Matz Penetration And Flight Info Service
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Cambridge,UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matz Penetration And Flight Info Service
Can any military controller give me the definitive answer; if given a MATZ penetration service are you given a Flight Information service by inference?
Hi Jumbo,
The type of service should be mentioned over the RT as this is your "Contract" between pilot and controller. I dont have a copy of JSP552 - JSP318A RIP
to hand right now, but I think it says you must establish the type of service required if the aircraft doesn't say what he wants on his initial call.
Cheers,
LXGB
The type of service should be mentioned over the RT as this is your "Contract" between pilot and controller. I dont have a copy of JSP552 - JSP318A RIP
to hand right now, but I think it says you must establish the type of service required if the aircraft doesn't say what he wants on his initial call.Cheers,
LXGB
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jumbo400
There are only 4 types of ATC service in the UK:
Radar Control (Inside CAS)
Radar Advisory (Outside CAS - IFR Only)
Radar Information (Outside CAS)
Flight Information (Outside CAS)
MATZ penetration is what you want to do - it's not a service.
There are only 4 types of ATC service in the UK:
Radar Control (Inside CAS)
Radar Advisory (Outside CAS - IFR Only)
Radar Information (Outside CAS)
Flight Information (Outside CAS)
MATZ penetration is what you want to do - it's not a service.
Hi Jumbo,
As Chilli so succinctly put it above
. MATZ penetration is not a type of service. You should establish what service you are in receipt of so that you know what your obligations are to the ATC Unit providing it and what to expect from them in return.
LXGB.
As Chilli so succinctly put it above
. MATZ penetration is not a type of service. You should establish what service you are in receipt of so that you know what your obligations are to the ATC Unit providing it and what to expect from them in return.LXGB.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WBS - interesting point and produces the question:
Does the military have a definition for "procedural service" or is it just a Flight Information Service with the controller providing a form of procedural separation?
(I left out "Approach Control Service in my original list because it's purely for aircraft arriving and departing procedurally, as opposed to transits, to which this question referred).
Does the military have a definition for "procedural service" or is it just a Flight Information Service with the controller providing a form of procedural separation?
(I left out "Approach Control Service in my original list because it's purely for aircraft arriving and departing procedurally, as opposed to transits, to which this question referred).
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight digression, but...
Surely it's time for a better definition of the whole MATZ thing. The fact that participation by GA VFR traffic is *optional* is barmy, and anyway military ATCOs seem to regard it as a zone in which they can operate positive control (e.g. I was flying at an AEF on Wednesday and heard approach saying 'Aircraft entering MATZ at 1700ft at such-and-such position, what are your intentions?' followed by 'Aircraft in MATZ at such and such a position, leave the MATZ' - an instruction which surely he is not in a position to give? Didn't work anyway, he wasn't listening!) On the flip side, the aircraft in question was being very silly as the MATZ in question was very busy.
I don't want to encourage proliferation of Class D, but what's wrong with e.g. Class E CTRs or at least mandatory radio contact inside a MATZ?
Tim
Surely it's time for a better definition of the whole MATZ thing. The fact that participation by GA VFR traffic is *optional* is barmy, and anyway military ATCOs seem to regard it as a zone in which they can operate positive control (e.g. I was flying at an AEF on Wednesday and heard approach saying 'Aircraft entering MATZ at 1700ft at such-and-such position, what are your intentions?' followed by 'Aircraft in MATZ at such and such a position, leave the MATZ' - an instruction which surely he is not in a position to give? Didn't work anyway, he wasn't listening!) On the flip side, the aircraft in question was being very silly as the MATZ in question was very busy.
I don't want to encourage proliferation of Class D, but what's wrong with e.g. Class E CTRs or at least mandatory radio contact inside a MATZ?
Tim
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to save this until we got a definition of procedural service, but Tim is thinking along the same lines as me at the moment:
Basic fact 1) Instructions within a MATZ are only mandatory for military aircraft.
Basic fact 2) An ATZ assumes the status of the class of airspace that surrounds it, though Rule 39 defines conditions of entry for ATZ's based on a) who it belongs to and b) type of ATC service provided. All bar 3 Military ATZ's are in class 'G' airspace for which no clearance is required for either VFR or IFR flight. All of the corresponding MATZ's are therefore class 'G'
Bear the above in mind for the following scenario:
Civil aircraft requests MATZ (not ATZ) penetration, showing good airmanship. Controller issues "Procedurally cleared to transit the xyz MATZ at 2000ft". Aircraft complies with this instruction and has mid air with fast jet traffic returning non-R/T.
At the subsequent BOI ATCO is sent to court martial on the basis that he issued a clearance that he was not entitled to issue to a civil aircraft operating quite lawfully in class 'G' airspace. Wording of said clearance lulling private pilot into a false sense of security as to his safety.
As well as being found guilty at the court martial, the victims next of kin sue the controller succesfully in a civil action on the basis of the BOI's findings and the court martials guilty verdict.
WBS - run this one by the ATCEEB when you get back to work. I guarantee a certain amount of head scratching and maybe even the demise of such procedural clearances by the end of the week
Basic fact 1) Instructions within a MATZ are only mandatory for military aircraft.
Basic fact 2) An ATZ assumes the status of the class of airspace that surrounds it, though Rule 39 defines conditions of entry for ATZ's based on a) who it belongs to and b) type of ATC service provided. All bar 3 Military ATZ's are in class 'G' airspace for which no clearance is required for either VFR or IFR flight. All of the corresponding MATZ's are therefore class 'G'
Bear the above in mind for the following scenario:
Civil aircraft requests MATZ (not ATZ) penetration, showing good airmanship. Controller issues "Procedurally cleared to transit the xyz MATZ at 2000ft". Aircraft complies with this instruction and has mid air with fast jet traffic returning non-R/T.
At the subsequent BOI ATCO is sent to court martial on the basis that he issued a clearance that he was not entitled to issue to a civil aircraft operating quite lawfully in class 'G' airspace. Wording of said clearance lulling private pilot into a false sense of security as to his safety.
As well as being found guilty at the court martial, the victims next of kin sue the controller succesfully in a civil action on the basis of the BOI's findings and the court martials guilty verdict.
WBS - run this one by the ATCEEB when you get back to work. I guarantee a certain amount of head scratching and maybe even the demise of such procedural clearances by the end of the week
Now called the ATCEB. I thought the correct phraseology to an ac transitting the MATZ was ' your MATZ penetration approved at 2000ft QFE' ac under a FIS at the time. Also if you give this to a pilot are you inferring that you have identified the ac. A squawk does not mean ident.
OUCH!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM,
I agree that a MATZ is class G airspace and I like your overall thinking regarding the service provided.
However, considering your theory regarding the midair;
IMHO;
1. For IFR flights, they are required to comply with approach control instructions from the time they enter the area of responsibility until such time as the flight is clear of the area and no longer requires a service.
2. VFR flights will never be in IMC
3. When in VMC all flights are required to see and avoid.
4. An ATC clearance is issued in respect of Known Traffic only. i.e. Oxford apprach can clear an aircraft for an NDB approach. If that aircraft has a midair with a VFR guy doing aerobatics non-radio in the letdown area then there can be no blame on the ATCO provided that they had no knowledge of the other aircraft's presence.
So if we compare Oxford (Class G airspace with ATC and IFR procedures) and a Military airfield with exactly the same plus a MATZ, really, what is there to stop a pilot from simply telling the controller what they are doing and requesting an FIS while they do it.
As to levels of service mentioned early on, as far as I am aware, a FIS and Alerting service are provided to every flight in contact with ATS. Thus when the controller says "Flight Information service", I read that back not to confirm that I am getting what everyone gets but to confirm that I am not under any higher form of service.
Regards,
DFC
I agree that a MATZ is class G airspace and I like your overall thinking regarding the service provided.
However, considering your theory regarding the midair;
IMHO;
1. For IFR flights, they are required to comply with approach control instructions from the time they enter the area of responsibility until such time as the flight is clear of the area and no longer requires a service.
2. VFR flights will never be in IMC
3. When in VMC all flights are required to see and avoid.
4. An ATC clearance is issued in respect of Known Traffic only. i.e. Oxford apprach can clear an aircraft for an NDB approach. If that aircraft has a midair with a VFR guy doing aerobatics non-radio in the letdown area then there can be no blame on the ATCO provided that they had no knowledge of the other aircraft's presence.
So if we compare Oxford (Class G airspace with ATC and IFR procedures) and a Military airfield with exactly the same plus a MATZ, really, what is there to stop a pilot from simply telling the controller what they are doing and requesting an FIS while they do it.
As to levels of service mentioned early on, as far as I am aware, a FIS and Alerting service are provided to every flight in contact with ATS. Thus when the controller says "Flight Information service", I read that back not to confirm that I am getting what everyone gets but to confirm that I am not under any higher form of service.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Know where you're coming from, agree with all you say regarding the procedures for inbound / outbound traffic. I work under the same rules when we don't have radar. (Civil LARS unit outside CAS with various instrument procedures).
However - we are talking about MATZ's here (which I've also worked inside), not civil ATZ's so using your example just confuses the issue in question. You only have to remember the recent experiences of 'Spot' Williams to realise my theory closely mirrors the way the military investigative system works
KPax
The example I quoted was heard by me whilst overflying a MATZ in the UK. (Not aimed at me - I was at FL80 at the time!). It seems not everyone is using the phraseology you quote.
Know where you're coming from, agree with all you say regarding the procedures for inbound / outbound traffic. I work under the same rules when we don't have radar. (Civil LARS unit outside CAS with various instrument procedures).
However - we are talking about MATZ's here (which I've also worked inside), not civil ATZ's so using your example just confuses the issue in question. You only have to remember the recent experiences of 'Spot' Williams to realise my theory closely mirrors the way the military investigative system works
KPax
The example I quoted was heard by me whilst overflying a MATZ in the UK. (Not aimed at me - I was at FL80 at the time!). It seems not everyone is using the phraseology you quote.
