK to be covered in the stuff, not something I want, or I'd hope you either.

As regards the "name calling", sorry if I've hurt your apparently delicate feelings; Dimwit happens to one of my closest friends, we each call each other much worse things in person, without the slightest hint of malice. It's banter, perhaps you should've spent longer in the playground at school.....

And the "mil jet without the cover of CAS/DA/etc" comment - surely a MATZ should constitute such an area, being an area of notified high intensity mil activity?

Rustle:
See comments above referring to the actual relative insignificance of the RoD itself; a slower descent merely means the ac will be in the relatively dangerous period running along the scud at cloudbase for longer. Bizarrely then, if GA traffic insists on operating at cloudbase a Rad/Tac PFL is actually safer!

[SAR Bloke]

Incidentally what happens when the MATZ controller does not answer?


Military aircraft should not be in an active MATZ without clearance. Once again I will say that to Military aircraft a MATZ can be considered as controlled airspace. If a Military aircraft does not receive an answer from ATC then it is almost certainly that the MATZ is closed. In which case no QFE would be available and RPS may well be the best option.

I would suggest that a FJ conducting a RPFL is an extremely high energy manouevre. It's whole purpose is to gain energy to allow positioning for landing following a cloud break at VERY low altitudes.

I think the two issues are completely seperate. The lack of airmanship due to someone operating close to (or in) the MATZ without clearance and seperate question of the risk of RPFL's.

If you look actually look at the numbers involved (a descent profile of 1NM per 1000ft) it doesn't take much of a genius to work out that any further than 3NM from the airfield then the Military aircraft won't be in the MATZ anyway. If you consider a RPFL initiated at FL150 and a cloudbase of 10,000ft the FJ could plummet out of cloud 10NM away from the airfield.

[rustle]

I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused how anyone can assume that a RPFL is a 'high energy manoeuvre'. It is no more 'high energy' than me carrying-out aeros in a T67M or the like.


In instrument conditions (which is, after all, what we're discussing) 4000fpm descent is "high energy" IMO.

If you like to do your "T67M aeros" in and through IMC without protection of a DA/TRA or CAS and without any radar cover, can you NOTAM it so we can avoid?

And the "mil jet without the cover of CAS/DA/etc" comment - surely a MATZ should constitute such an area, being an area of notified high intensity mil activity?

See comments above referring to the actual relative insignificance of the RoD itself; a slower descent merely means the ac will be in the relatively dangerous period running along the scud at cloudbase for longer. Bizarrely then, if GA traffic insists on operating at cloudbase a Rad/Tac PFL is actually safer!

Since I made mention, not DP, of the DA/TRA bit I'll answer this...

No, a MATZ is not a DA nor is it a TRA: It's a MATZ. The key difference being that a DA or TRA (or CAS for completeness) require explicit permission to enter, so you have a much higher likelihood of a known traffic environment.

Traffic spotted 100-200' below from a 500fpm descent: Stop descent, climb/manoeuvre to deconflict.

Traffic spotted 100-200' below from a 4000fpm descent: I think you said that switching from instruments to visual, spotting the traffic and manoeuvring to avoid was unlikely to be successful (or something similar a few posts/pages back).

[London Mil]

But it is not a 'manoeuvre'. It is a 'fastish' descent in a straight line. Can someone humour me and give speeds for the 1 in 1 bit? The quoted 4000ft/min appears to imply 240kts. I think that you will find, if my maths is correct, that IAS lies comfortably within civil criteria.

All the chap was offering from the outset was that fellow aviators should consider each other's activities. We appear to have degenerated to a "you lot are reckless" (and by the way why do you insist on QFE?) type of argument. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[rustle]

But it is not a 'manoeuvre'. It is a 'fastish' descent in a straight line. Can someone humour me and give speeds for the 1 in 1 bit? The quoted 4000ft/min appears to imply 240kts. I think that you will find, if my maths is correct, that IAS lies comfortably within civil criteria.

Civil aircraft would not, IME, ascend or descend at 4000fpm in IMC without some external protection. eg CAS.

If someone posted that some of the loco operators (only suggesting them because they frequent places not on airways) were doing this in class G in IMC without any radar cover I'd think that a bit crap as well.

All the chap was offering from the outset was that fellow aviators should consider each other's activities. We appear to have degenerated to a "you lot are reckless" (and by the way why do you insist on QFE?) type of argument. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

He was, and everyone agreed that it would be sensible to talk to someone before entering a MATZ.

:D Job done.

Except then the discussion naturally progressed onto the other part of the original post. The bit about practice rapid descents through IMC with no radar cover and not in a DA/TRA or CAS.

The intransigent ones seem to be those who cannot see for whatever reason that that is also not a good idea.

QFE, I agree, was thread drift ;)

[Dimensional]

It may not be wonderful, it may not fit with the warm-and-fluffy world of 90KIAS GA puddlejumping, but it *is* essential training and it *has* to be done somewhere...

As I said earlier, just what is your proposed alternative?

--D

[chevvron]

Mike Cross - if you get no reply from Boscombe on the notified MATZ frequency and it's daytime, I would suggest calling the tower frequency, as there might still be UAS/AEF going on; same applies to Benson; for both airfields though, only call tower if your passing within say 5 miles, 'cos they won't be using radar.

[rustle]

It may not be wonderful, it may not fit with the warm-and-fluffy world of 90KIAS GA puddlejumping, but it *is* essential training and it *has* to be done somewhere...

As I said earlier, just what is your proposed alternative?

--D

Ah, Juan. Wondered when you'd be back :hmm:

Several proposed alternatives have been suggested by others, but I only have two:

Delay your practice until there's a known traffic environment
or (if it *has* to be done)
Go elsewhere where there's a known traffic environment

[dublinpilot]

Dimensional,

Would it make it OK to carry out a RPFL if there was primary radar available? How about in controlled airspace? When, pray tell, would you consider it acceptable to carry out this manoeuver?


If there was primary radar available, then I would say that it would be fine to carry out the manouver. Now you would stand a good chance of seeing the non-transponding aircraft non-radio aircraft (incl gliders & microlights). You'd also know about non-transponding aircraft who were talking to atc but their position reports were less than accurate. :)

In controlled airspace, again I would say that it was perfectly acceptable, but you might find it hard to get permission for this from the controller, given that CAS isn't usually give out unless needed already. I suppose it would be a matter of finding the right controlled airspace for that time. :)

If the Viz was good, and I'm assuming that this would be carried out pretty close to the ATZ given the descent rates involved, then it might even be satisfactory to carry this out without primiary radar if you stationed two or three people with binoculars to make sure the area is clear.

I'm not against the manouver being carried out. I too have to practice my PFL's. It's about carrying it out with minimum risk, that I am trying to get across.

Are we getting places now? ;)

managed to display no concept whatsoever of what mil flying training is like

Quite true. I don't really know what militiary training is like. I have not had any, none of my friends have, and I'm not likely to have any in the future. I'm not really sure how that is relevant though. I don't need to have police training to know that something I see on the road is dangerous. Militiary training shares the same sky with the rest of us. All of us must do what we can to make the sky as safe as is reasonably possible. I'm sure you have no concept of the what the financial training environment is like, but again it's not relevant.

that includes banter, which is perfectly normal (and healthy) as far as I have seen in my limited experience of mil flying training, in short: please come up with a worthwhile suggestion that helps matters or dry your eyes.)

As for my eyes, I can assure you that they are perfectly dry, and not in need of attention. I will remind you though, that you are in a "Private Flying" forum, not in a military training environment. I operate in a financial environment for my day job. I don't expect to come on here and expect people to find jokes about international financial reporting standards funny. I'm sure the militiary will teach the importance of being able to adapt to your environment at some stage ;)

As for my worthwhile suggestions, you can look at my posts from yesterday. In particular the one where I quoted MC's points 1-4 and added my own point no 5. Items 2-5 would all seem to be reasonable and worthwhile suggestions. ;)

Fornicator,

Actually I have read every word that you have said so far, and have been trying my best to see your side of things. I appreciate what you mean when you say that a lower rate of descent would put you nearer the cloud base for longer. However I don't agree that this increaes the risk. I agree exactly with Rustle when he says:

Traffic spotted 100-200' below from a 500fpm descent: Stop descent, climb/manoeuvre to deconflict.

Traffic spotted 100-200' below from a 4000fpm descent: I think you said that switching from instruments to visual, spotting the traffic and manoeuvring to avoid was unlikely to be successful (or something similar a few posts/pages back).

With the lower descent rate you stand some chance of see and avoid working. With the high descent rate you'd be doing very well for the see part to work. The avoid part would be next to impossible.

As also discussed, gliders and other slow moving traffic may well not show up even on primary radar. Therefore, the only logical conclusion of your argument is to only ever perform instrument recoveries, both civil and military, in CAS

As I understand it you are correct in that gliders don't show up very well on primary radar. However, having said that, I have certainly hear on numerous occasions "slow moving traffic......possibly a glider" from controllors. So they can certainly see gliders some of the time, if not all of the time. Given how close these manouvers are being performed to the ATZ they stand a very good chance of being seen on primary radar. The primiary radar should also have no difficulty picking up non-squawking light aircraft. :)

I am by no means suggesting that you should restrict your activities to CAS. That would be impractical from your point of view. :p

You can sleep soundly tonight in the knowledge that you haven't hurt my feelings :p I'm simply trying to point out to you that you stand a better chance of your audience listening to you, if you don't try to insult them first ;) If your audience isn't listening to you, then you stand no chance of conviencing them. ;)

I'll leave you with this thought for tonight.

Do you believe it's safe to carry out this manouver in the conditions described in your first post, without knowing all the traffic that is below you?

If the answer is yes, then what is the point of your original posting?
If the answer is no, then why do you carry it out?

dp

ps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by London Mil
All the chap was offering from the outset was that fellow aviators should consider each other's activities. We appear to have degenerated to a "you lot are reckless" (and by the way why do you insist on QFE?) type of argument.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rustle
He was, and everyone agreed that it would be sensible to talk to someone before entering a MATZ.

Can we please let this go? As Rustle has said, we all agree on that point.

[Fournicator]

Oops.

Edited for being sober.

[stiknruda]

Forni!

Happy-hour must have been a big dissapointment tonight, chum, given your latest missive.

Don't worry, DP will be sticking around for better/more urbane banter - along the lines of if you are a Dublin pilot, then WTF are you worrying about MATZ penetrations/rejoins/etc!

[Final 3 Greens]

Fournicator

Your last post is way out of line.

I've expressed sympathy for where you are coming from, but there is no need to insult DP in the way that you just did, that's the sign of a small man who cannot make his point (or resist rising to the bait) in a professional way.

[rustle]

Forni!

Happy-hour must have been a big dissapointment tonight, chum, given your latest missive.

I dunno, stik, the Malibu & Cokes were obviously flowing free ;)

Anyway you guys are being too harsh: 'twas only "banter" after all :rolleyes:

[Fournicator]

Haha, the magical liberating properties of alcohol. Apologies for any offence caused to those in the financial sector.

As it happens though, the bar really was quite good!

[chrisN]

I hope this means that the thread is returning to a format of civilised discussion of issues, of whatever relative magnitude different people place upon them. It seem inescapable that not everyone will agree on what relative risks are (a) big enough to worry about and (b) being addressed one way or another.

FWIW, I am with F. and most, perhaps all, on this thread that serious glider incursions into a MATZ, close to cloudbase, without contact with ATC, while legal, is not a good thing. (I also think it is not a good thing for other than gliders, but that is somebody else's bailiwick.) I have on occasions found myself too busy to make a timely call when inadvertently clipping a MATZ and scarpering again, and I can't guarantee that neither I nor others never will again, but we can make a start by having some good intentions now that a little knowledge has been spread.

Nobody had responded to my questions as to who or how should broadcast dangers of rapidly descending fj's from out of class G cloud into the top of MATZ's. Is this unique to MATZ's embedded in AIAA's, or everywhere? If I can summon up the energy to do it. I may write a paper for my colleagues at the BGA to consider promulgating, as neither F nor D nor anyone else seems likely to. If I do that, I might welcome some review of a draft before I put it forward. Any volunteers?

Who, if anyone, is volunteering to do it for other GA types (gliding is part of GA, but I am only taking it up as regards my bit of GA if at all.)

Is anyone prepared to take up with the military that it might be a good idea either to NOTAM such exercises when planned in advance, or if spontaneous to call out to passing gliders on 130.4 when such manoeuvres, in or dropping out of, soarable cumulus clouds are contemplated from ABOVE a MATZ (not in, as F's original point was addressing)? Or is safety just a one-way street?

Chris N.

[SAR Bloke]

This is a routine exercise that is conducted frequently. (e.g. an instructor may give an engine failure that result in a RPFL at any stage of the sortie). A Notam is not really appropriate. Having said that, don't get the impression that aircraft are dropping out the skies like lemmings. As far as I am aware there are very few types that can fly RPFLs and I would guess only 2 types practise them frequently (anyone who knows better feel free to correct me).

I seem to remember an inbound RPFL is broadcast on the tower frequency and it may also be broadcast on VHF too (but I'm not sure). In any case if you are talking to the controller they should warn you of anything that may affect the safety of your flight (and not just FJs on RPFLs).

Transmitting a warning on 130.4 would not solve the problem. It may let the gliders know but what about microlights and other light aircraft? The aircrew probably won't have the capacity to do this as they would be dealing with a simulated emergency whilst working a different frequency.

We have gone around in a big circle. At the end of the day of you want to know what is going on in or around a particular part of airspace then it is quite easy. Just give them a call.

Safety is not a one way street. Military airfields are obviously marked on the map and the ATC services are there to assist anyone flying in the area. If you choose not to use the services available then I fail to see how it is the RAF's fault.

[rustle]

We have gone around in a big circle. At the end of the day of you want to know what is going on in or around a particular part of airspace then it is quite easy. Just give them a call.

Safety is not a one way street. Military airfields are obviously marked on the map and the ATC services are there to assist anyone flying in the area. If you choose not to use the services available then I fail to see how it is the RAF's fault.

Almost full circle, but still anyone "associated" with RAF procedures* still seems to be able to see only one bit of bad airmanship: That of the non-talking GA in a MATZ.

* (ForNickJr, Juan, SAR Bloke)

ATC would be unable to confirm a known traffic environment to the mil FJs if their primary radar was U/S, so I still think it unwise to descend at 4000fpm through IMC into an unknown environment. Choosing to do so has to be someone's "fault" (your words), so it must be the RAF's.

Maybe we'll just have to agree to differ :)

[DFC]

Quite so!
Below 3000 ft amsl, the alternative VFR limits (5 km flight visibility in Class B, C, D or E or if above 140 KIAS in Class F or G, 1.5km below 140KIAS if fixed wing in Class F or G) and 'clear of cloud' also mandate and in sight of the surface.
So if you are not 'in sight of the surface', to be in VMC you must be at least 1000 ft clear of cloud vertically, 1500m horizontally and have a flight visibility of 5km (8km above FL100).
And remember that it's 3000 ft amsl, so if you're using QFE in a MATZ you must also add aerodrome elevation to establish your true altitude when stating whether or not you're VFR.

Yes indeed. But where does it say that the piece of surface you are looking at has to be near or close to the aircraft?

Of course, you are also correct regarding the 3000ft changeover. Another reason for having QNH set on an altimeter.

But is that 3000ft AMSL the QNH AMSL or the Regional Pressure Setting AMSL or the AMSL derived from a QFE and some math...........all of which will be different.

The UK must be the only country where you can have 3 aurcraft side by side in the same airspace and 1's altimeter says he is 2900ft AMSL and is OK VMC just above the cloud top, the other's altimeter says he is above 3000ft and has to climb to be VMC and the third, does not know cause some controller has told him to set a pressure based on some datum that he is not (and is not required to be) aware of :D :D

I don't know where you got the rules for Class E; in my book it says ATC clearance and RTF contact are not required for VFR aircraft, thus it would be of no use whatever for a MATZ to be class E.
Class E actually seems to be no better than F or G, so why bother with it anyway?

Because by making it mandatory for IFR flights to call, one can rest assured that all the flights in IMC will be known to ATC and by having increased VMC minima, the VFR flights who can be simply clear of cloud in class F and G must be 1000ft vertically from cloud etc even when below 3000ft thus giving the aircraft exiting cloud (and the VFR aircraft) more time to see and avoid.

i.e. no more gliders skimming the base being attacked by descending aircraft.

It also enables international flights to understand what the airspace is actually for.

PPRuneRadar,

Yes one can do the math. However, pilots come close to God knows how many airfields day in and day out but controllers normally only provide a service at a limited number of locations.

Which is easier - for an ATC unit to calculate a few QNH based levels to "deconflict" traffic and publish them in local orders ...........or expect pilots to make several calculations based on a QFE referenced to an airfield they are not aware of the elevation of against several different altitudes?

If one flies at 7000ft AMSL, one will never have to worry about terrain or obstacles in the UK but it will not make for very regular or efficient VFR flight will it?

Not unusual to get fly not below 2000ft QFE xxxx from a certain MATZ I know when we have reported VFR and they and every other station within 100nm is reporting overcast at 1500ft and tops over FL100.

----------

The comment about why would a Dublin Pilot want to know about MATZ penetrations etc shows the biggest part of the problem - the RAF ATC units are not aware of exactly who their customers are i.e. pilots of every nationality and aircraft of every registration who decide to transit UK airspace and perhaps a MATZ or 2.

The rules and procedures need to be just as easily understood by French Pilots as UK Pilots. But as we can see few UK pilots really understand the rules.

-----------

The CAA have decided that it is OK for flights to transit a MATZ without talking to ATC. They also decided that it not OK for those flights to penetrate the ATZ without clearance. IN two cases the CAA decided that it would not be safe for traffic to transit unannounced and those places have controlled airspace. If the CAA say that it is OK then anyone who can show that it is not should put their point to them for a change in airspace.

Until the airspace is changed then (regardless of it being a good idea or not), there will be pilots who fly through MATZ airspace without talking to ATC. It is a fact of life that military operators must live with just like civil commercial operators live with all the VFRs buzzing round in class E airspace without talking.

Pilots while just as entitled to in most cases are less likely - in fact unlikely to do so intentionally - to fly through danger areas without a crossing service. Would the answer simply be to replace a MATZ with Danger Areas which would;

1. Adopt an internationally recognised airspace for the activity.
2. Segregate the dangerous activities.
3. Provide notified activity times and not the current call 3 times and if you have no reply then go ahead but ignore the posibility of a radio failure (ground or aircraft).

Regards,

DFC

[Fournicator]

Even more sober now! Developed into a nice mellow romantic weekend after the intense friday night bar action, keeping young Fournicator nice and chilled!

Chris:
More than willing to use the benefit of my limited but varied experience to assist in the writing of a paper for GA/glider/micros/whoever on the types of activity likely to be encountered in and around MATZs and other military areas, could probably do with getting a range of mil peeps to contribute/checkread. Happy to use some contacts of mien if you want. PM me if you do want to and we'll talk more.

DFC:
While I still disagree with your insistence on maintaining VFR terrain separation by use of your altimeter rather than your eyes, I do agree that the somewhat bizarre status of a MATZ could, and should, be made clearer for international users of UK airspace. Although I haven't given it a massive amount of thought yet your proposal for Class E, as argued above, does seem to have some merit in providing guaranteed IFR separation, leaving see-and-avoid to handle the VFR traffic. Anyone think of any reasons why that would be a bad idea? Genuinely intrigued!

[chrisN]

F., thanks. I'll give it more thought when I have time.

Anybody: if Class E, would that be permanently so, or only during notified MATZ hours, or what? (Either way, I can't comment unless I talk to gliding people better versed than I in the implications, but I would like to know what question to ask or what it is based on.)

Chris N.

[rustle]

Although I haven't given it a massive amount of thought yet your proposal for Class E, as argued above, does seem to have some merit in providing guaranteed IFR separation, leaving see-and-avoid to handle the VFR traffic. Anyone think of any reasons why that would be a bad idea? Genuinely intrigued!

It wouldn't help one iota in the scenario you opened this thread with.

From MATS Part 1:


Class E


IFR and VFR

IFR flights to obtain ATC clearance before entry and comply with ATC instructions;

VFR flights do not require clearance

(a) separate IFR flights from other IFR flights
(b) pass traffic information, as far as practicable, to IFR flights on VFR flights.
(c) VFR flights in contact are to be given traffic information as far as practicable

-------------------

So as the glider would have been VFR he wouldn't have needed clearance to enter the Class E, would not have been separated from any IFR traffic, and with radar out the mil FJ would have been no better off.

It seems to solve a problem that didn't exist except in the minds of some posters ;)

[Fournicator]

Rustle:
Because by making it mandatory for IFR flights to call, one can rest assured that all the flights in IMC will be known to ATC and by having increased VMC minima, the VFR flights who can be simply clear of cloud in class F and G must be 1000ft vertically from cloud etc even when below 3000ft thus giving the aircraft exiting cloud (and the VFR aircraft) more time to see and avoid.
i.e. no more gliders skimming the base being attacked by descending aircraft.

Thus forcing the gliders to stay away from cloudbase unless in communication with ATC.

[WorkingHard]

Fournicator started this thread with a realtively simple suggestion with which I think most people seem to have some agreement. It has degenerated into a bit of RAF pilot bashing. To Fournicator and others who have contributed, can you think af any reasons why this should be so? Why are the "professional" military pilots held in such low esteem? It must be a reflection of something that the military perhaps needs to address.

[kevmusic]

Why are the "professional" military pilots held in such low esteem?

From Fourni's earlier posts I rather got the impression the opposite was true!:eek: (Ask DP)

Kev.

[rustle]

Rustle:

Because by making it mandatory for IFR flights to call, one can rest assured that all the flights in IMC will be known to ATC and by having increased VMC minima, the VFR flights who can be simply clear of cloud in class F and G must be 1000ft vertically from cloud etc even when below 3000ft thus giving the aircraft exiting cloud (and the VFR aircraft) more time to see and avoid.
i.e. no more gliders skimming the base being attacked by descending aircraft.


Thus forcing the gliders to stay away from cloudbase unless in communication with ATC.

No it doesn't :)

The CAA view of life can be seen HERE (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/DAP_ACD_VFR_Guide.pdf)

Clear of cloud below 3000'.
1000' below cloud between 3001' and FL100.

"Clear of cloud" means not in it: But you might only be 50' below it.

[Fournicator]

That'll teach me not to believe something I read on proone.......

[DFC]

I think that you will find that ICAO Class E requires all aircraft to be 1000ft vertically from cloud regardless of level.

The question is will the UK adopt the ICAO airspace system or will the European airspace system impose it.

A review of airspace that would change the MATZ to a recogniseable form of airspace would include a review of the UKs version of the internationally recognised airspace.

Until then the RAF can simply expect to see the situation of flights (IFR and VFR) flying through MATZ without radio contact.........because the CAA says that it is OK to do so. and the CAA are the Authority when it comes to such things! :}

Is the CAA acting in an unsafe way by permitting such activity? or is there a duty of care issue with regard to the CAA and MOD's differing positions?

When a glider skimming the cloudbase inside a MATZ hits a military aircraft, the facts will be that both were entitled to be there and both were operating within the rules for the flights and it is the CAA and MOD who need to look at the procedures for such flights - not the pilots.

Roll on mode S and Known/Unknown airspace.

It is not just the military who suffer the problem with the CAA's airspace - commercial operators have highlighted for years the dangers of having VFR flights skimming the cloudbase in controlled airspace where they are not separated from IFR flights descending through the cloud.

However, the IFR GAT flights are restricted to 250Kt!

Regards,

DFC

[rustle]

It is not just the military who suffer the problem with the CAA's airspace - commercial operators have highlighted for years the dangers of having VFR flights skimming the cloudbase in controlled airspace where they are not separated from IFR flights descending through the cloud.

DFC

Thread drift, but where is this happening for years?

Until Scotland reclassified their E to D it was possible, but where else can there be a situation in the UK where VFR is in CAS, "skimming the cloudbase" and not talking to ATC? :confused:

[PPRuNe Radar]

Until Scotland reclassified their E to D it was possible, but where else can there be a situation in the UK where VFR is in CAS, "skimming the cloudbase" and not talking to ATC?
In the remaining Class E in Scotland ;)

Look North, East and West of Glasgow (or Northwest and West of Edinburgh, and also Northwest of Prestwick, if you prefer).

Parts of the Scottish TMA remain Class E below 6000' and I'm glad they are there, with my VFR pilot hat on :ok:

[rustle]

In the remaining Class E in Scotland ;)

Look North, East and West of Glasgow (or Northwest and West of Edinburgh, and also Northwest of Prestwick, if you prefer).

Parts of the Scottish TMA remain Class E below 6000'...

Thanks. :ok:

Hadn't noticed, as the only time I've been into Scotland's (main) airports it has been OVC008 :rolleyes: ;)

[gasax]

gasax:
A great many light airfields, glider sites, microlight sites and the like do have low flying avoids, there will be a reason for yours not to be similarly classified, I suspect due to activity levels. In an ideal world every landing strip in the country would be avoided, but doing so would leave very little of the low flying system left.
Ultimately, if you want the safety of relatively protected airspace, operating at a licensed airfield will offer you the protection of an ATZ, which will, in theory (am reserving judgement for the "in practice" side after witnessing some pretty lousy airmanship in an ATZ while flying this weekend) also protect you from other puddlejumpers, which a military avoid will not.
As regards a very bad thing making the military changing the way we operate - I'd throw that one straight back at you with some low flying complaint stats. It's interesting to note that the number of low flying complaints each year drops markedly every time the UK forces are involved in conflict. Please bear in mind that you have the freedom to enjoy aviation in your spare time thanks to the courage and skills of my predecessors; your continued freedom to do so may well depend on those of the current generation. Sprechen sie deutsch?
So in other words, I'm big, you're little. 60 years ago some of the people in my organisation saved your grandparents from very bad things - so we don't have to think, or act like it's the 21st century or anything.
I think MC hit your nail on the head. It seems RAF selection is about finding people who have the intelligence to act in a technological world, but lack any critical facilities to think through the implications of their actions.
You started with a plea for people to talk to MATZ controllers. I, like anyone who has had a serious of encounters with FJs, is only to keen to do so. ( the moral high ground only gives you a deeper grave!).
Last week I was 'puddlejumping' about 40 miles from home. There is no radar coverage, but traffic on the frequency (IFR) was getting a RAS about 30 miles north and were told to alter to avoid some FJ. Guessing where they had come from I thought they were coming my way. I spotted 3 out of the probably 4 - (must be my crap puddlejumping lookout). They went down my port side and I continued to 'puddlejump'. I was at 2500 and supposedly well above them - they passed at my height..
Out in the FIR I expect that. and I acccept that. So long as FJs are simply transiting I believe between them and me, we probably will not collide. However during the second week of Neptune Warrior we know at least 8 aircraft fly through 'our' circuit. But its OK, none of us were there - thank goodness.
Thanks to Forni, we now 'know' that whilst the RAF know it is an active airfield, it hasn't reached some secret level of activity at which point it would perhaps become suicidal for even the steel eyed professionals to try and fly through the circuit.
Enough of this crap - Working Hard makes the point. The reason many (most?) GA pilots distrust/dislike/are wary of the RAF is this continued lack of rationality. Their inability to understand that actions need to be considered, their potential effects understood - and if they're potentially very serious, those consequences actually avoided by the people creating the danger - not by just trying to scare other aircraft off.
If the low flying 'system' would grind to a halt if FJ had to avoid all the likely sources of conflict - then the 'system' is fundamentally flawed. I've met a few FJ drivers and they are likeable people - how can it be acceptable for a 'system' to direct them through areas where they have a reasonable expectation of encountering traffic they may not see and may not avoid?
You glibly ignore the possibility of collision with a scheduled carrier - probably for obvious reasons - no amount of double talk would get you out of that situation - it would end the present practices.
Compare our situation with France. The majority of their major airforce bases have a straight forward Class D or higher chunk of airspace. Their exercise areas are notified danger areas. Their FJ transit through their danger areas. The chances of coming into conflict with one of their FJ is pretty tiny unless you infringe a danger area. FJ descending into a quasi-controlled airspace with no radar cover - it's a situation that cannot happen.
I'll let your predecessors take the credit for saving them from the terrible Boche - So who has thought this through and - who hasn't?
We can continue with our quaint 'rules'. Sooner or later something will happen which will show the weakness of them to the general public. Any sensible approach would be to avoid this situation happening. The RAF have to understand that if they do not take action before an incident turns very bad then they are running a serious risk of not being able to operate at all. The RAF can continue to down light aircraft at a low rate without anything bad happening. Do it once to a scheduled flight - I rather suspect that a public response based on the Sprechen sie deutsch? approach may not cut it.
The RAF have a window to think through the way they operate (until something really bad happens!) and make it safer. It would seem from Forni's comments they cannot see through that window.

Strangely the AAC are trying to avoid horse riders. Having had to admit that their activites caused the death of a horse rider they have started to issue HV waiscoats to horse riders and try to avoid established stables. At the time of the court case the Military forum was full of 'stuff them', now they have to be flown around and avoided and given free HV vests.

How much longer will it be acceptable for FJ to drop into VMC without any form of known environment? To carry out high energy manoeuvres along advisory routes? Live firing in the open FIR? None of this requires much intelligence to sort out - simply the will to understand.

[Fournicator]

gasax:

How many scheduled carriers operate into unlicensed airfields which don't have enough movements even to qualify as a low flying avoid?

As a minor point of interest the horse rider death I believe you refer to involved an RAF Chinook; you would be well advised to review both the RAF Board of Inquiry and the local civilian verdict before you start making unqualified comments here. Horse riders have always been avoided by low flying military helos, the incident in question occurred when the horse riders were riding down a path lined with tall hedges, so the helo crew were unable to see them until they flew over. I don't really want to go into any more than that here, by all means start an "I should've worked harder at school and got into the RAF but I didn't and now I'm bitter about it" thread if you really must.

It is a dangerous world, accidents do happen, despite the best efforts of all involved. I for one don't want to see the UK following the US down the road of ridiculous risk aversion in life generally, and that includes overregulation of aviation.

Which air force is pretty much universally acknowledged as being the world leader at low level work? Not the French ...... yes, you guessed it, it's the RAF. Surely that says something about the quality of training available in the UKLFS?

[gasax]

there are none so blind as those who will not see.
"How many scheduled carriers operate into unlicensed airfields which don't have enough movements even to qualify as a low flying avoid?" No idea - the military mind appears to have some threshold - what it is no one has ever told us - 30 based aircraft are obviously not enough so I suppose it must be some function about the percent of time that the critical zone is occupied? Are you really suggesting that someone in the RAF has defined a particular level of activity as being unacceptable? If so then I would be very interested in knowing what it was.

You're right I'm wrong - so why are the AAC giving away HV vests after paying damages - because they were right????

The RAF may be the greatest at low level flying - to what ends? Hazarding or even killing their own aircrew and civilians?:ugh:

You don't want to be like the US? You mean to have proper ranges where real exercises can be carried out where only the participants are at risk - I can see that would take all the fun out of it!

"Horse riders have always been avoided by low flying military helos, the incident in question occurred when the horse riders were riding down a path lined with tall hedges, so the helo crew were unable to see them until they flew over. I don't really want to go into any more than that here, by all means start an "I should've worked harder at school and got into the RAF but I didn't and now I'm bitter about it" thread if you really must."

So horse riders have always been avoided - but airfields are not.... Ok this is obviously advanced military thinking! I'm not sure of the relevance of the working harder at school - when I was there, RAF entry qualifications were pretty modest - I'm fast understanding why!

"I don't really want to go into any more than that here" - no obviously not, here is a real example of how military custom and practice has been found wanting and as a result actions have had to be taken. Just imagine if that practice had to be applied everywhere - where would it end?

Get it through your head - accidents do not have to happen. They occur because perfectly forseeable incidents actually occur and nothing has been done to either eliminate their possibility or to minimise their consequences. That inaction is usually referred to as negligence. It is the reason that damages are paid and criminal proceedings are taken.

EASA may well sort much of this out with the whole 'One Sky' stuff - or we may have to continue with interesting discussions on airspace classification. But the military have to understand that doing what they have 'always done' is not sensible, not defensible and not smart. Some proactive thinking would make a huge difference. Collisons between French FJ and other aircraft - virtually never happen - we have a permanent committee to ajudge their seriousness - who is getting this right - well obviously not those cowardly French!

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Workinghard stirring up military banter, surely not? Why aren't you being a total pain about low flying???

I know your type. Why don't you worry about being better rather than worrying about RAF pilots, you were never one, never will be one and therefore do not need to worry about our rep.

You would love to associate yourself with the RAF, as may of your posts prove, but all it proves is that you shined your @rse for many years and are now a boring critic of the hand that fed you for many years. Go away and stop winging about the RAF. You may have been in "it" but you weren't a professional aviator in the mob.

Sorry about the rant but workinghard is in my humble opinion a total @rse

DS:D

[London Mil]

gasax, a few points:

To reiterarate, it is not just the AAC who are handing out hi viz vests. The policy is MOD-wide after an incident betwen an RAF Chinook and a horse rider.

Collisons between French FJ and other aircraft - virtually never happen - we have a permanent committee to ajudge their seriousness - who is getting this right - well obviously not those cowardly French! The French may have a better sytem, I don't know. Statistics tell us that the last GA/Mil mid air was in France. That is not a glib statement, a matter of fact. How many GA/Mil mid airs have there been in the UK? Again, not arrogant, merely trying to ascertain the scale of the problem.

You appear to hold the military in some disdain. As a GA and military man, I can speak with some authority and find your comments as myopic as some of the more 'merry', Friday night military men.

Get it through your head - accidents do not have to happen I suggest that this is rather a silly statement. Jumping into any aircraft adds risk to our lives. If the CAA/MOD etc are to do anything, they need to assess the level of risk. We can all make flying far safer (enhanced separation within CAS, more CAS etc, closure of Scotland to all aviation but military), but in modern soceity a balance has to be struck. If we accept that the actual number of collisions is so small that it is difficult to spot a trend, then one method of ascertaining risk is to look a cat A Airprox. The stats are quite interesting in identifying the main threats. (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/423/Bk13web.pdf)

EASA may well sort much of this out with the whole 'One Sky' stuff European Commision actually. Work being carried out by EUROCONTROL. Nothing to do with EASA, yet.

Finally, it would appear that whatever is said on this forum, you will have your view and the military another. Could I be so bold as to suggest that you arrange an exchange visit? At least that would allow each operator to see the other's problems.

[Final 3 Greens]

Which air force is pretty much universally acknowledged as being the world leader at low level work?

Please can someone explain to me what benefit low level flying delivers, in military terms.

Also, what has FJ low level flying accomplished in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I am genuinely interested, as a non military person.

[Fournicator]

Could I be so bold as to suggest that you arrange an exchange visit? At least that would allow each operator to see the other's problems.

I suggested that a while back, but it appears our somewhat opinionated friend is scared that the truth would shatter his little idea of what military aviation is like.

3Greens:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Issues/ContributingToTheCommunity/LowFlying/LowFlyingToday.htm
Sorry to fob you off with an internet link, but think it answers most of your questions, feel free to ask if it doesn't!

[ShyTorque]

Chris N said: "Is anyone prepared to take up with the military that it might be a good idea either to NOTAM such exercises when planned in advance, or if spontaneous to call out to passing gliders on 130.4 when such manoeuvres, in or dropping out of, soarable cumulus clouds are contemplated from ABOVE a MATZ (not in, as F's original point was addressing)? Or is safety just a one-way street?"

We've heard this one before. Chris, your post shows a lack of understanding of military flying operations and the workload involved, especially in a manoeuvre like this. There's no need for a NOTAM, it is a routine and necessary emergency drill for FJ pilots to practice. It happens above MATZs, always has, ever since the RAF has flown jet aircraft. That's just one of the reasons why there's a MATZ there - it's a bonus that they aren't controlled airspace and don't extend up to a higher altitude.

Now you're personally aware perhaps you might reconsider calling ATC, and/or avoiding thermalling the overhead of a MATZ? The RAF aren't going to change their procedures around the fairly remote chance that there is a glider in the vicinity, certainly not when all it takes from passing pilots is a simple R/T call on the appropriate published frequency...

General point:

I despair at the unrealistic, inward looking and selfish attitude shown by some aviators (not only glider pilots, btw). For example:

"I'm legally allowed to do this so I will - if there's a problem, everyone else must change to suit me!

Steam MUST always give way to sail but NO, I won't help you see me, everyone knows gliders can't carry a bigger battery and I WON'T fit a transponder. Why should I pay money out to benefit only everyone else.*

*(although there are always at least TWO aircraft in all the mid-air collision reports I've read..)

What's more - I won't communicate with YOU, you must come to MY frequency!"

BTW, I'm a civvy pilot. I did some gliding well over thirty years ago - that's where it began for me, too. Did a bit of military stuff (18 yrs, jets, SEP and helicopters). I now fly rotary wing, mainly in class G. Whenever I transit a MATZ, or over it, I treat it as quite normal to communicate with military ATC simply because it's my neck I'm interested in saving, as well as everyone else's. If there's no reply I put out a blind call on that frequency, stating my intentions, and if possible call another agency to confirm that the MATZ is not in use.

typos...

[London Mil]

Shy T, you missed out another misconception:

Military pilots all have a death wish and have no sense of self preservation.

[Final 3 Greens]

London Mil

Military pilots all have a death wish and have no sense of self preservation.

Part of the reason that many civilian pilots tell me that they are suspicious of military pilots is that they have very different perceptions of acceptable risks, so relatively speaking, your jest is grounded in fact.

[Fournicator]

I, and all my colleagues, are very big fans of staying alive to enjoy our flying; why people seem to think we want to kill ourselves is beyond me!

The military flight safety empire is a very powerful one, and indeed many of my military workmates consider most GA shockingly dangerous. It's all about the perceptions, it works both ways. Understanding from both sides is required!

[London Mil]

F3G, I was not jesting. :\

[VP959]

The implication from much posted on this thread is that a MATZ extends vertically to a much higher level in practice than the published altitude.

As a non-radio flyer on occasions this bothers me somewhat, as I tend to fly over the top of them, at a decent separation distance, from time to time. Carrying a radio is simply impossible for physical reasons, but I have always assumed that provided I kept to the open FIR and maintained a good lookout I could happily operate in reasonable safety.

I have a fair amount of military flying experience, so understand both sides of this issue, but had not come across the concept of extended vertical airspace above a MATZ being assumed by FJs.

In fact, as the former OiC of a couple of ranges and associated air danger areas I had always assumed that the only safe operational procedure was to carry out any activity where "see and avoid" could not be strictly adhered to under some other means of alternative safety control, usually a functioning primary radar as a bare minimum. I cannot believe that the normal safety requirements could be satisfied from just SSR alone, especially not in the open FIR with an FJ operating in IMC conditions but descending rapidly into VMC.

I recall D Flying issuing draconian restrictions on operating with reduced crew levels outside danger areas, as an example, simply due to the reduced lookout ability associated with high cockpit workload. He insisted that such activities take place in an appropriate bit of restricted airspace, as I recall.

VP

[Graham Shive]

Fournicator,

Who's side are you on anyway? I'll soar my glider in whats left of the non controlled airspace in this country, MATZ or no MATZ. Military aircraft should be able to use all those bells and whistles to avoid the other users of the sky and give us free passage. After all, we can't control the weather.

[Fournicator]

You need a permit to fish here.

[DFC]

but where else can there be a situation in the UK where VFR is in CAS, "skimming the cloudbase" and not talking to ATC? :confused:

Never said anything about "talking to ATC". Class D and E airspace -ATC do not separate VFR from IFR. ICAO recognise this and impose a requirement for VFR flights to be atleast 1000ft vertically from cloud which gives the IFR flights a fighting chance as they pop out of cloud.

The more I think of it the more I am convinced that the CAA have made a mess of the whole airspace issue.

Another example is the ability to fly "VFR" in class G at and below 3000ft or less with 1500m visibility. The CAA permits this to happen despite the ICAO requirement to only permit this when either all the traffic operates at a reduced speed or the posibility fo encountering other traffic is low;

Explain then how 1500m works in a MATZ where much of the traffic can be high speed and by definition the probability of encountering other aircraft is actually quite high................or under the LTMA?

Too many grey areas.

Regards,

DFC

[Graham Shive]

I'm not fishing, I'm deadly serious - how can you call yourself a glider pilot and then suggest we either carry transponders or stop flying near MATZs.

[Fournicator]

Not suggesting either of those things Graham. Suggesting if you operate near a MATZ, and especially if you're are inside it or operating near cloudbase, then it would be eminently sensible to contact the controlling authority, for your own safety as well as that of others. I'm still unsure overall about Mode S, but if the cost can be kept down to a reasonable level I think anything that increases safety for us all can only be a good thing.

I am proud of my gliding credentials; I also strive to be a responsible airspace user, unlike some cowboy glider pilots I've known, who seem to think all other forms of aviation should get out of their way. Not for one moment tarring all glider pilots with that brush though.

[VP959]

What about those of us with flying machines with no means of fitting a radio or carrying a transponder?

How far away from a MATZ should we stay?

I always try to get at least 500ft vertical, more often 1000ft, before going over the top of a MATZ.

What rules do you think those of us who can't fit radio or transponders should follow?

(I always thought that provided I stick to what's in the ANO I was OK.......)

VP

[Fournicator]

Wouldn't want to go for a hard and fast set of rules, it's all "airmanship dictates" type stuff - dependant on prevailing weather conditions and the like. Certainly wouldn't hang around near cloudbase though, but I'm sure you've already guessed that from this thread!

[Jumbo Driver]

Wouldn't want to go for a hard and fast set of rules, it's all "airmanship dictates" type stuff - dependant on prevailing weather conditions and the like.

And descending a FJ at 4000'/min through cloud towards unknown VFR traffic below in Class G airspace, without even primary radar assistance, IS good airmanship ...?

That's OK, then.

JD

[Fournicator]

An unknown environment yes, and legally Class G, but one labelled on the maps as a MATZ, itself inside an AIAA for the high volume of traffic in the area.

We've been over this so much already!

[VP959]

Wouldn't want to go for a hard and fast set of rules, it's all "airmanship dictates" type stuff - dependant on prevailing weather conditions and the like. Certainly wouldn't hang around near cloudbase though, but I'm sure you've already guessed that from this thread!

OK, let's assume that I stick rigorously to the regulations that apply to my flying machine, which state that I must remain VFR, in visible contact with the ground and clear of cloud. Let's also assume that it's a reasonable day, with a 5000ft cludbase. I need to cross a MATZ, which as we all know extends up to 3000ft AAL. I have no radio or transponder and my cruise airspeed is about 25mph. My endurance and low airspeed dictates that crossing the MATZ at a safe height is the safest way for me to get back to my home operating area. My radar cross section is extremely small, due to the very limited metal content of my flying machine.

If I fly at, say 4,000ft and maintain a good lookout (my chosen flying machine has absolutely unrivalled visibility, with no instruments to distract my attention), then why might I be displaying less than perfect airmanship, in your view as a FJ driver?

In my book I would be behaving very responsibly indeed. I would be remaining 1000ft vertically clear of the MATZ and the cloudbase. I would still be in good visual contact with the ground and would be maintaining a very good lookout. Why should I be threatened by an FJ descending blind though cloud above my head when I'm in the open FIR? Just who is displaying the better airmanship of the two of us in these conditions?

VP

[Fournicator]

VP:
Behaving in the manner you've just described is indeed very appropriate. By remaining a healthy distance clear of cloud vertically you will ensure enough time for see-and-avoid to work.
Indeed, in certain cases, if you were unable to route around the MATZ (although that would be the best option for what I'm about to describe) you would arguably be better placed to infringe the MATZ (as is your legal right) in order to retain sufficient vertical separation from cloud.

I just wish everyone behaved like you!

[gasax]

gasax, a few points:
To reiterarate, it is not just the AAC who are handing out hi viz vests. The policy is MOD-wide after an incident betwen an RAF Chinook and a horse rider.
The French may have a better sytem, I don't know.
You appear to hold the military in some disdain. As a GA and military man, I can speak with some authority and find your comments as myopic as some of the more 'merry', Friday night military men.
I suggest that this is rather a silly statement. Jumping into any aircraft adds risk to our lives. If the CAA/MOD etc are to do anything, they need to assess the level of risk. We can all make flying far safer (enhanced separation within CAS, more CAS etc, closure of Scotland to all aviation but military), but in modern soceity a balance has to be struck. If we accept that the actual number of collisions is so small that it is difficult to spot a trend, then one method of ascertaining risk is to look a cat A Airprox. The stats are quite interesting in identifying the main threats. (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/423/Bk13web.pdf)
Could I be so bold as to suggest that you arrange an exchange visit? At least that would allow each operator to see the other's problems.
Well a little more rationality in terms of a response. The High viz vests? Probably a good idea if you're really trying to avoid horse risers.
My distain of the military? I've meet some really nice RAF types on a personal level. At a management level I do have a level of distain - it is driven by seeing these issues ignored on the basis that its OK now is n't it, we've always done this, how can there be a problem? In fact exactly the issue that Forni raised at the beginning - we're doing something that means the rules of the air are set aside so everyone else must try and compensate - without knowing how, when or when.
I have been part of at least 3 'exchange visits'. The best bit was when the local station PR crew assured us that we were now a low flying 'avoid' and life would be simple thence forward. As they were getting into their cars at our strip 4 Hawks flew up the runway at about 500 feet. It seemed cruel for us to say anything!
The essential difference is risk perception. The majority of military thinking accepts that aircraft will crash, people will be hurt. You only have to look at the loss rates for military aircraft when 70% of a fleet is consumed by in-service accidents (cann't find the link but you'll know where to look DARPA?) - imagine ACME Airlines saying we're careful and responsible operators - we still have a couple of the original aircraft that have not crashed...
Hence I guess your comments that avoiding accidents is a silly idea. Obviously being a couple of thousand feet up increases an individual's risk - that is why we have the whole elaborate set of rules which most of us have to obey. Why the CAA know better than most of the the rest of the planet is a very good question, maybe it has a little to do with the number of ex-service types within the organisation?
However if one group of operators are then going to do things their own but different way, without any real pre-emptive risk assessment, then everybody's risk is increased. If we all operated within a single system to common rules then the majority of these issues would go away. That would mean that the military would have to have known traffic environments where they could carry out exercises where the rules of the air don't apply.
There would be winners and losers and I suspect it is the fear of many in the military that they would lose out that drives much of the resistance to looking critically at the way things have always been done and applying some risk management. Would the military be able to 'close Scotland' ? Probably not. Would there be more CAS? Probably. Would separation have to be greater? Cann't see why. Would there be less chance for military / GA collision? Yes. Would the military be able to do most things in most places? Almost certainly not.

[Windrusher]

In amongst the ribbing and joshing, there have been some good points in this discussion: various thoughtful (but regrettably incompatible) viewpoints, with room for justice on all sides. Plenty of extra things to bear in mind while threading your way around busy airspace!
What bothers me, though - from this and another recent thread on MATZ penetrations (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=232272)- is that theory and practice seem at such variance, in an activity that often stresses formality and in which there are so many near-ab-initio pilots who rely on the theory for their procedures. The book says that we should call, request and await 'permission' for a MATZ penetration (whatever the underlying legal position); practice, according to the other thread, is to call stating that you're about to transit the MATZ. The book says that outside the MATZ is clear airspace; here, it's apparent that military traffic regards that above the MATZ as theirs, too. The book counsels caution near published instrument approaches (which might be extended to MATZ stub lines) ... but from this discussion it seems that military jets may arrive from any direction.
Not all pilots read these priviledged discussions, but all are supposed to have passed their air law exams and read CAP413. Not all pilots regularly encounter all airspace scenarios, which is why they're required to have a comprensive knowledge of the theory.
Good airmanship is to assume that other aviators are at least likely to be acting in accordance with what they were taught. If that ain't good enough, then maybe someone should tell the authors...
Windrusher

[PPRuNe Radar]

Another example is the ability to fly "VFR" in class G at and below 3000ft or less with 1500m visibility. The CAA permits this to happen despite the ICAO requirement to only permit this when either all the traffic operates at a reduced speed or the posibility fo encountering other traffic is low;

DFC

With your sound knowledge of the books, you will know that the C in ICAO stands for CIVIL. ok:

You will also know that military (i.e. STATE aircraft) are exempted from ICAO 'rules' and recommendations.

Furthermore, UK military, and foreign air arms (under specific conditions), are also exempt from the UK Air Navigation Order (specifically the Rules of the Air).

Hence they are free to abide by their own rules and ignore anything you, I, or the CAA would wish to impose on them. Provided they obey their own military orders of course.

[ShyTorque]

"here, it's apparent that military traffic regards that above the MATZ as theirs, too."

Rubbish! I don't agree one iota that military pilots see the airspace above a MATZ as "belonging to them".

They most often operate through it under ATC radar - a 1 in 1 is actually a radar guided procedure.

Military pilots certainly realise the risks of operating in Class G, at least I did from a very early age, because such airmanship was constantly drummed into me by the RAF system. Now, as a member of a civvy flying club, I could not say that the same level of awareness prevails there.

[Genghis the Engineer]

"here, it's apparent that military traffic regards that above the MATZ as theirs, too."
Rubbish! I don't agree one iota that military pilots see the airspace above a MATZ as "belonging to them".
They most often operate through it under ATC radar - a 1 in 1 is actually a radar guided procedure.
Military pilots certainly realise the risks of operating in Class G, at least I did from a very early age, because such airmanship was constantly drummed into me by the RAF system. Now, as a member of a civvy flying club, I could not say that the same level of awareness prevails there.

Having done my fair share of military flying, I agree with this.

However, also having done a lot of civil flying, whilst talking to military controllers there's perhaps a different perception. I've often had uk-mil controllers treat me (on a VFR flight outside, but relatively close to controlled airspace / MATZ) treat me as if I was under a much higher degree of control than is technically appropriate. On a few occasions, in open FIR but close to a MATZ I've been treated as if I was radar controlled.

My solution - if it gets me where I want to go, I go with the flow (whilst of course maintaining the same standards of lookout that I've done anyhow). If it doesn't (or I was just performing GH) I politely point out that I'm not in their airspace and under flight information only. Generally one of two things happens, either

(a) they realise the error, and leave me alone, or

(b) they tell me about the conflicting military traffic I didn't know about and we sort it out from there.

G

[WorkingHard]

To me this thread shows quite clearly we ALL need more understanding of each others operations and requirements. Pwerhaps both sides, military and non military, should learn more about each other and get it into training programmes. I can well see that military pilots flying GA are often flying from mil flying clubs and therefore perhaps (note I said perhaps) do not get the exposure to GA that others do. Someone said the mil are exempt from specifics of the ANO, may we have a list or is it blanket exemption. Talking of exemptions; do all mil aircraft have exemption from the 250k limit below 10000 and if so why? I can understand this on excercise but does it apply to transits?

[ShyTorque]

The military work under a separate set of regulations.

[DFC]

DFC
With your sound knowledge of the books, you will know that the C in ICAO stands for CIVIL.
You will also know that military (i.e. STATE aircraft) are exempted from ICAO 'rules' and recommendations.
Furthermore, UK military, and foreign air arms (under specific conditions), are also exempt from the UK Air Navigation Order.
Hence they are free to abide their own rules and ignore anything you, I, or the CAA would wish to impose on them. Provided they obey their own military orders.

Never suggested that civil requirements have anything to do with Military. I think that you will find the military has it's own rules regarding what weather minima apply to various operations.

What is did say was that civil aircraft according to ICAO should not be permitted to fly VFR in a visibility of 1500m if the aircraft sharing the piece of airspace are either a) not limited to a specific speed ( I believe 140Kt is the limit) or b) so few that the posibility of an encounter is low.

Not in any way suggesting that military aircraft should be required to fly slow or that civil aircraft operating IFR at or below 3000ft amsl should not be able to fly at 250Kt...........however, if there is airspace where that is happening and the traffic density is relatively high........eg a MATZ, an AIAA, below the LTMA, then ICAO say that the reduction in VMC minima should not be applied.

140Kt opposite direction to 250Kt in 1500m visibility does not give much time for avoiding action.

Regards,

DFC

[Jumbo Driver]

To me this thread shows quite clearly we ALL need more understanding of each others operations and requirements.


WH, I quite agree with you.

For the civil pilot, the ANO and Rules of the Air are freely available - indeed they are required knowledge - whereas the military equivalent contained in JSPs 550, 552, etc are not. Thus, in civil airspace, we have two groups attempting to co-exist but operating under very different regimes and, understandably, each at times finding the other's actions quite unpredictable.

This is not encouraging safety.

For example, we are being told that, notwithstanding there being no "legal" restriction to flying directly above a MATZ, it is not "sensible" for a civil pilot to do so as it may be hazardous. Understandably, the civil pilot is confused. Of course this begs the response "just because it is not illegal, that doesn't make it safe". However, the real answer surely lies in either changing military habits or changing the understanding of one (or both) side(s) to the status of such airspace.

If, as Fourni seems to be suggesting on this thread, there is a high likelihood above a MATZ of finding a FJ operating a 4000'/min descent in cloud without primary radar cover into unknown VFR traffic below, then the civil AIP/AICs should reflect this possibility. If it is "standard practice" for the military to do this and it is contained within their relevant JSP, how are we meant to be aware of such flying practice? If, however, as many of us believe, this is not regarded as safe practice (for all concerned), then the appropriate "cease forthwith" notice should be issued. Either way, surely the Chinese wall that exists around military flying operations needs to be removed - at least as far as is necessary to improve flight safety?

JD

[London Mil]

Jumbo, you talk sense.

Just a couple of observations. There is nothing in the civil world stopping an aircraft from carrying-out exactly the same procedure as the one originally quoted (Tucano on an RPFL at less than 250kts).

If a safety assessment finds that the 'practice' is unsafe, then maybe a 'cease forthwith' notice is appropriate. In the same breath, activities such as gliding in cloud or flying in IMC without an ATS should be subject to a safety assessment. Look at how the Germans do IMC flight.

Military regulations are surprisingly similar to the ANO. As far as the Rules of the Air are concerned, I think the only significant differences are the 250kt bit and the 500ft rule (I stand by to be corrected). Maybe the JSP550 should be more readily available.

DFC - Don't the privileges of our licences amend the 1500m visiblity for VFR by adding a limitation of 3km? (They certainly do for a non-instrument rated pilot) Again, I may be wrong.

[rustle]

The more I think of it the more I am convinced that the CAA have made a mess of the whole airspace issue.

Another example is the ability to fly "VFR" in class G at and below 3000ft or less with 1500m visibility. The CAA permits this to happen despite the ICAO requirement to only permit this when either all the traffic operates at a reduced speed or the posibility fo encountering other traffic is low;

Explain then how 1500m works in a MATZ where much of the traffic can be high speed and by definition the probability of encountering other aircraft is actually quite high................or under the LTMA?

Too many grey areas.

Regards,

DFC

The CAA don't allow that actually. :)

Whether mil are allowed to fly in excess of 140KIAS with 1500m viz "VFR" in class F/G I know not, but civil traffic regulated by the CAA cannot.

(B)
Below FL 100
5km flight visibility
1500 m horizontally from cloud
1000 ft vertically from cloud.

(C)
At or below 3000 ft
As in (B) above or:
for Fixed wing aircraft
5 km flight visibility
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

for Fixed wing aircraft operating at 140kt or less
1500 m flight visibility
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

for Helicopters operating at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

(My bolding)

To me this thread shows quite clearly we ALL need more understanding of each others operations and requirements.
It highlights to me that despite many posters here (and elsewhere) who insist Air Law is boring and irrelevant, quite a few people have no idea about a lot of aspects of Air Law ;)

[Windrusher]

Jumbo Driver:

Thanks for expressing more clearly and coherently what I was trying to say.

Windrusher

[PPRuNe Radar]

Thanks to all for the continued useful debate and exchanges :ok:

My ANO references were a bit too broad brush I accept, and apologise for any confusion caused. It is the specific exemptions from the Rules of the Air which I should have focused on.

Rule 95

(3) It shall be lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary:

(a) for avoiding immediate danger;

(b) for complying with the law of any country other than the United Kingdom within which the aircraft then is; or

(c) for complying with Military Flying Regulations (Joint Service Publication 550) or Flying Orders to Contractors (Aviation Publication 67) issued by the Secretary of State in relation to an aircraft of which the commander is acting as such in the course of his duty as a member of any of Her Majesty?s naval, military or air forces.

So provided the JSP550 details alternative rules to those in the ANO (which it does in some aspects), then the military pilot can follow those rather than the ANO rules which civil pilots must comply with.

Not wishing to thread drift, but it also got me thinking about whether military aircraft are actually also exempt from other parts of the ANO such as aircraft markings, equipment carraige, etc. It doesn't seem to say it up front but I would assume it would have to be the case. Does a Tornado have TSO approved area navigation system for IFR flights along Airways for example ? Or FM immune ILS equipment when making a practice diversion to enable the pilot to get his civil IR rating ? errrr, I meant to keep current in diversion procedures :p )

Back to the books for me !!

Regards

PR

[London Mil]

PP Radar, there are two elements to the ANO that refer to military compliance. Firstly:

Application of Order to the Crown and visiting forces, etc.
152 (1) Subject to the provisions of this article, the provisions of this Order shall apply to or in relation to aircraft belonging to or exclusively employed in the service of Her Majesty as they apply to or in relation to other aircraft.

Then later, in the same article:

(5) Save as otherwise provided by paragraph (6), article 80(5) and (12), article 81(3), article 95(1)(a) and article 131, nothing in this Order shall apply to or in relation to any military aircraft.

Read a few times and confirm your confusion.

[VP959]

G the E makes a good point. On the occasions when I've flown over the MATZ near me (that he knows rather well) when I have had a radio, I've usually called to tell them that I was crossing from X to Y at so many feet above them. The only reason for me doing this has been a mix of politeness and to let them know my height (this avoids me being one of those "unknown traffic at XXX, height unknown" culprits). On every single occasion, bar none, they have assumed that I was asking for a MATZ pen, rather than just passing traffic information.

I have to say that they are always extremely polite and helpful, even on the one or two occasions when I've refused to accept any service on the basis that I was either about to turn the radio off for some peace and quiet, or that I was about to switch to another frequency whilst still in their overhead (not uncommon in this neck of the woods). It has been a real struggle on occasion to persuade them that a FIS is all I either need or can accept, when they really insist on giving me a service!

VP

[Pierre Argh]

IMHO opinion the fault lies with Mil ATCO training, where it is too often assumed that:

MATZ crossing call = request for service and full compliance.

I have seen many colleagues get into a lather when they pass a message as an instruction and the pilot says No!. They have failed to grasp the fact that this pilot is, largely, calling for their benefit. However, there are hundreds of Mil Controllers out there, pse don't tar them all with the same brush... and cut those who are new to the game some slack?

But.... what I've always failed to understand is how you can have, effectively two sets of regulations governing flight in uncontrolled airspace. The fact that two aircraft are hurtling towards each other in Class G, the consequences are unaffected by the fact that one might be military. Quite how are you expected to take that into account?

[PPRuNe Radar]

Thanks Lon Mil

As I suspected it seems that it is impossible to prosecute the next Mil infringement of CAS, based on your information :ok:

Cowboys :)

[London Mil]

Thanks Lon Mil

As I suspected it seems that it is impossible to prosecute the next Mil infringement of CAS, based on your information

Cowboys

Nice balanced statement from a mod?

Couple of points:

I seem to recollect that the majority of CAS infringements are civil. Your use of the worn "next" is a little disingenuous.

The military can still be prosecuted for failing to comply with Joint Service Regulations. Take, for example, the Ben McDui crash. That chap would most certainly have paid the price if it were proven he had failed to comply with military regs. (Which, by the way, were exactly the same as the civilian ones).

Would you like a personal copy of JSP552 to peruse? I'm sure I can arrange. I will say again - the differences between the mil and civil regs, from an aircraft operations and safety management persective, are minimal.

[Pierre Argh]

PPRUNE Radar and Lon Mil... there is a phrase somewhere within the JSP550 series (the complete suite of military flying regs, 552 is just the ATC section) that says something like... whilst military operators are not subject to the ANO provisions, under UK common law they might be prosecuted for not following best-practice if any military regulation is less stringent than its civil counterpart. I can't access the direct quote, so have paraphrased it as I remember (and some PPRuNers will have more legal knowledge than I do)... but on these grounds I don't think we need worry about the differences from the perspective of getting away with anything or lack of ability to prosecute?

[WorkingHard]

London Mil - you are not quite correct in that most cas infringements are civil. The details are not to hand just at the moment but a couple of years ago I had very detailed stats. which showed certain areas of CAS (Stansted for example) had a higher proportion than most BUT these were on the edges and the mil aircraft were usually the ones that for exaplme went straight through Newcastle/Birmingham and CAT had to be given avoiding action. Coupled with airways busts by the mil this represented a significant danger and when looked at in terms of numbers of aircraft in each sector (i.e. mil/civil) as the civil far far outnumber the mil, the incidence per aircraft was very much greater by the military. I am only the messenger and the stats are available in the public domain.

[London Mil]

WH, you are of course right that statistics tell the truth and are in the public domain. The full On Track report is here:http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_5.PDF

Being selective with my use of stats ;) , if you look at Para 6.2.2 Table 2, it indicates that 80.6% of infringements were by PPL holders, 4.8% by student pilots, 12.1% by commercial pilots and 2.5% by unknown/other. Lacking any data on military aircraft, I have assumed that this 2.5% could be attributable to military aircraft. Of course, the whole on-track project relied on pilots confidentially reporting their infringements therefore all the stats need to be taken with a small pinch of salt.

I would be intrigued to see your weighting regarding the 'scale' of risk for military aircraft. Can I presume you had access to some other database (UKAB?).

Some more interesting, slightly contradictory, stats here:

http://www.flyontrack.co.uk/detinfr.asp

[Jumbo Driver]

Very interesting, chaps - but THIS thread is about MATZ penetration and not CAS infringements. MATZs are NOT - despite the apparent misbelief of some military controllers - Controlled Air Space !!

I come back to my point that it would be helpful if we were all "singing from the same hymn sheet". Because we (civil and military) share airspace, we both need to know what the other guy is doing or likely to be doing.

From the civil pilot's point of view, it would be useful to be able to find published information such as: what is a RPFL? what is a run-in-and-break and where is the initial point? How fast may military traffic be flying below (say) 3000'? What is the lowest level we may come across a military on a low-level exercise as the civil 500' Rule does not apply? Why does a military aircraft call "Finals" when it actually is only late downwind? and so on ...

Before you rush to your keyboards, I know the answers will probably be found in this forum - maybe even within this thread - but the point is that such information should be freely, openly and officially available to ALL interested parties - purely in the interests of safety.

Is there any good reason why the relevant parts of JSP 550, 552, etc cannot be made freely available in the same way as the ANO and Rules of the Air are? As we are, freedom of information is very one-way ...

JD

[chevvron]

To military pilots (to whom military ATCO's appear to be subservient) a MATZ IS controlled airspace, and they complain like hell if someone flys through without calling and gets in THEIR way in THEIR sky.

[Jumbo Driver]

To military pilots (to whom military ATCO's appear to be subservient) a MATZ IS controlled airspace, and they complain like hell if someone flys through without calling and gets in THEIR way in THEIR sky.

chevvron, I don't know whether this is fact or purely conjecture on your part. However, if it is the case, then there are either two sets of rules or the military pilots in question need to be disabused of their misapprehension, in the interests of safety.

I would echo my previous post and say that in any event it would be helpful to know how the relevant JSP describes a MATZ and MATZ procedures as they apply to the military pilot.

Without such openness, one side is permanently working in the dark.

JD

[chevvron]

My statement is based on personal experience. I've frequently had to explain to military pilots that a light aircraft 'in their way' is perfectly entitled to be where he is and not in communication with anyone because it's class G airspace. This holds true whether they're experienced TP's or first tourists training at an OCU.
Regretfully, my unit no longer has a 'need' for JSP 552 (previously JSP 318a) so I can't quote chapter and verse; I do remember however, there was a quote in '318a along the lines that a MATZ only exists when the airfield it surrounds is open for operational flying; perhaps one of our military friends could elucidate?

[WorkingHard]

London Mil, I was just illustrating that very point about statistics can be "massaged" to support what you want. The figures I had (cant find them just now) were supplied by a very helpful chap at the CAA about 2 years ago.
Regardless of what thy may or may not support we all need more information about each users use of common aispace. I did ask earlier "Talking of exemptions; do all mil aircraft have exemption from the 250k limit below 10000 and if so why? I can understand this on excercise but does it apply to transits?" this and other questions from you mil guys but do not seem to have had any specific answers.

[Jumbo Driver]

... this and other questions from you mil guys but do not seem to have had any specific answers.

WH, I think they are busy on another thread defending the oval circuit against the square circuit - and trying not to talk about RIABs ...


JD





WIWOL ... ;)

[London Mil]

WH, to answer your question re 250kts, yes they have an exemption. I presume it is becuase the aircraft are designed to fly at 400-500kts (because that makes military sense) and to fly at less than 250kts is possibly/probably not an option (unless you have gear and flap down!). Some of these things fly a final approach at 220!

[WorkingHard]

Thanks LM. Is that a blanket exemption? I can understand the FJs and high speed on execise but what about transits, what about the trainers, what about ?? etc.

[chevvron]

Other points from JSP 318a: Instructions from ATC to a military pilot in a MATZ are mandatory (thus effectively making it Radar Control)
Aircraft wishing to transit a MATZ are to be (or possibly should be - I can't remember) permitted to cross on their required track, although their height may be varied.
WH: It's not an exemption; military aircraft are simply not bound by the '250kt below 10000' rule

[gasax]

Nothing around here transits at less than 250 kts. That's why there are so difficult to spot. The guys we have spoken to (Jaguar OCU) say they plan everything in multiples of 60 knots. So for them 360 was the usual speed, increasing when approaching the ranges or whatever their objective was.

So 6 miles a minute, you'd be doing well to spot a grey machine against the background at anything over 4 miles. They have made the arithmetic easy - you've got 40 seconds and they can approach you from any direction.

Thankfully you are in their forward view for all of that time.

[chevvron]

Last 2 Jags I worked (no NOT that 2-Jags!) showed a groundspeed of 470kt on my radar!(transitting Biggin - St Athan at 2000 to 4000ft)

[DFC]

The CAA don't allow that actually. :)

Whether mil are allowed to fly in excess of 140KIAS with 1500m viz "VFR" in class F/G I know not, but civil traffic regulated by the CAA cannot.

(B)
Below FL 100
5km flight visibility
1500 m horizontally from cloud
1000 ft vertically from cloud.

(C)
At or below 3000 ft
As in (B) above or:
for Fixed wing aircraft
5 km flight visibility
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

for Fixed wing aircraft operating at 140kt or less
1500 m flight visibility
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

for Helicopters operating at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

(My bolding)


It highlights to me that despite many posters here (and elsewhere) who insist Air Law is boring and irrelevant, quite a few people have no idea about a lot of aspects of Air Law ;)


Aircraft A, clear of cloud, in sight of surface , 1500m visibility, 120Kt, VFR at 2400ft.

Aircraft B, opposite direction, clear of cloud, in sight of surface, 1500m visibility, 240Kt, IFR at 2400ft.

The fact that the collision is IFR/VFR makes no difference. ICAO say that in order to permit VFR in such visibilities, the speeds should be limited or the posibility of an encounter with another aircraft low.

The posibility of the above is high below the London TMA and also high in a MATZ or AIAA.

Only UK PPLs / CPLs have the 3K restriction, all other JAA PPL or CPL licence holders can fly to the airspace limits as can all IR holders.

So yes Russle, the CAA do allow that.

Just because you do not understand does not make it irrelevant. :D

Regards,

DFC

[Final 3 Greens]

DFC

When controllers in France speak only in English, then maybe we should worry about your pedantry.

I can think of one example when the former was likely a contributing factor to a fatal crash and none of the latter.

[DFC]

DFC
When controllers in France speak only in English, then maybe we should worry about your pedantry.
I can think of one example when the former was likely a contributing factor to a fatal crash and none of the latter.

You won't get the latter in France because IFR flights must cruise above 3000ft. That is the whole idea.

In respect of the first, you are required to use the language of the station you are addressing when you call. If you can't use that language then English will do. That is the international requirement currently. Thus, I think you will find that the actual situation is that it is no fault but your own if you operate in France, can't understand French and don't feel comfortable with other pilots who are abiding by the ICAO rules and addressing the station in the language of that station (and receiving a respose in the same language).

Regards,

DFC

[Final 3 Greens]

DFC

Read my post again.

Then read the accident report between the Air Lib MD and the SD360 at Paris, making special note of the recommendation on page 60.

http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/g-wn000525a/pdf/g-wn000525a.pdf

Then engage brain and try again.

[DFC]

DFC

Read my post again.

Then engage brain and try again.

VMC minima only apply in the air. That is the report on a ground collision.

If a PPL on a MATZ transit colllides with an aircraft on the ground then I think other factors will come into play beyond the simple did they call on the appropriate frequency or not.

Feel free to contribute to the debate regarding flight in Class G airspace in areas that are Termed locally as a MATZ.

Aircraft infringing the runway while another is taking off is a separate debate.

Regards,

DFC

[Final 3 Greens]

DFC

My point is that there are pressing real world issues, which have caused real incidents and which, in my opinion, are more concerning that your scenario.

Now if you wish to disagree with me, you are perfectly entitled to, but I believe that you have a fixation on salami slicing at times.