Dimensions of ATZ within MATZ

[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

[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 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]

Originally Posted by Pierre Arghh

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
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
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
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

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.