Please call before entering a MATZ...

[tmmorris]

I know you don't have to, but please do. It's only sensible.

This may or may not have anything to do with the PA28 who flew through the MATZ at Benson at 1338 local this afternoon at the same level as I was trying to join...

[chevvron]

talkdownman would you care to comment before me?

[Talkdownman]

What, and quote the UK IAIP ? In the airspace outside the Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ), observation of MATZ procedures is not compulsory for civil pilots.Nah, after you Old Boy...

MATZs are Indian Territory...where Cherokees ambush...

[chevvron]

All I can add is that in my limited experience of Benson, they seem to think their MATZ is a RMZ for civil aircraft as well as military, however it's always a good idea to call the 'controlling' authority to advise them of your intentions not to get 'clearance' through the MATZ.

[Talkdownman]

The UK IAIP is absolutely clear:

civil recognition of a MATZ is not mandatory

[85mel]

His point was that it would be helpful!

[jollyrog]

Dear military, please be there at weekends to answer when I call to enter your MATZ.

[chevvron]

They ARE there at weekends but only answer 120.9 if there is operational helicopter flying in progress, the MATZ then being deemed to be active. If there is no reply after 3 calls on the 'official' MATZ transit frequency, the MATZ is deemed to be inactive however the ATZ will be active so steer clear.
If you really must call them at weekends, try tower on 127.150 or approach (non radar) on 130.250.

[Rod1]

"Dear military, please be there at weekends to answer when I call to enter your MATZ. ":D

[jollyrog]

chevvron - my point being that GA pilots are encouraged to use the services of the military (LARS and MATZ penetrations), but their operating hours are a mystery and not published anwhere that we have easy access to. We therefore waste our time calling three times on published frequencies, only to give up and revert to plan B.

Happy to communicate, but why don't they just tell us in the AIP when we can expect an answer?

If the North Koreans are reading this, Sunday is a very good day to invade. The RAF are all down the pub.

[dublinpilot]

Why can't you go into an ATZ at the centre of a MATZ?

I know everyone says stay out, and ATC will tell you the same, but isn't it just an ATZ? You need to know the traffic inside, and then you should be allowed in?

[BillieBob]

Nothing to prevent you going into an ATZ at the centre of a MATZ provided, of course, that you comply with Rule 45.

[chevvron]

'cos UK Legislation says you can't except when you have 2 - way contact and either have permission from ATC or sufficient traffic information from FIS or A/G to enable you to transit safely. Most military airfields have an ATZ active H24.

[tmmorris]

Thanks 85mel - precisely. I am perfectly aware RT contact before entering a MATZ isn't required. But it is sensible - particularly in an area of high traffic density with a recent-ish fatal midair.

And before anyone says it yes, I know the Benson-based aircraft was at fault in that midair. That doesn't make it any less sensible to be in touch with the ATC unit.

Tim

[flybymike]

'cos UK Legislation says you can't except when you have 2 - way contact and either have permission from ATC or sufficient traffic information from FIS or A/G to enable you to transit safely. Most military airfields have an ATZ active H24.
And why are they H24 when there is no one there to provide either permission or information and thus no one can use the (presumably vacant) airspace?

[chevvron]

How about to enable them to open at any time if there is a national emergency of some sort eg QRA at places like Coningsby and Leuchars.

[tmmorris]

Why are they H24? Security?

It does at least mean you have an easy legal charge to throw at someone who takes too close a look, without proving espionage.

[Talkdownman]

So how does the poor old Wallop MATZ 'controller' cope whilst the CAA's IN–2013/059 encourages pilots operating within 7NM of the lateral limits of the Solent CTA boundary to monitor Solent Radar frequency 120.225MHz and to select the Southampton/Bournemouth Frequency Monitoring Code...

[soaringhigh650]

Here is yet another thread that shows complete mis-understanding about uncontrolled Class G airspace. :ugh:

As has been written many times already, if you want all traffic to be known apply for Class D. Or C or B if you can get it. :E.

[tmmorris]

So, would you enter a notified AIAA without contacting the nominated frequency/frequencies?

(Oh, and, no, it doesn't. I refer you to my original post. I am fully aware a MATZ is class G.)

[avonflyer]

Normally I wouldn't enter an AIAA without contacting the nominated authority after all why not talk to them? It's not a big task. BUT, around here they do make it difficult for us sometimes with (for example) Brize disappearing at 17:00 hrs and Yeovilton appearing to never be there on Friday afternoons.

[DeeCee]

I cannot understand why you would not contact the appropriate military controller, even if you are over the top or going through. For example, if you were flying up (or down) the eastern side of the UK each area will hand you off to the next. A change of squawk and there you go. Radar cover and a peaceful flight. Try it and see. Safety and comfort. Why would anyone in their right mind want to do anything different.

[kharmael]

I know, why don't we not bother to indicate when driving? It's not against the law and if anyone else runs into us it's their fault! :D

Then we can listen to all those pedants asking us to indicate when we clearly don't need to and they should mind their own business and get off their high horses. :D

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

So, would you enter a notified AIAA without contacting the nominated frequency/frequencies?

Yes, why ever not? It's an Area of Intense Aerial Activity, not a no-fly zone. Some areas of Class G without the Military traffic are just as intense.

Eyes wide open, gob shut, and get on with it.:ok: (oh, and Txpdr on so anyone interested can see ME). This way the frequency doesn't get swamped with useless babble like London Info on a sunny Sunday.

[flybymike]

I am not aware of any "nominated frequencies" for entering an AIAA (which can be a pretty vast area) and which requires no formal entry procedure whatsoever.

[Talkdownman]

AIAAs - Radar video map clutter, chart clutter, and a waste of printing ink. Many parts of UK Class G can be much more of an area of intense aerial activity than a depicted AIAA designed at the whim of one military officer. Level of intensity doesn't stop leaving the area at that dotted line. It might actually increase. Total delusion.

MATZs rarely contain the associated IAPs. One size certainly doesn't fit all. They are not even treated consistently by the military ATSUs themselves. It's total delusion that they afford any protection. The fact that recognition and compliance is optional completely renders the procedures as not robust. This devalues the whole concept of a MATZ. Again, radar video map clutter, chart clutter, and a waste of printing ink. If the military want sensible protection go and get a proper surveyed Class D CTR, alternatively play the Class G game the same as everybody else has to.

Such anachronistic and useless military figments should be removed from civil charts and the UK (civil) IAIP.

[ShyTorque]

As a pilot who spent almost two decades flying various military aircraft, almost all of it at low level, and having afterwards spent another nineteen years, mainly in UK flying non-military aircraft for my living, when flying in an AIAA there has never been a requirement to call any agency in particular.

Depending on where you fly, there are often more relevant agencies to call.

Depiction of these areas on the charts is only to advise pilots that they may see more military aircraft than elsewhere. Thirty years ago there was far more military aviation taking place, and it might have been more meaningful then, but no-one has ever "controlled" these areas.

[Talkdownman]

Depiction of these areas on the charts is only to advise pilots that they may see more military aircraft than elsewhere
Too vague and speculative. Not robust. What are the parameters? Might see one aircraft instead of zero? Might see two aircraft? Wow. That can happen anywhere. AIAAs cannot be reliably predicted. Depicting such areas on a civil chart is pointless, especially with no 'controlling' authority. There are plenty of other locations deserving the description 'area of intense aerial activity', far more so than an arbitrary military 'play' area. We need robust, uncluttered depiction of regulated airspace, not depiction of 'might possibly be on odd occasions' airspace. Hardly surprising that people can't see the wood for the trees and infringe CAS. DAP has a moral responsibility to ensure that these charts are much clearer and less cluttered. It can start by deleting AIAAs and MATZs. If the MATZ units require a known traffic environment they should secure regulated airspace and manage it correctly. Mucking around with optional 'MATZ penetration procedures' is never going to provide any security. It's Indian country out there, one has to look where one is going or, if one can't see where one is going, get some radar assistance. Alternatively stay on the ground. Whingeing on here about other pilots going about their lawful business is futile.

[2 sheds]

Talkdownman
Excellent posts - agree entirely.
2 s

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi, although it is quite legal to fly into an AIAA or MATZ remaining 'Radio Silent', I always think it is nice to be in radio contact with someone at all times. Then, heaven forbid if the engine stops, a quick press on the PTT
is all that is required to get your position plotted, for any rescue attempts.

Also those ground stations are good for basic information such as weather conditions, wind speed and direction, and many other tit-bits of news.

[mad_jock]

yep that's what they want.

But linked in with various other threads which are linked to the current state of affairs of ATS in class G.

Pilots are becoming less and less inclined to talk to anyone that there is a chance that they are going to get into discussions with about refusing co-ordination due to controlling in uncontrolled airspace. Not for any benefit for the pilot concerned but more to meet rules which the unit and other airspace users decide are required for their safe operation.

But the ATS providers will state its bad airmanship etc etc for the pilots not to talk to them and do as they are told.

Which is in the same book as far as I am concerned as lady Gaga complaining that people look at her tits.

[ShyTorque]

Which is in the same book as far as I am concerned as lady Gaga complaining that people look at her tits.

While I agree with most things you've written on this subject ....surely this is more like Lady Gaga complaining that pilots don't want to play with her tits? :)

[2 sheds]

I always think it is nice to be in radio contact with someone at all times. Then, heaven forbid if the engine stops, a quick press on the PTT
is all that is required to get your position plotted, for any rescue attempts.
Really?

2 s

[ShyTorque]

As long as you pass the exact lat/long while you press the "tit" (oops, there's that word again), that might work.... then again... :oh:

[tmmorris]

I had no idea MATZs generated such heat. Talkdownman, while I respect your point of view as I understand you are an ATCO, I think you need to think about why MATZs were inventd. Perhaps the good intentions of MATZs are actually counterproductive, but I don't think the world would become a better place if they were all replaced with class D, though with the return to Tutor flying and the promised arrival of Odiham's Chinooks, Benson might well feel it was justified.

It reminds me of the Right to Roam debate...

[Talkdownman]

At least, with regulated airspace, we would all know where we stand.

Perhaps the Odiham Chinooks going to Benson would like to take their MATZ with them...then that would make some more space for Farnborough's proposed Class D...

[thing]

Here is yet another thread that shows complete mis-understanding about uncontrolled Class G airspace. :ugh:

As has been written many times already, if you want all traffic to be known apply for Class D. Or C or B if you can get it. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif.

Well if one movement a century Norfolk and Doncaster can get it then I'm sure mil airfields could. Personally, for the sake of simply pressing the button on the yoke I would rather know if a Typhoon was up my chuff than not know. But, as Talkdown says, it's not mandatory and apparently we should all exercise our right to utter silence.

[mad_jock]

I think you need to think about why MATZs were inventd

So RAF pilots would actually do what RAF controllers told them to do instead of ignoring them?

And we can see what the RAF think about air safety by the simple fact they block access to their AIP unless you pay for it.

[tmmorris]

There's been no announcement about the future of Odiham, so you'll probably get your way as it may well close. (As far as I know, anyway.)

[DX Wombat]

Whilst doing my PPL and since, I spent a lot of time flying around Shawbury and would always contact them. I have found the controllers there most helpful and their unfailing patience and politeness with some people has never ceased to amaze me. I always felt somebody was looking out for me. (Don't worry, I still maintained my usual lookout). It was in complete contrast with a civil airfield not too far away whose controllers' reputation for their attitude towards small GA was, to put it mildly, anti-GA, and on one occasion involving myself, resulted in a phone call of the tea-no-biscuits type by the CFI. The CFI had been sitting next to me and there was nearly a CFI-shaped dent in the roof of the poor little C152.

[Steve6443]

Whilst doing my PPL and since, I spent a lot of time flying around Shawbury and would always contact them. I have found the controllers there most helpful and their unfailing patience and politeness with some people has never ceased to amaze me. I always felt somebody was looking out for me. (Don't worry, I still maintained my usual lookout). It was in complete contrast with a civil airfield not too far away whose controllers' reputation for their attitude towards small GA was, to put it mildly, anti-GA, and on one occasion involving myself, resulted in a phone call of the tea-no-biscuits type by the CFI. The CFI had been sitting next to me and there was nearly a CFI-shaped dent in the roof of the poor little C152.

Oh go on, tell us more.... got my tea and biscuits.... garibaldi this morning.... however there's nothing decent in the papers, not even Lady Gaga's much vaunted tits.....

[thing]

Got to say apart from one place which shall remain nameless I've always found mil controllers very good and helpful. You do however get the odd miserable bugger on the civvy side. You get to recognise their voices and when you've swapped to their frequency and heard who's on you tend to think 'Nah. listening squawk today.'

Edit: Strange thing is I spent twenty odd years on gliders before I did my PPL and never spoke to anyone whilst bimbling around the country; now I like to be speaking to someone. I did a flight recently where apart from speaking to my own tower which is pretty mandatory and speaking to the strip at the other end I stayed off the transmit button. Just to see what it felt like, obviously I wasn't crossing any CAS. Felt a bit odd TBH.