Dimensions of ATZ within MATZ

[Arfur Feck-Sake]

Can anyone confirm the height of the ATZ within a MATZ? Is it 2000' for the ATZ with a further 1000' of MATZ above it?

As an add-on question, does MATZ Penetration approval include the ATZ or not?

Thanks in advance.

[Chilli Monster]

1) ATZ are standard size, so yes, 2000ft aal

2) Interesting question. A MATZ transit tends to imply ATZ transit unless specifically told not to (or given a routeing outside). Lakenheath I believe will specifically say "remain outside the ATZ". So much easier when the associated ATC unit is closed - then you DO have to remain outside the ATZ.

[Monkey Madness]

Can anyone confirm the height of the ATZ within a MATZ? Is it 2000' for the ATZ with a further 1000' of MATZ above it?

Correct.

does MATZ Penetration approval include the ATZ or not?

IMHO Yes & No.

Under either a Procedural or Radar service the controller will instruct the a/c to cross the MATZ at a specified height on a specified route (to maintain standard seperation). If this route takes you through the ATZ then you have been cleared. If not, then you can't change track and fly through, so the answer would be no.

If , outside published hours, no radio contact is established with the controlling auth of the MATZ after 2 consecutive calls, the MATZ may be penetrated with caution, but the ATZ is to be avoided.

MM

[Talkdownman]

"In the airspace outside the ATZ, observation of MATZ procedures is not compulsory for civil pilots."
"Pilots are reminded that an ATZ usually lies within the MATZ and, where applicable, a MATZ penetration approval will implicitly include any necessary approvals/clearances to transit the associated ATZ. Where a MATZ penetration approval cannot be issued, pilots are advised to avoid the MATZ, notwithstanding any action necessary to maintain the safety of the aircraft and/or its occupants."
Source:
http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/enr/2020203.PDF

[stillin1]

"In the airspace outside the ATZ, observation of MATZ procedures is not compulsory for civil pilots."

Correct. However, you are a raving idiot to ignore the MATZ at an active mil airfield.:=

[Gertrude the Wombat]

However, you are a raving idiot to ignore the MATZ at an active mil airfield.:=
Seriously antisocial, certainly. But they've got radar, they'll divert anything that might have run into you and send the taxpayer the (large) bill. Surely? (Oh, you do always have mode C set don't you.)

[Pub User]

they've got radar, they'll divert anything that might have run into you

In the visual circuit? Are you insane?

[Il Duce]

And without actually speaking to the unit concerned, how is one to know if the radar is working or not?????????

[stillin1]

Il Duce & Pub User,
I pray that Gertrude the Wombat was being somewhat cryptically ironic:cool:
That or the lunatics are really out in daylight these days:(

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Yeah, forgot the smilely again, sorry.

[NorthSouth]

Quote:
they've got radar, they'll divert anything that might have run into you

In the visual circuit? Are you insane?No, not in the visual circuit. Even FJs don't normally go beyond 2.5nm in the visual circuit so they're inside the ATZ. Some mil controllers will no doubt jump down my throat but I get the impression that most are reasonably relaxed about minor infringements of the MATZ. Vast majority of mil traffic inside a MATZ is on a RIS anyway, unless it's horrid weather in which case there's no unknown VFRs around anyway.
NS

[Single Spey]

minor infringements of the MATZ


Pray do tell how as a civilian pilot I can infringe something that I don't have to reognise?:ugh:

[London Mil]

Because they can't tell whether you're mil or civil. I have some sympathy with the rather opinionated view of a previous poster. Regardless of the rules, it is rather intriguing that a pilot would willingly choose to transit through a MATZ without making contact because 'he could'. It seems to me that it is just like flying 3nm NE of Cranfield at 1000ft whilst they are practicing instrument approaches - not clever.

[BEXIL160]

Just to play devils advocate here, I note that the final approach track of Cranfield is drawn on my half mil chart by a 6 mile long "feather" (as are most other instrument final approach tracks at airfields in class G)

They're marked like that so Mr. PPL and other users of class G can (sensibly...... well you live in hope, don't you?) avoid them.

Now given that a previous poster mentioned that even MIL FJ traffic stays within the ATZ, why does the UK Mil, (and the UK alone) insist on the need for a MATZ? :confused: Why not just mark the ATZ and the instrument approaches with feathers??

BEX;)

[NorthSouth]

Pray do tell how as a civilian pilot I can infringe something that I don't have to reognise?Oh that's easy - simply by flying inside it. Just because you don't recognise it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's down to common sense really. Why wouldn't you talk to them?
NS

[FougaMagister]

When flying x-country, one should always try to be in contact with some ATS unit. That helps prevent some silly mistakes - and getting a large fine (or your ticket pulled) for infringing some controlled/restricted/dangerous/prohibited airspace.

As far as MATZ are concerned, a quick call to request transition shows good airmanship and does wonders for your situation awareness. If you call the station in question while still far out and request Flight Information Service, they tend to clear you through the MATZ (and sometimes, the ATZ) as well. They might even give you a squawk. At least they know you are monitoring their frequency and not just someone who might inadvertently bust their airspace.

It's like on-board navaids: there is no point in having a VHF box and not tuning it.

We should be grateful: accross the Channel, they don't have MATZ; air bases are simply within controlled airspace (generally Class D), therefore you HAVE to call them for transition.

Cheers :cool:

[stillin1]

FougaMagister
I agree wiv wot he said:ok:
Good airmanship, common sense & a highly tuned sense of safety are piloting traits that are to be admired.
The "I can so I will" attitude is how we can demonstrate that Darwin knew a thing or two:E
The big sky theory is attractive but fundamentally flawed:uhoh:

NorthSouth,
"Even FJs don't normally go beyond 2.5nm in the visual circuit so they're inside the ATZ. Some mil controllers will no doubt jump down my throat but I get the impression that most are reasonably relaxed about minor infringements of the MATZ. Vast majority of mil traffic inside a MATZ is on a RIS anyway, unless it's horrid weather in which case there's no unknown VFRs around anyway"

Not really. -
FJs routinely fly "emergency procedure" circuits that take them more than 2.5 nm from the airfield datum point (from which the ATZ is based) = PFLs, flapless, simulated assymetric etc, as well as leaving the Vis cct to go to initials in order to allow some mate to fly a big pattern cct whilst preserving seperation for subsequent ccts.
Very simplistically - If VFR there is no RIS required in the MATZ, If IFR - we are on a radar app.

If some plonka blunders into the MATZ whilst I am bashing ccts, there is a serious risk that I could clobber em. ATC may not be able to tell me in time that there is a confliction, I am working tower not Radar:D

Why not just KISS - talk to ATC well before trying to kill us just cos the rules say you are allowed to?

[2 sheds]

"Now given that a previous poster mentioned that even MIL FJ traffic stays within the ATZ, why does the UK Mil, (and the UK alone) insist on the need for a MATZ? Why not just mark the ATZ and the instrument approaches with feathers??"

From my experience, because many pilots think that the only area of confliction is that encompassed by the "feather", with no thought as to how the aircraft get there. More to the point to provide civil aerodromes with IAPs in Class G with a defined area akin to a MATZ.

[BEXIL160]

:ok:More to the point to provide civil aerodromes with IAPs in Class G with a defined area akin to a MATZ.

Which would be a Class D Zone n'est pas?

Again I'm playing devil's advocate, and this isn't nessessarily what I believe (but some people DO).

There are those that have had experiences of some MATZs being operated by certain units as if they WERE a CLass D CTR, but that is another story.

Not sure about this "you MUST speak to an ATSU" all the time attitude either. Quite a lot of aeroplanes and gliders manage quite well without a radio at all.

Mandating carriage and use in Class G would be eroding a freedom of such airspace and I'm not sure would garner universal support.

However if LARS is available and you're suitably equipped, you really should make that call.

As I mentioned, lots of devil's advocate stuff above.... :ok:
BEX

[2 sheds]

Not quite sure how firmly your tongue was in your cheek, Bexil, with the comment about Class D CTR. There are cases where a CTR would be unnecessary, but a better defined "area of confliction" would be useful - to avoid transitting pilots' first calls at 1500 ft at 6nm final or 5nm from the aerodrome conflicting with the radar downwind leg, which apparently they consider is OK just because they are not in the "feather" area.

Yes, I was also concerned about the statement that "when flying x-country, one should always try to be in contact with some ATS unit" - quite unnecessary in many circumstances if the flight is conducted sensibly, and has no basis in law (non-radio?).

[BEXIL160]

[which apparently they consider is OK

Ahem, under the existing rules for class G, it is quite okay.

A good idea though? Patently not.

But it is Class G, and telling people what they can and cannnot do in Class G, especially when VFR is fraught with difficulties. The airspace is shared between ALL users. (The military are VERY hot on this point. To them it's "free air")

Not very satisfactory I'll grant you, from an ATC Approach radar point of view, but hey, that's what happens in "Injun country".

Perhaps drawing a typical radar pattern, or the (nil wind)procedure track would be an idea? The half mil is cluttered enough as it is.
BEX

[2 sheds]

"Ahem, under the existing rules for class G, it is quite okay."

Indeed, that was my point - it's legitimate but unhelpful. If most pilots are going to establish communication to transit the area anyway, it would useful if there were a practical indication of the area of potential confliction, similar to a MATZ, instead of the feather notation which is of limited value.

[anotherthing]

Bex

you make a good point regarding the argument that if they stay inside the ATZ, why have a MATZ.

However the nature of the type of flying that is undertaken by the mil is probably enough to warrant a MATZ to afford extra protection to A/C that are often quite a handful to fly and are usually fairly quick, fairly well camouflaged and fairly small (hence difficult to see).

At a busy Mil airfield there is a good argument that the MATZ protects both the transit A/C and the military one. Especially if there happens to be a lot of Mil IFR recoveries happening.

Although it is essentially class G and can be ignored, to do this smacks of very poor airmanship.

MATZ crossings are usually very easy to arrange if you speak to the LARS controller at the airfield, and if someone chooses to fly in the vicinity of such an airfield, they would be reckless and stupid to not at least call LARS for a FIS at the minimum. Mil controllers are on the whole, very good at maintaining an ident even on A/C that are under a FIS (often, they will identify them for their own piece of mind, and will often allocate a squawk, even under a FIS).

I know that you are saying some of your things to continue the discussion and to elicit points of view, so my replies above, are not meant as a reply solely to you, but just my tuppence worth on the subject!

I do think that there are some Mil airfields out there that probably do not require a MATZ status anymore, as they are a lot quieter than they used to be.

If in doubt, always call the unit concerned. Poor flight planning should not occur, even in civil recreational aviation.

[Single Spey]

Mil controllers are on the whole, very good at maintaining an ident even on A/C that are under a FIS (often, they will identify them for their own piece of mind, and will often allocate a squawk, even under a FIS).



But it is Class G, and telling people what they can and cannnot do in Class G, especially when VFR is fraught with difficulties.


There seems to be a growing tendency for mil controllers to over control VFR traffic on FIS. On several occasions when flying VFR and receiving a FIS from a military Aerodrome I have been given instructions not to operate in certain areas so that they can release IFR traffic.

Hypothetically speaking, what would be the repercussions if I received a MATZ crossing (not penetrating the ATZ) but was then instructed to follow a flight path that I chose not to, and advised the controller that I was cancelling the crossing although still within the MATZ airspace?

clear you through the MATZ (and sometimes, the ATZ) as well. They might even give you a squawk. At least they know you are monitoring their frequency and not just someone who might inadvertently bust their airspace.

Dear FougaMagister, since when has the Class G airspace that makes up the MATZ been 'their airspace'? Now if you called it 'airspace in which the military are able to provide an Air Traffic Service to all users' I might agree with you.

[FougaMagister]

You are talking semantics. When I mentioned "their airspace" I didn't mean the MATZ - which as you correctly said, is uncontrolled - but the ATZ itself. Put yourself in the ATCO's shoes: he/she sees a plot squawking 7000 and not on his/her frequency approaching the MATZ on a crossing course; who is to say that aircraft is not going to bust the ATZ?

Being in contact with them is also of benefit to you - that's the idea behind situation awareness. Of course you are entitled not to talk to anyone while crossing a MATZ; whether it's a good idea is another matter. Being in your right will not help a lot when faced with, say, 15 tonnes of Tornado trying to avoid you at 250+ kts :uhoh:

[Single Spey]

Being in contact with them is also of benefit to you - that's the idea behind situation awareness. Of course you are entitled not to talk to anyone while crossing a MATZ; whether it's a good idea is another matter. Being in your right will not help a lot when faced with, say, 15 tonnes of Tornado trying to avoid you at 250+ kts


IIRC there is a speed limit in UK airspace of 250kts below 10,000ft, and although this excludes the Low Flying System, it still applies inside a MATZ.;)

[stillin1]

There is a speed limit in UK airspace of 250kts below 10,000ft, and although this excludes the Low Flying System,
it still applies inside a MATZ
Oh no there ain't (exempt):= &
Oh no it don't:=:
FougaMagister, welcome to the :ugh: club!
Death by semantics rules OK. On no account should common sense / the facts apply:(
3.2 Airspace Speed Limit
3.2.1 The Rules of the Air Regulations require aircraft flying below FL100 to observe, with
exceptions, a speed limit of 250 kt IAS. Such a limit is an essential component of the
'see and avoid' principle when separation is not established by ATC. This is in addition
to other speed limits, see below, which may be notified for a specific airspace.
The 250 kt speed limit does not apply to:
a) flights in Class A and B airspace;
b) IFR flights in Class C airspace;
c) flights in Class C and D airspace when authorised by an air traffic control unit;
d) test flights in accordance with specified conditions;
e) aircraft taking part in flying displays when authorised by the CAA;
f) aircraft subject to a written permission granted by the CAA;
g) aircraft not subject to the Air Navigation Order (e.g. Military aircraft).

[tired-flyboy]

Stillin1

The rules you mention are generally geared towards aircraft in the cruise.

For example at EGQL the speed limit for a joining aircraft was not in excess of 250kts. (low level they were flying about 380 - 420kts)

I think that you'll find the circuit speed for a GR4 is about less than 250kts. ( i could be corrected)

[Pierre Argh]

Way back at the begining of this thread Chilli Monster says... So much easier when the associated ATC unit is closed - then you DO have to remain outside the ATZ If he is alluding to the typical Mil ATZ H24 annotation, then what he says is not quite true. The H24 is given to allow flexibility for ops outside published hours, but it is assumed that the ATZ collapses when the airfield is closed.
This is spelt out to Mil pilots (IIRC) in the Mil AIP, where is says something like this - the (ANO) requirement to remain clear of an ATZ does not apply outside published hours, pilots are to be aware that there may be activity outside these time, and if no response to RT calls is received to proceed with caution (approx - do not quote). Where "operating hours" has been taken to be the A/F published hours and NOT the H24 that is published

The CAA generally frowns upon airspace reservations that precludes entry to the airspace simply because there is no radio operator on duty - the ATZ is, afterall to protect a/c in the vacinity of an airfield, not provide a noise abatement zone over the MQs!. Why this advice seems to be only in the Mil AIP and has not crossed over to the Civ equivalent (as far as I know) is a puzzle... or maybe it isn't?

[Chilli Monster]

If he is alluding to the typical Mil ATZ H24 annotation, then what he says is not quite true. The H24 is given to allow flexibility for ops outside published hours, but it is assumed that the ATZ collapses when the airfield is closed.

But, if you follow the meaning of Rule 45 then it is true for civil operators - and until the notified period is changed from H24 then entering the ATZ without the presence of an ATC unit to permit it is still technically a breach of the regulations.

It's understandable to a certain extent. Military aerodromes can and do open at odd times, often not NOTAM'd. It is therefore easier to make the area "exclusion by default" from a flight safety perspective. Being only a small area in itself it's not really a problem - you can guarantee that EGNV (for example) wanting to keep their class 'D' whilst being closed for SCRATCOH would be a whole different matter by dint of the size of the area involved.

[stillin1]

tired-flyboy
fraid not mon brave.
My F J Ops experience for the last 3 decades =
Cruise at .6-.8 mach / 360 / 500 kts below 10k in class G (we are exempt - full stop).
I have NEVER joined at Leuchars at 250 kts or less (unless after a birdstrike / Hyd failure / other systems failure). You would get laughed off of the Sqn:O
Vis run in and break 420 -450
Set up for low level PFL 250 - 450 kts
re-read the reply - 'Twas not what I generally do = What I can and DO do!!
(a doodoo moment)!
(Tornado normal cct speeds are between 250 and 160ish) from - and I say again..................... a run in and break = 420 - 450kts having cruised home at a lot > 250 kts below 10K :E
PS, I drive em!

[Single Spey]

So to sum things up:

3.2.1 The Rules of the Air Regulations require aircraft flying below FL100 to observe, with
exceptions, a speed limit of 250 kt IAS. Such a limit is an essential component of the
'see and avoid' principle when separation is not established by ATC.

Ok a set of civil rules (which military policy is to comply with in respect of flight safety in so far as they don't affect operational capability)....

(stillin1) I have NEVER joined at Leuchars at 250 kts or less (unless after a birdstrike / Hyd failure / other systems failure). You would get laughed off of the Sqn:O
Vis run in and break 420 -450
Set up for low level PFL 250 - 450 kts

A military ethos which chooses not to follow good practice where flight safety is concerned (when joining a circuit, ATC do not provide separation, it is a visual circuit wherein see and avoid applies)...

but if you suggest not talking to a military unit or asking for a MATZ crossing, neither of which you are legally required to do, then boy do you get some criticism from the 'professional' aviators viz:

stillin1 Good airmanship, common sense & a highly tuned sense of safety are piloting traits that are to be admired.
The "I can so I will" attitude is how we can demonstrate that Darwin knew a thing or two:E agreeing with fougamagister As far as MATZ are concerned, a quick call to request transition shows good airmanship and does wonders for your situation awareness.

You preach an inconsistent line, stillin1.:=