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 Mind you, my chart is so far out of date most of them have probably closed by now.

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?

ShyTorque, I like your sense of humour.

(You were joking weren't you...??) :hmm: :rolleyes:

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?

I like your style, Talkdownman ... :ok:

Tin hats on, everybody !!



JD
:)

Having spent 18 years getting paid for flying them from the middle outwards, then another 14 years getting paid for flying from the outside inwards, and there is a little fish at the top of my post with those comments, what do you think is most likely? ;)

Many civil ATCOs are also suffering from the same malaise.

It amounts to incompetence. It's high time the civil and mil 'Trappers' put a stop to it.

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.

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

Yes, but if you leave it OFF you tend to get far better vertical separation. :)

"the trappers should put a stop to it"

:ugh:

The smiley says it all! Oh god, how we tried.

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?

Hey


I will fly in a few weeks from Switzerland to UK VFR.
Now I have a quetsion about MATZ...

Is it possible to overfly a MATZ Zone without contact them?

Thank for help

Regards

Philip

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.