Permission to enter MATZ
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
From: East Midlands
Clearly, it would be unwise to enter a MATZ without contacting the controlling authority (although I would do so when there is no response from the controlling authority) and even more unwise to carry on through a MATZ when told not do so.
However, the phaseology for MATZ transits is a load of nonsense. Legally, how can something that it is not required to be asked for be denied? What is the point of making a formal request (in the litteral term) for something which we are not required to ask for?
Some of us get excitable on the forums about the FISO or A/G operators who start issuing clearances, even about the GA pilots who asks for instructions at such airfields. The rules and procedures for FISOs, A/G operators and pilots at such airfields are clear (despite some not understaning them!) for good reason. MATZ needs sorting out in the same way, to make responsibilities and authorities clear on both sides (controller AND pilot) by either:
1. Making transit requests mandatory, and approved penetration and crossing subject to positive control
or
2. Doing away with the concept of a MATZ transit "request", and turning it into a LARS-type service where pilots report their intentions (including intent either directly or by implication to cross a MATZ) and then the controller passes information about potential conflicting traffic and leaves pilots to sort their seperation out
Andy
However, the phaseology for MATZ transits is a load of nonsense. Legally, how can something that it is not required to be asked for be denied? What is the point of making a formal request (in the litteral term) for something which we are not required to ask for?
Some of us get excitable on the forums about the FISO or A/G operators who start issuing clearances, even about the GA pilots who asks for instructions at such airfields. The rules and procedures for FISOs, A/G operators and pilots at such airfields are clear (despite some not understaning them!) for good reason. MATZ needs sorting out in the same way, to make responsibilities and authorities clear on both sides (controller AND pilot) by either:
1. Making transit requests mandatory, and approved penetration and crossing subject to positive control
or
2. Doing away with the concept of a MATZ transit "request", and turning it into a LARS-type service where pilots report their intentions (including intent either directly or by implication to cross a MATZ) and then the controller passes information about potential conflicting traffic and leaves pilots to sort their seperation out
Andy
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: Swanwick
Agree entirely with Eastmids 
However
It depends what you want to "talk" to them about. A good analogy with asking for a MATZ clearance would be asking an a/g operator or a FISO for a RAS. It just isn't sensible ..............
However
For the same reason that it is sensible to talk to an a/g operator or an AFISO (they cannot issue "instructions" either").
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
From: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Stripholderloader
As you appear to be in the ATC profession I'll forgive you.
Perhaps an example would enable you to understand my point.
To put it simply:-
Popham has no ATZ, lies in Class G, and has only a/g radio. It does however get busy, and at the last Microlight Trade Fair handled over 500 movements in one day.
Legally you could fly through the overhead at 1500 feet without speaking to anyone. It would however not be a good idea to do so.
Your post said
In answer to your question is, as I said in my post, because it is sensible to do so.
I agree with you that it's not sensible to ask someone for a service they cannot provide (such as asking those nice chaps at Swanwick who man London Information for a RIS, to get your car serviced, or to order you a takeaway curry). However an AFISO or a/g operator can give you traffic information and it would be a good idea to avail yourself of his services, just as it's a good idea to make use of the services available for a MATZ transit.
Mike
As you appear to be in the ATC profession I'll forgive you.
Perhaps an example would enable you to understand my point.
To put it simply:-
Popham has no ATZ, lies in Class G, and has only a/g radio. It does however get busy, and at the last Microlight Trade Fair handled over 500 movements in one day.
Legally you could fly through the overhead at 1500 feet without speaking to anyone. It would however not be a good idea to do so.
Your post said
That's just the point, they can't refuse you so it does beg the question why ask in the first place ?
I agree with you that it's not sensible to ask someone for a service they cannot provide (such as asking those nice chaps at Swanwick who man London Information for a RIS, to get your car serviced, or to order you a takeaway curry). However an AFISO or a/g operator can give you traffic information and it would be a good idea to avail yourself of his services, just as it's a good idea to make use of the services available for a MATZ transit.
Mike
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
From: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Stripholderloader
Quite agree there's no point in asking for a clearance when such a thing does not exist. However since neither your post nor mine mentions the word "clearance" what point is it you think I'm missing?
AIC9/2001 contains the procedure.
It states that "The service will, whenever possible, be based on radar observations and either a Radar Advisory or Radar Information Service will be given."
East Mids
The receipt of a RIS or RAS outside of CAS does not REQUIRE the pilot to comply with advice given, even though in the case of a RAS the advice is passed in the form of an instruction. The fact that the service is being given to an aircraft within a MATZ but outside the ATZ makes no difference to the tems under which it is given compared with any other uncontrolled airspace. (MATS Part1 Chapter 5 sections 1.4 and 1.5 have the details.)
Mike
Quite agree there's no point in asking for a clearance when such a thing does not exist. However since neither your post nor mine mentions the word "clearance" what point is it you think I'm missing?
AIC9/2001 contains the procedure.
It states that "The service will, whenever possible, be based on radar observations and either a Radar Advisory or Radar Information Service will be given."
East Mids
The receipt of a RIS or RAS outside of CAS does not REQUIRE the pilot to comply with advice given, even though in the case of a RAS the advice is passed in the form of an instruction. The fact that the service is being given to an aircraft within a MATZ but outside the ATZ makes no difference to the tems under which it is given compared with any other uncontrolled airspace. (MATS Part1 Chapter 5 sections 1.4 and 1.5 have the details.)
Mike
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: Swanwick
Mike......
I'll tell you what point you are missing................
The point of this thread
Suggest you start from the top again to remind yourself what it is all about
Regards
SHL
However since neither your post nor mine mentions the word "clearance" what point is it you think I'm missing?
The point of this thread
Suggest you start from the top again to remind yourself what it is all about
Regards
SHL
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
From: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
OK, I'll rephrase my question:-
However since neither the original question, your post, nor mine mentions the word "clearance" what point is it you think I'm missing?
Or is "the point of this thread" something other than the original question in the parallel universe that seems to be lurking somewhere just out of my reach?
Mike
However since neither the original question, your post, nor mine mentions the word "clearance" what point is it you think I'm missing?
Or is "the point of this thread" something other than the original question in the parallel universe that seems to be lurking somewhere just out of my reach?
Mike
The Original Whirly
Joined: Feb 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 4,327
Likes: 2
From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Oh for goodness sake, guys.
Usually, when asking for MATZ penetration, at some point you will be told "MATZ penetration approved". If they don't tell you, I'd be inclined to ask again, or just tell them I'm now inside their MATZ. It's polite, it's sensible, and it reminds them. Legally, it doesn't matter one way or the other. But a MATZ is a busy area, with busy controllers, so it's one place where common sense should prevail.
Perhaps that should be the case on this thread too.
Usually, when asking for MATZ penetration, at some point you will be told "MATZ penetration approved". If they don't tell you, I'd be inclined to ask again, or just tell them I'm now inside their MATZ. It's polite, it's sensible, and it reminds them. Legally, it doesn't matter one way or the other. But a MATZ is a busy area, with busy controllers, so it's one place where common sense should prevail.
Perhaps that should be the case on this thread too.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 724
Likes: 24
From: UK
Just to add another haystack to the discussion, when I did my CPL (not all that long ago) it was considered a big no-no to transit a matz without "clearance". To do so constituted a fail of the nav section, so I'm guessing that the CAA are a bit twitchy on the issue.
And another thing...
Well everyone else is doing it
And another thing...
Well everyone else is doing it
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
From: Hampshire
I was interested to read that the incident that sparked this thread involved Boscombe. I too have had to call them for confirmation that they were happy for me to enter the MATZ. They seemed surprised. I agree with Whirly, at least one reminder call is probably appropriate - you did ask for MATZ penetration in the first place, whatever the legal position.
Actions after that depend on the MATZ - a little local knowledge can help. For example, I would probably carry on through the stub of the Boscombe MATZ, but wouldn't dream of ploughing on through the Farnborough MATZ without at least knowing they were watching me and that we in contact - even if a specific clearance had not been given.
Personally though, I find the different procedures applied by different MATZ controllers rather confusing.
HH
Actions after that depend on the MATZ - a little local knowledge can help. For example, I would probably carry on through the stub of the Boscombe MATZ, but wouldn't dream of ploughing on through the Farnborough MATZ without at least knowing they were watching me and that we in contact - even if a specific clearance had not been given.
Personally though, I find the different procedures applied by different MATZ controllers rather confusing.
HH
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,402
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Personally I advise the MATZ 'controller' that the route of my flight will take me through their MATZ, but I will remain clear of their ATZ.....
Many years ago, Benson were infamous for overcontrolling their MATZ. Even for military aircraft! Several times I overflew them at 3050 ft QFE in one of HM's Bulldogs from Abingdon as a consequence - and watched a single Corgi-carrier potter into the circuit.
But Brize, which does NOT have a MATZ but has a Class D CTR, once tried to order me not to fly above FL60 through their 'overhead' - I'd only called them to help them with traffic ientification/avoidance. The Brize CTR has an upper limit of 3500 ft QNH! So I told them that I was continuing my climb to FL100 (the exercise was high-rot spinning which had a mandatory FL100 entry), would squawk 7000 and continue VFR.....
Either controllers recognise legitimate VFR rights or they can expect to be ignored in future!
Many years ago, Benson were infamous for overcontrolling their MATZ. Even for military aircraft! Several times I overflew them at 3050 ft QFE in one of HM's Bulldogs from Abingdon as a consequence - and watched a single Corgi-carrier potter into the circuit.
But Brize, which does NOT have a MATZ but has a Class D CTR, once tried to order me not to fly above FL60 through their 'overhead' - I'd only called them to help them with traffic ientification/avoidance. The Brize CTR has an upper limit of 3500 ft QNH! So I told them that I was continuing my climb to FL100 (the exercise was high-rot spinning which had a mandatory FL100 entry), would squawk 7000 and continue VFR.....
Either controllers recognise legitimate VFR rights or they can expect to be ignored in future!
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
Just a thought, I always wonder why Farnborough is referred to as a MATZ 
in the true meaning.
Of course it was once military, but presumably it is a very long time since it has had any regular military traffic?
in the true meaning.Of course it was once military, but presumably it is a very long time since it has had any regular military traffic?
Odiham has a MATZ, and is "looked after" by Farnboro
Farnboro has an ATZ, and for a few weeks every 2 years a TRA
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
From: Oxford
BEags,
I've had that with Brize before - once told me to route around instead of clearing me through, too, at which I merely responded 'Negative, climbing FL40...'
But then I have a friend, also a pilot, who routinely refers to the 'Brize MATZ', which worries me. I have explained the difference...
Tim
I've had that with Brize before - once told me to route around instead of clearing me through, too, at which I merely responded 'Negative, climbing FL40...'
But then I have a friend, also a pilot, who routinely refers to the 'Brize MATZ', which worries me. I have explained the difference...
Tim
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
From: Hampshire, UK
Hmmm. I too have shared Humaround and Hampshire Hog's experience with Boscombe.
Notwithstanding many valid points made already, the practical situation is the following. Boscombe and Middle Wallop share a CMATZ which finishes a couple of miles from the Solent CTA - itself infamous for refusing GA crossing requests. It's a *long* way round to the north, what with Thruxton, Netheravon and a stack of danger areas over Salisbury Plain ... so there's a lot of light aviation traffic in the area.
If a MATZ penetration isn't given (or, as here, isn't even refused), then pilots are distracted in a region of high traffic convergence. If they *are* given penetration clearance, then the instruction will be to 'report Chilbolton' (and then Alderbury), which puts them within a mile of all the traffic that is squeezing through the free airspace to the south, or which has decided at the last minute to skirt around the MATZ having failed to obtain a clearance.
I'm sure it's nice and safe for controlled traffic within the MATZ and Solent CTA, but the penalty is confusion and distraction for any GA traffic trying to pass through a 2 mile corridor that's the only gap between Portsmouth and Warminster!
[As far as I can tell - and I live in Chilbolton - there's precious little activity at Middle Wallop, so it's just a pity that the military can't reduce the CMATZ to a MATZ around Boscombe, which need's it, and a standard ATZ over Middle Wallop.]
Windrusher
Notwithstanding many valid points made already, the practical situation is the following. Boscombe and Middle Wallop share a CMATZ which finishes a couple of miles from the Solent CTA - itself infamous for refusing GA crossing requests. It's a *long* way round to the north, what with Thruxton, Netheravon and a stack of danger areas over Salisbury Plain ... so there's a lot of light aviation traffic in the area.
If a MATZ penetration isn't given (or, as here, isn't even refused), then pilots are distracted in a region of high traffic convergence. If they *are* given penetration clearance, then the instruction will be to 'report Chilbolton' (and then Alderbury), which puts them within a mile of all the traffic that is squeezing through the free airspace to the south, or which has decided at the last minute to skirt around the MATZ having failed to obtain a clearance.
I'm sure it's nice and safe for controlled traffic within the MATZ and Solent CTA, but the penalty is confusion and distraction for any GA traffic trying to pass through a 2 mile corridor that's the only gap between Portsmouth and Warminster!
[As far as I can tell - and I live in Chilbolton - there's precious little activity at Middle Wallop, so it's just a pity that the military can't reduce the CMATZ to a MATZ around Boscombe, which need's it, and a standard ATZ over Middle Wallop.]
Windrusher
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
From: EGDN
Windrusher,
Wallop is an extremely busy airfield, and so your comment is misplaced. They have in excess of 65,000 movements per year. Perhaps the reason you do not see much activity around Chilbolton could have something to do with them being neighbourly and avoiding the airstrip there, plus the huge satellite telescope which is an avoid, and that their radar approach lane is nearby and their VFR traffic tries to avoid that. You may have noticed that their stub is there (a clue if any was needed). Also they are a 'military' airfield, and so they have a 'military' air traffic zone!
Wallop is an extremely busy airfield, and so your comment is misplaced. They have in excess of 65,000 movements per year. Perhaps the reason you do not see much activity around Chilbolton could have something to do with them being neighbourly and avoiding the airstrip there, plus the huge satellite telescope which is an avoid, and that their radar approach lane is nearby and their VFR traffic tries to avoid that. You may have noticed that their stub is there (a clue if any was needed). Also they are a 'military' airfield, and so they have a 'military' air traffic zone!
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
From: Hampshire, UK
Fair enough: can only comment that they must be keeping most of those 65,000 movements away from the stub, which runs almost directly over the village! Jolly decent of them.
I wonder how many GA movements there are down the narrow patch of airspace outside the MATZ, though...
Windrusher
I wonder how many GA movements there are down the narrow patch of airspace outside the MATZ, though...
Windrusher
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
From: Winchester.Hants.England
finishes a couple of miles from the Solent CTA - itself infamous for refusing GA crossing requests.
FBW
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Originally Posted by breakscrew
Windrusher,
Wallop is an extremely busy airfield, and so your comment is misplaced. They have in excess of 65,000 movements per year. !
Wallop is an extremely busy airfield, and so your comment is misplaced. They have in excess of 65,000 movements per year. !