A polite reminder...

[tmmorris]

...that military airfield ATZs are H24 even if the airfield is apparently 'closed' and you can't get a reply on the radio.

While club duty pilot recently at 'ours' there were a couple of infringements - in one case the pilot called on the radio without receiving reply so then flew through the ATZ. Probably she thought it was OK, as at a civilian airfield if the airfield is closed the ATZ disappears. Not so at a military one, I'm afraid.

Not a big deal but worth remembering - we had circuit traffic at the time...

Thanks,

Tim

[Ryan5252]

Not trying to detract to from the infringement as your post is valid. However, I wonder if you could answer a question from a newbie (a PPL with less than a year's experience)?
Is it a common occurrence for the radio to be unmanned at a military airfield especially considering an active circuit? Also, you mention there were previous infringements; was radio contacted attempted in those cases also?

Thanks
Ryan

[jollyrog]

You had circuit traffic, all with radios I presume and you're able to say that the infringer was a female? Clearly, one of you heard her, on a radio.

You're not helping your own case here.

[kharmael]

Military airfields operate using UHF radio. If particularly busy then the tower controller may be manning both VHF and UHF and not have time or opportunity to reply on VHF as quickly as one might be used to. :ok:

[BEagle]

The VHF / UHF issue is irrelevant.

The hours of operation of UK military aerodromes should be publicly available in the UK Mil AIP. But that has now been hidden behind some dumb MoD sick-urity firewall....:hmm: So how are people expected to know the official hours of operation?

Anyway, some military aerodromes may have RAF Flying Club activity and/or Air Cadet flying activity outside their normal hours of operation. If these aerodromes (e.g. Benson) have an ATZ, then you may not enter it without permission. If the resident Flying Club is operating, even though they may be making normal RT calls in the circuit, they cannot approve ATZ entry.

Aerodromes such as Abingdon and Little Rissington, neither of which have ATZs, may have Air Cadet gliding activity. The only avoidance you are required to observe is the same as for any normal civil gliding site - although in the not-too-distant past Little Rissington seemed to think it was Heathrow at times...

[englishal]

Is it normally nescessary to fly so low as to go through the ATZ? I would route over the top of say Boscombe Down but normally at 3k +.

[batninth]

Agree with Ryan, an infringement is an infringement, but wouldn't a military base be NOTAMed if there was a UAS or similar active?

Also I have seen NOTAMs declaring a military airfield closed, I think it was over Easter that Leeming, Topcliffe et al were closed. So does the H24 rule apply then?

[BEagle]

Also I have seen NOTAMs declaring a military airfield closed, I think it was over Easter that Leeming, Topcliffe et al were closed. So does the H24 rule apply then?

Yes. It applied even when Brize Norton was having its runway resurfaced.... In fact even the Class D CTR was still 'active', despite the fact that the RW was unavailable...:rolleyes:

[UAV689]

At our gliding club when we hear an a/c calling the military station we are based at and don't get a reply 99% of the time the a/c declares it's intentions. If it is likely to conflict when transmit a polite notice reminding the atz is active and there are gliders and cables to 3000ft, that normally does the trick.

[Halfbaked_Boy]

UAV689,

You wouldn't happen to operate from Marham would you? :)

[flybymike]

It has been my understanding that "permission" is not required in order to enter an ATZ, merely that one should satisfy oneself (usually by radio but perhaps by telephone) that it is safe to do so. Is this not the case for military airfields?

[mrmum]

It has been my understanding that "permission" is not required in order to enter an ATZ, merely that one should satisfy oneself (usually by radio but perhaps by telephone) that it is safe to do so. Is this not the case for military airfields?

fbm

No, not really, it depends whether the ATZ in question has an ATC service or AFIS or Air/Ground Radio. For anywhere which has notified ATC, you need permission, I would think most military airfields provide an ATC service. See quote below from rule 45, rules of the air.


Flights within aerodrome traffic zones
45.—(1) Paragraphs (2) and (3) shall apply only in relation to those aerodromes described in Column 1 of Table 3 as are notified for the purposes of this rule and at such times as are specified in Column 2 of the Table.
Table 3
Column 1 Column 2
(a) A Government aerodrome
At such times as are notified
(b) An aerodrome having an air traffic control unit or flight information service unit
During the notified hours of watch of the air traffic control unit or the flight information service unit
(c) A licensed aerodrome having a means of two-way radio communication with aircraft
During the notified hours of watch of the air/ground station
(2) An aircraft shall not fly, take off or land within the aerodrome traffic zone of an aerodrome unless the commander of the aircraft has complied with paragraphs (3), (4) or (5), as appropriate.
(3) If the aerodrome has an air traffic control unit the commander shall obtain the permission of the air traffic control unit to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the zone.
(4) If the aerodrome has a flight information service unit the commander shall obtain information from the flight information service unit to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the zone.
(5) If there is no flight information service unit at the aerodrome the commander shall obtain information from the air/ground communication service to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the zone.
(6) The commander of an aircraft flying within the aerodrome traffic zone of an aerodrome shall—
(a)cause a continuous watch to be maintained on the appropriate radio frequency notified for communications at the aerodrome; or
(b)if this is not possible, cause a watch to be kept for such instructions as may be issued by visual means; and
(c)if the aircraft is fitted with means of communication by radio with the ground, communicate his position and height to the air traffic control unit, the flight information service unit or the air/ground communication service at the aerodrome (as the case may be) on entering the zone and immediately prior to leaving it.

[tmmorris]

Thanks all for replies - interesting to see the views expressed...

BEagle like me operates from a RAFFCA club though in his case they have CAS as well. He's quite right, though - we monitor the radio but we can't approve access to the ATZ (how would we do that? illegal air to air comms or illegal unlicensed ground to air?). Fair enough, we were aware of her presence and indeed callsign (and anyway I could read the reg with binos from the clubhouse). I'm not interested in busting her - no useful purpose would be served - hence the reminder on here.

It seems to be a bit of Air Law that many people forget after the exam, that's all.

Tim

[UAV689]

Halfbaked_Boy - a little to the south, glide from What-a-shame

Normally once a week we get an a/c calling up, no reply from station (as they are closed) and then stating they are going to motor through the overhead, the polite reminder really works as soon as you tell the the ATZ is active and that there are 5mm steel cables going up to 3000ft they normally scarper sharpish.

The calls that say they are cutting through a MATZ stub we tend to ignore, far enough away not to be at risk of getting cut in half by a cable.

[2 sheds]

I'm not interested in busting her - no useful purpose would be served - hence the reminder on here.



It seems to me that you are on rather dodgy ground even suggesting that. What exactly would you suggest that she did wrongly? She actually displayed appropriate airmanship and yet the aerodrome operator failed to provide a radio-based service of any level in support of its ATZ and the relative legislation.

2 s

[Whopity]

illegal air to air comms I am not aware of any law that prohibits air to air communication; it may not be normal and frequencires are seldom allocated for this purpose in the UK, but it is not illegal!

[flybymike]

fbm

No, not really, it depends whether the ATZ in question has an ATC service or AFIS or Air/Ground Radio.

Ah yes of course. Thanks for the reminder. I was forgetting about ATZs with full ATC.

[dublinpilot]

If the ATZ is subject to ATC, but there is no ATC present at the time, how do the local based gliding clubs get a clearance to operate in it at those times :confused:

How is a form of controlled airspace allowed without an ATC'er on duty to control it? :confused:

[BillieBob]

It is quite simple:

1. The ATZ of a government aerodrome is active at such times as are notified (usually H24).

2. It is a breach of Rule 45 to take-off, land or fly within the ATZ without the permission of the relevant air traffic control unit.

3. If the relevant ATC unit is closed and it is not possible to obtain permission to fly within the ATZ then to do so is a breach of Rule 45.

4. Get used to it.

Locally based operators operate with the permission of the ATC unit although the unit may be closed at the time of operation. Rule 45 does not say that permission must be sought by radio.

[UAV689]

Please can everyone be aware that cables go up a long way, the highest I have had is 2850 ft, that is nearly 1000ft higher than the ATZ we operate in. If you see a glider site on your map beware of this.

Also glider/tugs combos normally go to a minium of 2000ft agl, quite often more

Sorry for thread creap.

[BillieBob]

ap -and what, pray tell, does para 1(b) have to do with a government aerodrome?

[tmmorris]

Exactly. Herein lies the confusion and the need for reminder.

IAW para 1(a) a military ATZ is active at the notified times (almost always H24) whether or not the ATSU is manned. This means it differs from 1(b) and 1(c) which is why para 1(a) is there in the first place.

I learned to fly at a normal civil airfield but I learned this doing Air Law. When I moved to a club at a military airfield I discovered not everyone had done the same. It's not something we at the club or RAF have made up...

Tim

[kharmael]

ATZ or MATZ?

MATZs go up to 3000ft AAL.

[mad_jock]

MATZ are class G airspace which the MIL have no control over and through contacts have rigged it so they think are controlled airspace.

The more people ask for a transit get refused and give them the hey ho going on route the sooner that pish gets put to bed. Get the QFE off them to keep yourself legal and ignore the over controlling.

I will grant you some units are the top dogs not requiring such tatics but your like's of lossie don't even entertain them.

[BEagle]

You want to try Wallingford Intergalactic Spaceport! Bumbling along on a simple VFR navex which entered their MATZ, but remained clear of their ATZ, I was given 'instructions' which would probably have made LHR's controllers blush.

I then asked for the London QNH, because our destination (White Waltham) was below the London TMA. "YOU SHOULD BE FLYING ON THE QFE!!" came the 'reply'.....:\ Which was a bit of a surprise - all I'd wanted was some basic aeronautical information and I certainly hadn't said that I intended to change the altimeter setting inside their precious MATZ.

But the top prize for military overcontrol went to Carterton Field several years ago - I'd advised them that I would be passing through the overhead at FL50 climbing FL100 (for high-rot spinning). The top of the Class D CTR is 3500ft amsl, but they tried to control my activity at least 2000 ft above them. So they got mad_jock's "Hey-ho, squawking 7000, QSY en-route" treatment....:hmm: I also considered turning off Mode C at the zone boundary, but thought that a bit too childish even for me!

They're much better these days though.

[BillieBob]

Get the QFE off them to keep yourself legalA MATZ has no legal status for civil aircraft. Whilst it is clearly good airmanship to contact the controlling ATC unit and to obtain/fly on the same setting as military aircraft using the same airspace, there is no legal requirement to do so. "In the airspace outside the Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ), observation of MATZ procedures is not compulsory for civil pilots." [AIP ENR 2-2].

For this reason, and notwithstanding CAP 413, I will never 'request' a MATZ penetration. I will call the relevant ATC unit, obtain the QFE and 'inform' them of my intentions - these may, of course, change depending on any traffic information that they might provide.

[mad_jock]

qfe is asked for to avoid the ATZ if flying overhead

[englishal]

One is quite capable of adding aerodrome elevation to QNH to transit on QNH ! I always plan my flights via QNH, probably because I learned in America where if the airport elevation is 6500' it is a little tricky to wind to the QFE. Besides flying a circuit at 7500 is exactly the same as at 1000'....

[mad_jock]

And so is this one as well

But one can't be bothered dealing with the powers that be arguing the toss about no qfe being mentioned on the tape when its availabe.

[Jumbo Driver]

Back to the original question from tmmorris, surely if there was circuit traffic on the frequency at the time, it would have been sensible to simply mention to the "intruder" that the ATZ was active, then she would have been able to arrange her flight without infringing the ATZ.

As jollyrog has already pointed out, to hear such a transmission yet not respond with the obvious relevant safety information, is surely neither helpful nor, in reality, good airmanship?

The hours of operation of UK military aerodromes should be publicly available in the UK Mil AIP. But that has now been hidden behind some dumb MoD sick-urity firewall.... So how are people expected to know the official hours of operation?

With regard to the hours of Service of a particular military ATZ, I think you will find the table at UK AIP ENR 2.2 (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=4&Itemid=11.html) pages 2-2-2-1 to 2-2-2-5 promulgates precisely this information in column 3.


JD
:)

[BillieBob]

....to hear such a transmission yet not respond with the obvious relevant safety information, is surely neither helpful nor, in reality, good airmanship?By the same token, to enter a military ATZ, notified as H24, without having received permission is neither good airmanship nor, in reality, legal. Or is it no longer reasonable to expect a pilot to abide by the Rules of the Air?

[Jumbo Driver]

By the same token, to enter a military ATZ, notified as H24, without having received permission is neither good airmanship nor, in reality, legal. Or is it no longer reasonable to expect a pilot to abide by the Rules of the Air?

Yes, I agree totally - I wasn't taking sides ...

JD
:)

[BEagle]

Jumbo Driver, many thanks for that - I'd forgotten that table!

Quite why the MilAIP is no longer available on line is a mystery though. Most people would reasonably expect to look for aerodrome details under...'aerodromes'.

[tmmorris]

As it happens, she did get a reply from an aircraft in the circuit. I forbore to mention this because of course direct air-to-air communication is frowned upon, and I certainly wasn't going to use the handheld transceiver to set myself up as an a/g station.

And no, the original comment had nothing to do with MATZs (on which I tend to agree with the comments made, especially as I was ticked off for setting QNH on departure the other day rather than QFE...)

Tim

[Maoraigh1]

"of course direct air-to-air communication is frowned upon,"
Is it? I would never do it on an active manned ground station frequency, and never chat, but when using an airfield frequency, knowing there is no active manned ground, I would respond to any other aircraft.
eg ATC notammed closed for period, but taking off with out-of-hours indemnity, and passing military traffic tries to contact ATC. Respond that they are closed until xx.xx after no response to several calls.

[madlandrover]

I will grant you some units are the top dogs not requiring such tatics but your like's of lossie don't even entertain them.

That's perhaps the most important bit. MATZ "clearances" aren't mandatory but I would view them as good airmanship, certainly round here where the local MATZ is often full of rotary traffic on UHF which controllers will make a positive effort to move away from any civvy traffic transiting. For the record Shawbury have never turned me down and have always been accommodating - even with student RT. They do have an obsession with not converting QNH to QFE but one can always renegotiate...

They've also been quite sensible in the past - a friend on a CPL training trip got "controlled" in IMC, with a firm suggestion to help his student avoid the Tornado Diamond 9 coming the other way.....!

[Jumbo Driver]

That's perhaps the most important bit. MATZ "clearances" aren't mandatory but ...

That's rather the point - for a civil pilot, a MATZ Penetration Service can only ever issue an "approval" - the controlling ATSU has no authority to issue a "clearance" to a civil pilot. It follows therefore that entry to the non-ATZ part of a MATZ cannot be denied to a civil aircraft, unlike military aircraft to whom MATZ instructions are mandatory.

Rather a dog's breakfast ...

For civil pilots, UK AIP ENR 2.2 (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=4&Itemid=11.html) pages 2-2-3-1 to 2-2-3-3 contain all the details.

In particular, altimeter settings normally used within a MATZ are described in para 2.6 on page ENR 2-2-3-2.


JD
:)