Permission to enter MATZ

[Humaround]

Hi
This happened to me twice last week flying between Worcs and the IOW.
I call up a MATZ, pass my message as requested, including "...and request MATZ transit (detail of where, stub etc).
I'm offered FIS, all the usual, no mention of MATZ transit. Fine, I expect they will get back to me when I'm a bit closer. They don't. I say "...about to enter MATZ". Still no response, and they're not too busy.
When this happened on the way home as well, I started wondering if it's normal? Is there some reason why they did not respond to the request? I am aware that I'm not obliged to get permission, but it seems odd to just ignore it if I ask.

[AlanM]

It is a bit of a surprise not to get the crossing clearance (Benson Perhaps?!) but they know full well that if they say NO you can plough through anyway.

[OpenCirrus619]

Bear in mind they are also working Military (UHF) frequencies. The fact it all sounds quiet on their VHF frequency does not mean they aren't rushed off their feet.

OC619

[Mariner9]

Worcs to IOW - surely Boscombe Down or Middle Wallop
On reflection could have been Fairford. If so, the MATZ is only activated by Notam, maybe it was inactive?

[englishal]

If I were talking to them, I'd be inclined to just go through anyway and not lose any sleep over it, especially if sqwarking.

[littco]

As a few others have pointed out , you don't need a clearance for a matz penetration, you can sail through if you wish. I think common curtsy prevails you at least ask them and if you are Squawking a designated code then I am sure they have an eye on you.

I've had this a couple of times in requesting a Matz penetration with no reply, passed through and then was handed off by the Matz controller with out any complaint. I know the feeling though of being a bit unsure especially if you're flying an airfield with jets.

In all honesty though if you ask once and then call up to confirm and still get no answer then you should be able to pass over head, but there's the old addage of never assuming! i guess it would be nice and certainly, reassuring to get a clearance but they are unfortunately not always forth coming!

[stillin1]

The MATZ issue has been done quite a lot previously.
However, if you believe the airfield to whom the MATZ belongs is active, choosing to ignore it and blunder through (cos the letter of the law says you can) = you are an accident looking for a place to happen. It is just bloody awful airmanship, the fast metal can, and will often be whizzin about in the MATZ in the belief that there is no uncalled "crossing" traffic. We (I am a FJ driver as well as an avid GA driver) can't look everywhere, are often near the limits of performance (simulating emergency procedures / configurations). Bottom line - why push it? You do not say which MATZ so I can not know if going around / over was an issue. Normally it ain't
Why ATC did not cater for your request - no idea mate

Keep it safe

[Lister Noble]

Being a very low hours new pilot I have only done a few MATZ, but always include permission for MATZ penetration in my first call.
eg "Lakenheath,G-ABCD request MATZ penetration."
I've had excellent responses from the US military bases, but variable response from the others!
I believe the UK military bases only work weekdays?
Lister

[gasax]

As I recall the offical phraselogy is to ask for MATZ penetration at the opening call. My 2 local MATZ's also offer LARS and so they tend to be more intererested in the usual CARPACER type of call (as you would expect).

In recent years I've either had the full 'pass your details' or 'permission denied, cleared to transit at or above 3000,, which is to put it mildly bull*hit!

Out of the recent transits probably only 20% have had the expected response - 'G-**** you are cleared MATZ penetration...'

It is the way it is! A couple of times I've been unable to make 3000' feet and said I am tranisting the MATZ after clearance has been refused. If they had quick response fighters the controller would have fired them up! However a single Bulldog aerobatting over the aerodrome does not actually require all that much space..... Let alone motogliders....

The bottom line is that MATZ have a lower level of protection (for good justification). Approach one when its close to lunch or teatime and expect grey machines at high speeds. For the majority of the rest of the time they are quiet places. Remind the controller of your MATZ penetration request and carry on if they do not respond. Radio is supposed to be an aid - so tell them what you want, if they don't give it - tell they what you're doing (you are after all entitled to do it..).

To be fair the local units are quite good, but MATZ transit at 3000'?????

Aviate and then communicate. If you tell them what you are going to do then everyone is aware. If you don't but transit anyway then radar and the rest will enable them to sort it out - but far better you just tell them. And do critically remember that while MATZ penetration is OK without permission ATZ is NOT.
If they are recovering 6 Jaguars I'm more than happy to give them space. If they are reading the Sunday Mail - I'm transiting!

[PPRuNeUser134364]

I am dismayed at the attitude of some people in this forum.

Are you legally entitled to transit a MATZ without clearance? yes.

Is it a sensible thing to do if you have been refused? NO.

How do you know what is going on inside the MATZ? Are you trying to suggest you know more about the current activity than the controller? Bearing in mind that a large proportion of radio traffic is on UHF frequencies that the majority of GA aircraft can't hear.

If you are in a MATZ and you have an airmiss, do you honestly think that the investigation would simply come to the conclusion 'but he was legally allowed to be there' especially if ATC had advised him to stay away?

If you can't comply with the instruction to transit at 3000' (and other than cloudbase I can't understand why that would be an issue) then simply let the controller know you are unable to comply and they will do their best to help you out.

Oh, and don't forget (as gasax mentions) there is still an ATZ that you ARE legally obliged to avoid.

[Humaround]

Thanks for this useful discussion.

It was Boscombe (North to South through the west stub, then the next day South to North, east of Middle Wallop - both times I was well outside the ATZ's.)

I wouldn't have carried on through the MATZ if I had been refused entry - could have gone round - but ATC didn't refuse, just gave no reply to my request. I did ask at the opening contact - "Boscombe Down - G-**** request FIS and MATZ transit..." then in my CARPACER I asked for MATZ transit again.

Just a bit surprised... as Opencirrus pointed out, they may have been busy on another Freq. Certainly I could see no traffic around the airfields.

[Flybywyre]

Are you legally entitled to transit a MATZ without clearance? yes.
Is it a sensible thing to do if you have been refused? NO.

You can't be refused transit of a MATZ so if they don't answer then carry on. HOWEVER, if the controller requests that he would like you to take an alternative route for whatever reason then yes it would be sensible and good airmanship to oblige.

[Jucky]

Originally Posted by SAR Bloke

Oh, and don't forget (as gasax mentions) there is still an ATZ that you ARE legally obliged to avoid.

I agree with SAR Bloke anyone who just cracks on through a MATZ without clearance is foolish and displays poor airmanship to say the least! If you are in any doubt there is no doubt, just ask the controller if you have been cleared to penetrate the MATZ.
As for an ATZ at a military airfield, it still dismays me the number of people who just crack on through a military ATZ at weekends without talking to anybody. Rembember the ATZ at a military aerodrome is still afforded the same rights as a Civillian ATZ and most are H24. It may not be penetrated without permission from ATC even if the airfield is closed. A lot military airfields have gliding clubs and flying clubs that have quite a lot of activity during the weekend, not to mention check test flights and military aircraft that may also be arriving or departing outside normal opening hours. But still civillian aircraft still continue to penetrate the ATZ without letting anyone know. Even if you contact ATC and get no reply at a weekend you maybe well within your rights to penetrate the MATZ without permission, but not the ATZ.

Regards,

Jucky

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Originally Posted by Jucky

If you are in any doubt there is no doubt, just ask the controller if you have been cleared to penetrate the MATZ.

Ah, yes, but, what when you can't understand the answer because it isn't in English??

(After several "please say again" requests, all of which are followed by a completely and totally and utterly impenetrable American accent, there is a very real temptation to just tell them what you're intending to do and then carry on through the MATZ. Particularly if you have just about managed to parse a four digit octal number from something they said earlier and dialled it into the transponder.)

[Flybywyre]

Here is an interesting article from the Autumn 2005 edition of CHIRP

minutes before the zone boundary, requested MATZ penetration and received a squawk. With approximately 3 minutes to run to the zone boundary I was notified of my position, but given no clearance. I asked "do I have clearance" and was told to "stand by". As I approached the zone boundary, again I requested clearance and again was told to "stand by". Though not required by law to avoid the stub, as I had asked for a clearance and not received one, I elected to fly around the zone. Once on the other side, I called BBB and made it clear that I was still "standing by" and in the meantime had flown all around the perimeter of the zone. Whilst listening, I heard another pilot who was also obviously disgruntled at not receiving a clearance.
Once back on the ground I telephoned the watch manager who had been on duty. I asked if I had made any type of mistake that had caused him not to give me the requested clearance. He was very polite, told me that I had not made a mistake, said that he had seen me skirt his zone, obviously remembered my final call, but that he had "handled around 1000 calls" in the two hour watch period and was "too busy" to give a clearance. When I said that I had not wished to enter his zone without clearance and would like to know what to do in future, he said "contact me and squawk as instructed, then cross the zone (with no clearance) and I will let you know if there is anything big about to hit you, in any event don't transit my ATZ".
Having subsequently discussed this scenario with another senior Air Traffic Officer, he said that under the circumstances the only possible instruction to give is "stand by". Clearly the situation is unsatisfactory and needs sorting out, but in the mean time, it appears that in this situation, "stand by" should be interpreted as "continue at your own discretion", perhaps CAP 413 should explain this.
CHIRP Comment: The reporter complied with the recommendation that pilots request clearance to penetrate a MATZ when at least 15nm or five minutes flying time from the boundary.
The ATC instruction “Standby” means “Wait, I will call you”; no clearance should be assumed (CAP413 Chapter 2, Paragraph 1.6, refers).
As the reporter notes, pilots are permitted to penetrate a MATZ without clearance, providing this does not violate the ATZ in the centre of the MATZ (AIP ENR 2.2 Para. 1.3); in such a case it is good airmanship to state clearly to the ATSU controlling the MATZ in a timely manner of your intention to proceed.
The views of CAA and MOD on the adequacy of the present procedure are being sought.

[Leezyjet]

As an SA PPL i'm not too familier with MATZ transits - only done 1 or 2 but it seems a pretty silly and dangerous rule to me that if they refuse you can still bimble through.

[Stripholderloader]

That's just the point, they can't refuse you so it does beg the question why ask in the first place ?

[Mike Cross]

For the same reason that it is sensible to talk to an a/g operator or an AFISO (they cannot issue "instructions" either").

[drauk]

Personally I think there is a big difference between a clearance being explicitly denied and just not receiving one. To enter the zone when a clearance has been denied (even in light of the fact that it can't be) to me constitutes bad airmanship. To enter the zone when a clearance hasn't been granted or denied is more of a judgment call and is far more acceptable to me.

[dublinpilot]

As an Irish pilot who has yet to transit a MATZ in the UK, I'm not very familiar with them either.

Are pilots routienly thought to request a clearance for this, even though a clearance can't be given?

Under the circumstances would it not make more sense to state your intended transit route, and to request information on any known traffic in the area rather than to request a clearance?

dp