Dimensions of ATZ within MATZ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dimensions of ATZ within MATZ
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.
As an add-on question, does MATZ Penetration approval include the ATZ or not?
Thanks in advance.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London FIR
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
does MATZ Penetration approval include the ATZ or not?
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
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
"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
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
However, you are a raving idiot to ignore the MATZ at an active mil airfield.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Quote:
they've got radar, they'll divert anything that might have run into you
In the visual circuit? Are you insane?
they've got radar, they'll divert anything that might have run into you
In the visual circuit? Are you insane?
NS
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Why not just mark the ATZ and the instrument approaches with feathers??
BEX
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?
Why not just mark the ATZ and the instrument approaches with feathers??BEX
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Pray do tell how as a civilian pilot I can infringe something that I don't have to reognise?
NS
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FougaMagister
I agree wiv wot he said
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
The big sky theory is attractive but fundamentally flawed
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
Why not just KISS - talk to ATC well before trying to kill us just cos the rules say you are allowed to?
I agree wiv wot he said
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
The big sky theory is attractive but fundamentally flawed
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
Why not just KISS - talk to ATC well before trying to kill us just cos the rules say you are allowed to?
"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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More to the point to provide civil aerodromes with IAPs in Class G with a defined area akin to a MATZ.
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....
BEX
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?).
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?).