Skirting Around ATZs & MATZs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skirting Around ATZs & MATZs
Question for the UK based CA pilots out there... those of you who skirt the various ATZ & MATZ's dotted around the country, often by the smallest of margins (1/2 mile in some cases I've seen). without contacting ATC or the AGS?
Realise, and totally accept, you're often flying in unregulated Class G airspace etc, so are not mandated to use the radio; but its hardly best practice for you and other airspace users, so why do it?
The Challenge to you... give me a reasoned explanation, if there is one? "Because we can"... unacceptable.
Realise, and totally accept, you're often flying in unregulated Class G airspace etc, so are not mandated to use the radio; but its hardly best practice for you and other airspace users, so why do it?
The Challenge to you... give me a reasoned explanation, if there is one? "Because we can"... unacceptable.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And your point is?
Come on Pierre, what has rattled your cage?
You do know that you can even go INSIDE the MATZ (not ATZ) without anybody's permission!
Shock horror!
You do realise that even after talking to ATC/A/G the onus is on you to see and avoid?
Come on Pierre, what has rattled your cage?
You do know that you can even go INSIDE the MATZ (not ATZ) without anybody's permission!
Shock horror!
You do realise that even after talking to ATC/A/G the onus is on you to see and avoid?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You do know that you can even go INSIDE the MATZ (not ATZ) without anybody's permission!"
and, if the airspace is "active" - then really become an idiot looking for a place to happen. Don't encourage them FD! KISS & be safe
However I agree - does look like a case of "drinkin&typin"
and, if the airspace is "active" - then really become an idiot looking for a place to happen. Don't encourage them FD! KISS & be safe
However I agree - does look like a case of "drinkin&typin"
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Because you can' is a perfectly acceptable reason. It is why many people learn to fly in the first place. To quote Dickie Bach, "Problems for overcoming, freedom for proving and, as long as we believe in our dreams, nothing by chance."
It is only excercising our freedom. Also, if we don't excercise our freedom we won't notice when it is taken from us.
Another point which fewer an fewer pilots are aware of is how little you actually need a radio and how relaxing flying is without it!
It is only excercising our freedom. Also, if we don't excercise our freedom we won't notice when it is taken from us.
Another point which fewer an fewer pilots are aware of is how little you actually need a radio and how relaxing flying is without it!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pierre Argh - For many of us unregulated Class G is the norm. and talking to someone on the radio MAY offer nothing except increase the cockpit workload. There are many places with a MATZ and ATZ which may not want to talk to you. Try talking to most military establishments after 1700hrs on a Friday and see what response you get. Now in the open FIR see and avoid is for ALL, not just the private flyers. We have equal access to this airspace and as Miserlou so rightly said "It is only excercising our freedom. Also, if we don't excercise our freedom we won't notice when it is taken from us"
Try just flying and talking to no one and see what a pleasure it can be.
Try just flying and talking to no one and see what a pleasure it can be.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is how much you avoid it by - you mention half a mile, but if that is to close so is a mile and so on.
There are many of us who feel there is already too much controlled air space, without it growing by an additional grey zone around it, when the zone already has a protective shell.
There are many of us who feel there is already too much controlled air space, without it growing by an additional grey zone around it, when the zone already has a protective shell.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Challenge to you... give me a reasoned explanation, if there is one? "Because we can"... unacceptable.
How would you like the police to pull you over when doing 28mph in a 30 zone, because you were getting a bit near the limit?
So why should the PPL community justify complying with air law?
Do you have a pilot's licence?
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll give you a good reason....
Because we don't want to clutter up the radio unnecessarily.
I used to fly from Welshpool, in Class G airspace. I remember as a new pilot, almost having to do a goaround, because some PPL made a quite unnecessary radio call to say he was in the area but outside the ATZ. Did any of us actually care? No.
Now, I fly from Sleap, inside Shawbury's MATZ. It's sometimes hard enough to get a word in edgewise on Shawbury's frequency when you're inside the MATZ or need to be, never mind having people who aren't there butting in too.
So let's leave the radio for people who NEED it.
Is that good enough for you?
Because we don't want to clutter up the radio unnecessarily.
I used to fly from Welshpool, in Class G airspace. I remember as a new pilot, almost having to do a goaround, because some PPL made a quite unnecessary radio call to say he was in the area but outside the ATZ. Did any of us actually care? No.
Now, I fly from Sleap, inside Shawbury's MATZ. It's sometimes hard enough to get a word in edgewise on Shawbury's frequency when you're inside the MATZ or need to be, never mind having people who aren't there butting in too.
So let's leave the radio for people who NEED it.
Is that good enough for you?
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick read of the ANO and Air Law should assist M. Pierre to understand.
NB flying along the appropriate outside boundary of class D (say Leeds) or class A (London) is OK too.
Its Class G, Radio Comm Requirement = No; ATC clearance = No. Even if you talk to them, Separation Provided = Nil.
NB I would add that I normally talk to everybody I pass if I can get a word in. But then, thats just me being friendly.
h-r
NB flying along the appropriate outside boundary of class D (say Leeds) or class A (London) is OK too.
Its Class G, Radio Comm Requirement = No; ATC clearance = No. Even if you talk to them, Separation Provided = Nil.
NB I would add that I normally talk to everybody I pass if I can get a word in. But then, thats just me being friendly.
h-r
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somerset England
Age: 62
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quite like on occasions to potter about with a student in Class G and not have to worry about ATC. But come on folks if you take this to the extreme why not go and fly in circles on Exeters instrument approach because its class G and to quote "because you can"
Even with a PPL I would have liked to have seen a little more consideration here, "because you can" is not a valid excuse. We try and train to a professional standard for gods sake act like one
Its called Airmanship I believe, just because its legal really dosen't make it safe.
Even with a PPL I would have liked to have seen a little more consideration here, "because you can" is not a valid excuse. We try and train to a professional standard for gods sake act like one
Its called Airmanship I believe, just because its legal really dosen't make it safe.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SURREY, U.K.
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some MATZ are also Class D..... Enter without a clearance at your peril....!!!
Good Airmanship dictates that to go to the limit is pushing your luck. I accept that the law is quite specific, and I take the point about speeding in a car. However, the 30MPH limit that you refer to is a MAXIMUM limit, and good driving dictates that sometimes 28MPH is too fast for the conditions.
How close is close?
If the aircraft is pottering along at say 50kts there is more chance that no infringement/conflict is likely. However, if you are tooling along at 130kts then perhaps a bigger margin of clearance is needed, and that 2nm may be too close.
I think there is no easy answer to this one.
Cheers
Good Airmanship dictates that to go to the limit is pushing your luck. I accept that the law is quite specific, and I take the point about speeding in a car. However, the 30MPH limit that you refer to is a MAXIMUM limit, and good driving dictates that sometimes 28MPH is too fast for the conditions.
How close is close?
If the aircraft is pottering along at say 50kts there is more chance that no infringement/conflict is likely. However, if you are tooling along at 130kts then perhaps a bigger margin of clearance is needed, and that 2nm may be too close.
I think there is no easy answer to this one.
Cheers
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft skirting the ATZ, and crossing the climb out lane of the runway use without talking to us is an all too common occurance in our neck of the woods.
It frequently leads to delays for inbound and outbound aircraft, today two had to be held on the runway for 5 and 7 minutes respectively (a B737 and a A320) and a B757 and a F100 had to be given an extended routing of 10 and 8 extra miles onto the final approach, simply because aircraft were crossing the climb out/final approach lane at ranges of between 2.5 and 8 miles and not talking to us.
This is not unusual.
I accept that outside the ATZ it's the open FIR and you're perfectly entitled to transit without calling, but if you make a habit of this, you have absolutely no idea of the problems you cause.
One call will establish where you are, what your intentions are, and what height you are, without this information we are required to provide considerably more separation to inbound and outbound IFR aircraft, additionally other VFR aircraft have extra workload put upon them.
The "because we can" attitude is about as unhelpful as you can get, it also demonstrates a standard of airmanship which casts a sad reflection on G/A.
It frequently leads to delays for inbound and outbound aircraft, today two had to be held on the runway for 5 and 7 minutes respectively (a B737 and a A320) and a B757 and a F100 had to be given an extended routing of 10 and 8 extra miles onto the final approach, simply because aircraft were crossing the climb out/final approach lane at ranges of between 2.5 and 8 miles and not talking to us.
This is not unusual.
I accept that outside the ATZ it's the open FIR and you're perfectly entitled to transit without calling, but if you make a habit of this, you have absolutely no idea of the problems you cause.
One call will establish where you are, what your intentions are, and what height you are, without this information we are required to provide considerably more separation to inbound and outbound IFR aircraft, additionally other VFR aircraft have extra workload put upon them.
The "because we can" attitude is about as unhelpful as you can get, it also demonstrates a standard of airmanship which casts a sad reflection on G/A.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Niknak - yes I agree.
I see I had also not properly read the question. Whilst I think you should work as close to the edge of a ATZ as you wish, I also think you should inform the controller of your intentions, particularly when crossing the localiser.
Practically why do it - well it may enable a quicker routing - avoiding ATZs often adds significantly to the length of your journey without having to give ATZs and even wider birth. Personally, if it suites the routing I will ask for a zone transit - it is very rarely refused, however I do remember as a newish PPL that seemed quite a big deal.
I see I had also not properly read the question. Whilst I think you should work as close to the edge of a ATZ as you wish, I also think you should inform the controller of your intentions, particularly when crossing the localiser.
Practically why do it - well it may enable a quicker routing - avoiding ATZs often adds significantly to the length of your journey without having to give ATZs and even wider birth. Personally, if it suites the routing I will ask for a zone transit - it is very rarely refused, however I do remember as a newish PPL that seemed quite a big deal.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked hard for the privilege of a PPL it cost me a lot of money, part of what I learned was to exercise consideration. So, if my course brings me close to a MATZ why not ease the minds of those controlling that space by letting them know that I know what I'm doing and if I want to penetrate their Zone why not politely ask permission and if they have some huge plane coming in at the same time, well OK, its no major problem for me to turn. SO come on guys lets not push our weight around, forcing a giant jet to divert just cos we legally can is bad manners.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of my major safety concerns is unknown aircraft skirting the Eastern edge of the London City Control Zone at 2400ft. When EGLC are departing 10, especially in high temperatures, aircraft barely make their SID levels, and occasionally fly just outside controlled airspace on their way to 3000ft. Without going into the possible reasons for this, I do not think it is fair and reasonable for airliners with fare paying passengers on board to be put at potential risk from light aircraft not talking to Thames Radar, skimming the edge of CAS just because "they can". Such actions are not good airmanship in my humble opinion.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sympathetic to Niknak's perspective: it's a game of give and take. For class D and similar I think its OK to skirt controlled airspace but ordinarily think good airmanship indicates you should be in contact with relevant ATSU. In return though I would hope to get a useful service from the ATSU concerned, at least FIS, ideally with radar cover as well, which makes it a good trade, as it were.
I think ATZs for small airfields (i.e. non-Class D) are a differnt kettle of fish altogether: it may help your situational awareness, and that of others, to be in contact with e.g. say Wycombe TWR when passing by, but don't imagine you will be able to hear all local traffic on the frequency - so keep your eyes open too
!! There typically isn't the same sort of risk here as eluded to by Niknak.
MATZ's are different: if you are sufficiently familiar with the working habits of your local MATZ zones then you might be fogiven for trundling through (e.g. weekends), but there are sometimes when the MIL are doing their thing at unexpected times so it's worth a call - what does it cost? I operate from a MIL airfield quite a lot and can assure you that just because you haven't heard or seen it, it doesn't means something big and fast or unexpected is not there! Just because something is not mandatory doesn't mean there is no rationale for it's existence... I reckon if we behave as if MATZ are not there at all, then there is a danger that one-day some bureucrat might decide they should be "upgraded" to something more restrictive!
Like others, I wouldn't necessarily want to see any less Class G. But if offered a useful trade - like Class E in the US which is like Class G when VMC prevails, but useful for IFR separation when IMC prevails and in which - if one wants it - you can get a proper, coherent radar service... well, I'd be all for that! Hell may freeze over first of course...
Andy
I think ATZs for small airfields (i.e. non-Class D) are a differnt kettle of fish altogether: it may help your situational awareness, and that of others, to be in contact with e.g. say Wycombe TWR when passing by, but don't imagine you will be able to hear all local traffic on the frequency - so keep your eyes open too
!! There typically isn't the same sort of risk here as eluded to by Niknak.MATZ's are different: if you are sufficiently familiar with the working habits of your local MATZ zones then you might be fogiven for trundling through (e.g. weekends), but there are sometimes when the MIL are doing their thing at unexpected times so it's worth a call - what does it cost? I operate from a MIL airfield quite a lot and can assure you that just because you haven't heard or seen it, it doesn't means something big and fast or unexpected is not there! Just because something is not mandatory doesn't mean there is no rationale for it's existence... I reckon if we behave as if MATZ are not there at all, then there is a danger that one-day some bureucrat might decide they should be "upgraded" to something more restrictive!
Like others, I wouldn't necessarily want to see any less Class G. But if offered a useful trade - like Class E in the US which is like Class G when VMC prevails, but useful for IFR separation when IMC prevails and in which - if one wants it - you can get a proper, coherent radar service... well, I'd be all for that! Hell may freeze over first of course...
Andy
Guest
Posts: n/a
Niknak
With the very greatest of respect, PPLs are not responsible for planning airline ops in class G.
One could take the view that planning this type of operation and then criticizing GA traffic for exercising its legal right to operate in the area is the equivalent to a stealth tax.
Airlines don't pay VAT on fuel and we do, so please don't expect too much sympathy from me if the poor darlings have to fly a few more miles - they may be your customers, but they are not mine and your commercial considerations should not impact on me.
On the occasions that I spoke with a certain ATSU in SE England, to advise them of my intentions, the response I got was often brusque, unhelpful and occasionally plain rude. The individuals there who indulged in that behaviour probably also spoke to others, who probably also decided to talk to someone else too.
Also, please remember the basic tenets of airmanship taught to all PPLS - aviate, navigate and communicate, in that order.
With the very greatest of respect, PPLs are not responsible for planning airline ops in class G.
One could take the view that planning this type of operation and then criticizing GA traffic for exercising its legal right to operate in the area is the equivalent to a stealth tax.
Airlines don't pay VAT on fuel and we do, so please don't expect too much sympathy from me if the poor darlings have to fly a few more miles - they may be your customers, but they are not mine and your commercial considerations should not impact on me.
On the occasions that I spoke with a certain ATSU in SE England, to advise them of my intentions, the response I got was often brusque, unhelpful and occasionally plain rude. The individuals there who indulged in that behaviour probably also spoke to others, who probably also decided to talk to someone else too.
Also, please remember the basic tenets of airmanship taught to all PPLS - aviate, navigate and communicate, in that order.