Matz Crossings
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,114
Likes: 1,088
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
All this arguing about what to say! Sounds like hard work to me.
Next time I get to fly solo, if one ever gets in my way I'll just switch mode c off and go through. Mind you, my chart is so far out of date most of them have probably closed by now.
Next time I get to fly solo, if one ever gets in my way I'll just switch mode c off and go through. Mind you, my chart is so far out of date most of them have probably closed by now.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
From: England
Whilst there are no special qual's required to receive a RIS, the criteria for calling 'conflicting' traffic is vastly different between RIS and FIS. An a/c is in receipt of a RIS and is advised of traffic as it is going through a patchy area of Wx/Cloud, the then more worried than normal GA dude/dudess, then shakily asks for an update. Dutiful ATC then offer a RAS to try and provide that warm and fuzzy feeling. Unsure GA dude/dudess accepts thinking this is a good idea. Vectors then take him into IMC/IFR. Very unfuzzy feeling all round, no?
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
From: UK Home Counties
Next time I get to fly solo, if one ever gets in my way I'll just switch mode c off and go through. Mind you, my chart is so far out of date...
(You were joking weren't you...??)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 1
From: On the wireless...
If you don't call you won't have to worry about what to say.
Let's face it, a MATZ is not worth the paper it is depicted on, they don't completely protect the procedural IAPs, especially the cumbersome 'pan-handles'. A 'Government aerodrome' ATZ cannot contain a fast-jet circuit. If military operations are that desperate for protection why not give them a simple 5nm radius Class G Rule 45 ATZ and be done with it. The current MATZ dimensions and recognition are a joke as far as civil users are concerned.
I'm staggered that such a military-only requirement ever found its way into a civil AIP. The over-'control' by military ATSUs, especially outside their so-called MATZs/CMATZs/pseudo Class D, is becoming an infringement upon civil liberties. The sooner they learn to correctly provide the different air traffic services to civil aircraft the better. The 'my plane is bigger/faster than yours, get out of the way' mentality is outrageous. On FIS just pass VFR flights the flippin' traffic information. It's not difficult. What on earth are they teaching at Shawbury these days?
Let's face it, a MATZ is not worth the paper it is depicted on, they don't completely protect the procedural IAPs, especially the cumbersome 'pan-handles'. A 'Government aerodrome' ATZ cannot contain a fast-jet circuit. If military operations are that desperate for protection why not give them a simple 5nm radius Class G Rule 45 ATZ and be done with it. The current MATZ dimensions and recognition are a joke as far as civil users are concerned.
I'm staggered that such a military-only requirement ever found its way into a civil AIP. The over-'control' by military ATSUs, especially outside their so-called MATZs/CMATZs/pseudo Class D, is becoming an infringement upon civil liberties. The sooner they learn to correctly provide the different air traffic services to civil aircraft the better. The 'my plane is bigger/faster than yours, get out of the way' mentality is outrageous. On FIS just pass VFR flights the flippin' traffic information. It's not difficult. What on earth are they teaching at Shawbury these days?
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,114
Likes: 1,088
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
(You were joking weren't you...??)
Moderator
Joined: Jul 1997
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 3,231
Likes: 21
From: Europe
The over-'control' by military ATSUs, especially outside their so-called MATZs/CMATZs/pseudo Class D, is becoming an infringement upon civil liberties.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
From: Up, up and away
No need to bother switching off the mode C - you're perfectly entitled to fly in a MATZ without talking to anyone.
If you do that keep your mode C on, that way the RAS traffic will be vectored around you.
If you do that keep your mode C on, that way the RAS traffic will be vectored around you.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From: Swanwick
TDM
Whilst I agree with a lot of what you are saying (I have always been a firm opponent of over controlling - it was how I was trained) I could take exception at your comments.... are all Mil ATCOs painted with your same over control broad brush? I hope not!
Could bite further but not going to
DD
Whilst I agree with a lot of what you are saying (I have always been a firm opponent of over controlling - it was how I was trained) I could take exception at your comments.... are all Mil ATCOs painted with your same over control broad brush? I hope not!
Could bite further but not going to
DD
Last edited by Diddley Dee; 20th April 2008 at 22:32.
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,114
Likes: 1,088
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
No need to bother switching off the mode C - you're perfectly entitled to fly in a MATZ without talking to anyone.
If you do that keep your mode C on, that way the RAS traffic will be vectored around you.
If you do that keep your mode C on, that way the RAS traffic will be vectored around you.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Scampton
I just wish PPL's would remember that Lyneham and Brize are class D.
How often do you hear them calling Brize and Lyneham asking for a MATZ crossing! Maybe the controllers should ask them which MATZ they would like to cross?
Surely the PPL syllabus you covers airspace classification?
How often do you hear them calling Brize and Lyneham asking for a MATZ crossing! Maybe the controllers should ask them which MATZ they would like to cross?
Surely the PPL syllabus you covers airspace classification?
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 1
From: On the wireless...
If you are asking if it is permissible to transit a MATZ without contact then, yes, you may, provided that you are a civil aircraft and that the (Rule 45) ATZ is avoided. See:
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/cu...ENR_2_2_en.pdf
It is permissible to overfly a MATZ VFR without contact provided that one is in Class E, F or G airspace.
It is permissible to overfly a MATZ IFR without contact provided that one is in Class F or G airspace.
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/cu...ENR_2_2_en.pdf
Civil recognition of a MATZ is not mandatory, pilots are to comply with the provisions of the current Rules of the Air Regulations in respect of the ATZ. The notified hours of operation of an ATZ may vary from the notified hours of watch of a MATZ.
It is permissible to overfly a MATZ IFR without contact provided that one is in Class F or G airspace.
