MATZ Penetrations - A Plea!

[Fournicator]

Blimey, quite a lot of activity here today!

First, a proviso to what I'm about to say - my experience of the front line is limited to say the least, I do, however, have current knowledge of the current state of play with mil flying training, and that's what I base most of what I speak about on.

Secondly, for the record, the gliders were at it again yesterday, and from the view out of window, one certianly looked to be well inside the ATZ, let alone the MATZ, potentially putting it into confliction with aircraft beaking into the circuit, even bearing in mind that I'm talking about a "proper" military oval circuit.

WorkingHard:
We can indeed operate without a serviceable transponder, although there are many restrictions placed on us in the event of that are relatively severe, most notably for this debate - NO low flying (below 2000ft agl), all low flying mil ac must be squawking to enable TCAS fitted to civil traffic and our own aircraft to work. I personally have never got airborne without a serviceable one. So I'm afraid we are working to those rules. Point dismissed.
As regards airspace busting, yes it does happen. Imagine, if you will, a route planned to pass by an ATZ by 2nm, flown at 420 knots. If, owing to pilot distraction, or any other reason, the pilot allows his heading to wander off by 30 degrees or so, that 2nm cross=track error will build up in 25 seconds. Alternatively, our unlucky hero could turn 17 seconds early or late at a 90 degree turn onto the leg heading, and in doing so introduce the same error. Now, obviously, as a professional aviator, one does expect much better standards of handling of handling and airmanship from a fast-jet operator than a weekend puddlejumper joyrider, but mistakes do happen, especially in the high pressure world of an FJ cockpit at low level, complete with many other distractions. And yes, despite all the modern systems available to us, we do still train to successfully achieve a time on target +/-5 seconds using only a compass (well, HSI) and a stopwatch.
To be fair, if one reviews the airspace busting statistics, GA pilots tend to be the main culprits.

Pudknucker:
As I've just mentioned, TCAS IS slowly working it's way into the RAF, surely you don't want me to call for all GA aircraft, gliders and the like to be similarly equipped?

Doc and Mike:
Would you rather we'd flown the slow descent profile I mentioned earlier, loitering at cloudbase for longer? Or would you rather we use a procedural type service common at many civil airfields, guaranteeing separation only from those aircraft in communication with ATC? There is a level of risk in doing so, just as there is a (lower) level of risk in operating SSR only, and indeed an (even lower) level of risk even when operating with primary radar - gliders famously don't show up very well, if at all, thanks to their construction and operating speeds. Risk is inherent in aviation, better airmanship from the glider pilot who has caused all this fuss could have helped reduce this risk for everyone, surely that's a good thing? What does he lose by talking to ATC?
The glider can (thanks to it's low speed) be operating legally VFR at cloudbase, whereas faster aircraft must maintain vertical clearance, I still persist that operating at cloudbase in an environment where it's patently obvious that high energy aircraft will be descending through cloud, without telling anyone, is absolutely shocking airmanship.

gasax:
Have you actually looked at the military regulations then? Because believe me, as someone involved in both military and civil aviation, there are a great many similarities, I would most definately never describe them as 'incompatible'. If your airfield truly is as busy as you make out then procedures exist to make it a low flying avoid, just as with most glider sites, GA airfields that are actually used frequently, nature sanctuaries, hospitals, and the like. The maps of our low flying areas are very liberally sprinkled with a whole variety of avoidances. I presume you have asked for such an avoidance, which mayt well have been turned down because, despite your 30 aircraft, I suspect you actually aren't that busy movements wise. Forgive me if I'm wrong. Also please bear in mind that your idea of a "close call" may be significantly different to the military pilot's, when he's been watching for the last several miles. Just talk to a glider pilot to get an idea of how different people can have differing ideas of safe separation - it's all about what you're used to!
As regards Neptune Warrior, I'll admit the NOTAM was poorly worded, but you don't seriously think they'd be loosing off live munitions in an uncontrolled area do you? Even published danger areas must be patrolled to ensure there are no intruders before live weapons are used.

[dublinpilot]

If you want people to see your point of view, then I suggest you stop calling us names.

I for one object to being called a

weekend puddlejumper joyrider

.

If you have already wound me up by calling me names, it makes it very hard to listen to the rest of your argument objectively.

dp

[WorkingHard]

Fournicator - keep the replies coming please. We are truly wanting to learn more about the mil operations. May i just ask if the rules on transonders have changed because not many moons ago we had a close conflict with a low level FJ when approaching to land and were officially informed (amongst other things) that the FJ was not required to use his transponder. I thoght they had a LL sqwark.

[Mike Cross]

Fournicator
The answer to your question to me is no.

What would be sensible is to think about the risk before you do something. If you want to do your 4000fpm descents in Class G and there's cloud in the way and your primary radar is inop and the use of transponders is not mandatory in the airspace and it's not CAS then you have a few choices.

1. Go ahead and do it anyway
2. Defer doing it until you have serviceable primary radar
3. Defer doing it until you have good vis and can achieve separation by visual means.
4. Stick someone outside the tower with a pair of binoculars to watch out for traffic underneath the clouds and make sure it's all clear before initiating the descent.

There are probably other choices as well but of the ones listed I suggest No 1 carries more risk than the others. It's up to you to make the decision.

Please let me be clear that I am not suggesting that it is good airmanship that the gliders do not make use of facilities that are available to them (even though they are not required to do so). Rather I am suggesting that it is bad airmanship to go hooning about on the assumption that they should and will.

On the matter of radar visibility, I've had gliders called to me by radar that I haven't been able to see even when they are only a mile or two away and I was being told where to look. If your primary radar can't see them when they are within your own MATZ you need a new one.

Mike

[Fournicator]

Dublin:
It's called friendly banter mate, dry your eyes. As I've mentioned many times, I fly puddlejumpers myself at the weekend, do you think I'm somehow attacking the other side of my flying schizophrenia?

WH:
Mil ac squawk 7001 at low level. If an air trafficker suddenly sees a 7001 squawk rapidly climbing on their screen, they know to probably expect a request from that aircraft for a radar service as they pull out of low level. More often than not, this will be necessitated by deteriorating weather. Staying within the low flying regulations for low flying weather is hammered into us from early on in our training, maintaining 500ft vertical clearance from cloud whilst still keeping your Minimum Separation Distance "bubble" (generally 250ft for fixed wing ops) from anything solid can be pretty tough work, often involving ducking into valleys to get around patches of low cloud. "Letterboxing" through a narrow gap between the top of a ridge and cloudbase is a big no-no.
Not sure of the causes for it, but as I mentioned before, having a serviceable transponder squawking 7001 is a prerequisite for using the UKLFS. The reason I think I remember hearing once was concerned with TCAS equipment on piepline inspection aircraft, but I'm not sure.

Mike:
The comment about primary radar was a bit of a conjecture, I do try to avoid going to Air Tragic as much as I possibly can. Take your point about picking up stuff inside the MATZ though, presumably it's not solely reliant on doppler type effects....... errrrrm ....... white man's magic ...... wiggly amps ....... confused stickmonkey!
I do take your point, but there are times when the big sky theory has to be used. By using it inside an area of airspace where you would HOPE that the majority of traffic is known, the risk is reduced, although obviously still present.
I also agree that it is bad airmanship to assume there will be no-one in the MATZ not talking to ATC, but I stand by my opinion that it is at least as bad to be one of those people not talking, if you are suitably equipped.
As I mentioned before, in my opinion our procedures are safer than those used at many civil airfields without controlled airspace.

[Dimensional]

Before I start: I'm a current GA and glider pilot, and a baby military pilot at the bottom end of the training pipeline; I like to think I can at least try and see this from both sides of the coin...

Mike:

I note that you consider practicing what is, effectively, an emergency procedure an unsafe practice. A military aircraft, at a military airfield, daring to carry out a vaguely aggressive manoeuver? How shocking! </sarcasm> The airfield that F was using is a busy military training base, with more movements than you can shake a stick at. I'd hope it's a bit obvious it might not be a friendly piece of sky to be in... Would you honestly expect to go to somewhere like Coventry or Exeter (commercial air traffic, IFR OCAS) and expect to find CAT flying in a GA-like manner? I'd hope you, along with many GA pilots, would apply a bit of common and expect to see aircraft flying in a manner which would be incompatible with your GA flying practices.

Similarly, a military airfield will have procedures that may well be dangerous; that may well be inconvenient to you, and that you might well not be aware of -- that's why they stick a MATZ around it. In the same manner that the CAA have now started to publish all IFR approaches OCAS on the charts, the MATZ system is printed to alert people that within the area bounded by the MATZ, aircraft may be flying in a manner that may be hazardous to other air users (for example: RIABs -- discussed ad nauseam; mil stylee circuits, RPFLs and the like). Shockingly, I'd have hoped that someone attempting to carry out an exercise that will put them at risk -- namely, thermalling near cloudbase -- would endeavour to reduce their risk in whatever way possible, concurrent with continuous Risk Management (my Flight Safety types would be so proud); if that meant talking to someone, so be it.

Also, if you were to practice say, glide circuits at your home airfield, you'd expect a degree of consideration from the other airfield users, I suspect... similarly, you'd want people to give you a bit of slack when you're practicing something which is, by it's very nature, a risky business. While practicing a RPFL when ATC are operating SSR only ratchets up the level of risk slightly, the profile requires a high RoD to ensure the highest chance of survival for the aircraft and it's crew (without, of course, taking the yellow and black letdown option, which tends to get you featured in The Sun).

As far as I can see (and I talk as someone who has just got themselves a gliding Cross Country Endorsement) there is no excuse for anyone -- GA, CAT, glider or military -- with an R/T equipped radio not to be talking to the relevant unit if you're in somewhere which is obviously likely to be containing traffic doing odd things -- IFR holds or approaches OCAS, aerobatics in an airfield overhead, or emergency procedures in simulated or actual IFR.

--D

(sorry, in retrospect, this seems to be a personal attack on MC which was not what was intended -- I was addressing him as he was the last person I noticed with that argument.)

[Fournicator]

Nicely put mate.

I wuv wou..........

[Mike Cross]

Not taken as a personal attack but I'd refer you back to

Please let me be clear that I am not suggesting that it is good airmanship that the gliders do not make use of facilities that are available to them (even though they are not required to do so). Rather I am suggesting that it is bad airmanship to go hooning about on the assumption that they should and will.

I note that you consider practicing what is, effectively, an emergency procedure an unsafe practice.

Where'd I say that?

Personally I prefer not to use words like "safe" or "unsafe". It's a matter of risk management. You cross the road where you have clear sight lines not because it is safe but because the risk is reduced in comparison to doing it where you don't. I put forward some suggestions that could reduce the risk of descending with a high RoD through cloud when radar cover is temporarily unavailable.

[gasax]

Originally Posted by Mike Cross

Fournicator
The answer to your question to me is no.
What would be sensible is to think about the risk before you do something. If you want to do your 4000fpm descents in Class G and there's cloud in the way and your primary radar is inop and the use of transponders is not mandatory in the airspace and it's not CAS then you have a few choices.
1. Go ahead and do it anyway
2. Defer doing it until you have serviceable primary radar
3. Defer doing it until you have good vis and can achieve separation by visual means.
4. Stick someone outside the tower with a pair of binoculars to watch out for traffic underneath the clouds and make sure it's all clear before initiating the descent.
There are probably other choices as well but of the ones listed I suggest No 1 carries more risk than the others. It's up to you to make the decision.

And that fournicator is the crux of the whole issue.
We have a notified airstrip, we've had 15 years of communications with the RAF who on many occasions have said "we are an avoid", "we cannot be an avoid" - it depends on who you speak to and how much complaining we have done. You say we cann't be THAT busy. So how busy is THAT busy? Here you have a place where there is some certainty that low flying jets will encounter light aircraft, how often one is sure. So naturally the RAF approach is to ignore the issue - you're not THAT busy, so the risk whilst substantially higher than it should be, is simply ignored.
As to the idea that someone is a military jet has a better idea of how close a 'close call' - nice idea, the steely eyed superman said it was obvious it was going to miss him by XX metres ,so it was OK. Believe me when a Tornado flies underneath you on final approach that remark is pretty contemptible.
As to no live firing in the open FIR - I was quoting the NOTAM, so either it was true or some interesting exercise in 'black ops' or military mis-information - very handy in the NOTAM system.
You are at the end of the day defending 'custom and practice', which pretty much ignores any real risk assessment. In that sense you are completely typical of what is wrong with the system and why one day something very bad will happen and things will then change.
In the meantime I have no problem in talking to anyone who has a radar system (preferably that is actually working!) or any airfield I'm close to. Strangely I don't want anymore close calls.
But when I see this rubbish being trotted out as an acceptable way of operating, where we are all facing having transponders but the military will not. Where 'see and avoid' is not possible and you rely on big sky, don't tell me that is acting responsibly.

[Fournicator]

gasax:

Can't help but feel I'm banging my head against a brick wall here - the military DO have transponders, and although in exceptional circumstances we can get airborne with an unserviceable one, in doing so we are bound by some very restrictive limits, it is therefore a very rare occurence indeed.

A great many light airfields, glider sites, microlight sites and the like do have low flying avoids, there will be a reason for yours not to be similarly classified, I suspect due to activity levels. In an ideal world every landing strip in the country would be avoided, but doing so would leave very little of the low flying system left. Out of interest, on an average weekday (when most mil ac operate) how many movements would be typical at your strip?

Ultimately, if you want the safety of relatively protected airspace, operating at a licensed airfield will offer you the protection of an ATZ, which will, in theory (am reserving judgement for the "in practice" side after witnessing some pretty lousy airmanship in an ATZ while flying this weekend) also protect you from other puddlejumpers, which a military avoid will not.

As regards a very bad thing making the military changing the way we operate - I'd throw that one straight back at you with some low flying complaint stats. It's interesting to note that the number of low flying complaints each year drops markedly every time the UK forces are involved in conflict. Please bear in mind that you have the freedom to enjoy aviation in your spare time thanks to the courage and skills of my predecessors; your continued freedom to do so may well depend on those of the current generation. Sprechen sie deutsch?

[Dimensional]

gasax:

Bearing in mind the entire SSR system has its genesis in IFF (Identify Friend or Foe); that the military have lost airframes in operational theatres due to faulty IFF systems (the well publicised blue-on-blue, Tornado vs. Patriot in GWII); and that as already stated crews are mandated to operate transponder systems in accordance with laid down procedures: can you please understand that the military *do* have transponders and we *do* use them?

--D

[DRJAD]

A valuable, in my view, thread - and good to see it being actively continued by the orginator and others to form a genuine debate.
However apposite or inapposite the examples quoted, the fact remains that operating near a MATZ as with any class of controlled airspace requires a degree of airmanship to be exercised. The presence of airspace so designated implies that there is a step up in activity concentrated therein in excess of that commonly to be expected in class G.
Whether or not the airspace has mandatory reporting requirements associated with it, a useful personal modus operandi would seem to be to regard it as such, and assist oneself and everyone else by reporting position.
One can remain fully aware of the legal position, but still apply a practical set of personal rules which allows for enhanced safety.

[WorkingHard]

May I just emphasise the last contributors comments and thank Fournicator for keeping this going. It is helpful to ALL of us who care to read and absorb. I should just like a consideration of this please.
"It's interesting to note that the number of low flying complaints each year drops" A neighbour had occasion to report a possible breach of low flying rules by FJs and when she telephoned the nearest RAF station and was put through to operations she was asked for the type and registration of the aircraft involved. Not a very good PR execise. If this is common then it may be why compaints are reducing.
I recently asked the ops at a FJ base about use of transponders and was told emphatically that it was NOT a requirement. I do not for one moment disbelive you Fournicator but it would be much nicer if everyone was singing from the same hymn sheet.
PLEASE keep the answers coming for as long as we all show some interest. BTW I am ex RAF (not aircrew) and have been flying a company aircraft for about 20 years so have a keen interest in preserving life and limb.

[aluminium persuader]

Mike - It's very hit-or-miss as to whether a primary radar will pick up a glider or not, regardless of its distance fronm the radar head or how new the radar is. There are just so many variables involved. Here are a few; wx, time of day, age of glider (metal bits vs composite), raw data or plot-extracted, supression used, relative attitude of glider, track & speed of glider and so on and so on. It's often just "a feeling in the water" when you call it.

Fournicator - However lightly you use the term, remember that especially in mil aviation "Air Tragic" are a part of your team & you should not be avoiding them. You've probably heard of CRM? When we do a "check gear" call it's not for our benefit! I suggest you spend more time with them rather than less to find out their abilities & limitations.

Dimension - it's not the practice of a mil emergency procedure in mil airspace. It's that you have to consider the WHOLE picture which includes ATC equipment serviceability. Personally speaking, if you want to stick your nose into the clouds outide CAS & in high-energy manoevres when my radar's less than perfect, that's entirely up to you. It's your nose!

ap

edited to add -

Remember, on SSR only a 747 could fly across the top of the ATZ at 2001' & not talking to the unit quite legally & the radar would not pick it up it he's not transponding. Not a 747 admittedly, but mulit-engine jet airliners HAVE crossed my ATZ at 2000 not talking to me. OK, so the ones I've seen have been transponding but have I seen all of them ?Your call!

[Mike Cross]

AP

Thanks for that. My admittedly limited experience is with marine radar where you have a full set of tools to adjust the image. I was hugely impressed to find I could pick up lobster pot buoys (basically a stick with a flag on it attached to a plastic float) using the radar on a cross-channel ferry where you have sea-clutter to contend with.

As you say, if you filter it out you an't going to see it. (Which leads us seductively into the Mode S debate )

[aluminium persuader]

No worries!

I would seriously recommend visits to ATC, and not just because I am one. I strongly believe that my controlling experience makes me a better pilot & vice versa. That's about 13yrs ATC & 300-ish hrs ppl, IMC & multi.

Oh, if you do go, don't forget the choccy biscuits and/or doughnuts!

ap

[Fournicator]

ali p:
Tongue very firmly in cheek before, but I do sometimes wonder about the quality of people joining the branch. A friend of mine had a gear snag last week, after 20 minutes flying round the circuit burning fuel off he'd exhausted all the cards could suggest to him, but was still lacking a positive down indication. He therefore committed to the hazardous landing drill, which involved shutting the engine down on short finals. He was therefore slightly amused as he called finals to be asked by the particularly switched on air tragicker to "check gear". Funny yes, but potentially capacity sapping at a time when it's needed most. Anyway, I'm in danger of getting off topic. In short, of course I'm fond of air traffickers; otherwise, who else would there be for us poor aircrew to lech over at happy hour and ultimately marry?

DRJAD:
Sorry, not sure if I made myself clear - the general trend each year is for low flying complaints to increase. This trend is bucked every time we are involved in major conflict, as there is suddenly a massive reduction in complaints, only to slowly build up again over time until the next major conflict. Having never made or personally received a low flying complaint I'm afraid I'm not really in a position to answer questions about what's involved in making one.
Transponder use in not an absolute requirement to operate at all, but it most definately IS in order to use the UKLFS.
Hope that clears any confusion up, feel free to tell me if not!

All:
More than happy to answer any more questions (obviously of a non-sensitive nature) such that we can all learn from each other and ultimately all become safer aviators, and get on with those long fulfilling lives. My young paduwan Dimensional is even more willing than me to regale you with tales of his derring-do, I'm sure.........

[aluminium persuader]

F - Know what you're saying. Knew a young lady controller no longer of these isles who had a habit of clearing gliders to land. As opposed to what I'm not sure!

As to marriage, I'm probably a bit too old, a bit too grey-haired & just a teensy bit too male for you! Obviously I'm making one assumption here!

[Fournicator]

Ali
Yeah, not too sure if you're my type.......
Am doing fairly well at keeping the love life separate from the work life, at least at the moment, but it is scary just how many pilots end up married to air traffickers. Anyways, matz PENETRATION, yeah, errrrrrrrr.........

Edited to add: However, young Dimensional is single..... any young girly air traffickers fancy being whisked away to another dimension? He really is a very nice young man.

[chrisN]

Late to this thread (was away in Scotland last week - another story), but a few observations from another glider pilot, FWIW.

1. Positive - I have learned some things. Maybe F and others think I should have known, but I didn't, that military are apt to descend at high rates out of cloud in class G, erect and/or inverted, doing PFL's etc., above MATZ's. I have certainly flown over MATZ's in the past without contacting ATC. With that collision hazard I now know about, I shall be a reformed character. (I usually have monitored the MATZ ATC when single radio and workload permit, but often only contacted if likely to descend into the MATZ, or heard of possible conflicts. I hitherto thought recoveries were substantially into the end of the MATZ where the stub is, not near-vertically into the top. One lives and learns.)

2. A Negative, however - I'm with MRC in thinking that such PFL's in class G are a greater risk than mil perhaps realise - I doubt if MRC and I are the only ones who didn't know it was done. And a question - who, how, should tell the rest of the world of GA and glider pilots - or do you think we are all psychic and should have known? I believe parachutists are not allowed to plummet through cloud, not even above their own aerodrome. Why can quite heavy metal at various vertical velocity components and attitudes, without even being notam'd as such or labelled on charts (other than in real emergency/inadvertent loss of attitude which many of us may do on occasion)? Practice is good. Practice with danger to 3rd parties is not good. Practice with danger removed or lessened by sensible communication is OK in my book.

3. Something for F. etc. to learn, however reluctantly; this is a fact. I have no idea which MATZ's contain busy rather than non-busy mil units, nor am I an anorak that commits to memory which sorts of a/c operate out of which mil aerodromes. Why should I? Do mil pilots know which gliders types operate out of which gliding sites? Or which SEP's/MEPs etc. out of which GA aerodromes? I do expect Mil pilots to know which are the busiest gliding sites and areas - because they are labelled as such on 1:500,000 charts. If mil think we should know their busiest from the others, get your labels on too, then we can tell. Otherwise , we are still not psychic, and many of us have no interest in learning movement rates by rote, nor would we know how to find out.

In a spirit of friendship and cooperation, not flaming. There are lessons for us all in this thread, I believe.

Chris N.

(PS - that Scottish story - top marks to the mil types who put so much into searching for the lost glider pilot, and eventually finding him. Every glider pilot on the site was deeply appreciative of the professionals' airmanship and Mk 1 eyeballs, the resources put in, and the result.)