MATZ Penetrations - A Plea!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chris - thanks for your input.
Just a quick point that occurs to me - there is very little point in just listening to the published VHF frequency when transiting a MATZ, without transmitting. Almost all of the military traffic in the MATZ will probably be spread between several UHF frequencies (departures, zone, approach, director, talkdown etc, as well as the tower frequency for the visual circuit), so the MATZ (and surrounding area, which will also contain aircraft being controlled by mil ATC) may be very very busy but with absolutely no indication on the published victor frequency of this.
Just a quick point that occurs to me - there is very little point in just listening to the published VHF frequency when transiting a MATZ, without transmitting. Almost all of the military traffic in the MATZ will probably be spread between several UHF frequencies (departures, zone, approach, director, talkdown etc, as well as the tower frequency for the visual circuit), so the MATZ (and surrounding area, which will also contain aircraft being controlled by mil ATC) may be very very busy but with absolutely no indication on the published victor frequency of this.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: UK
I perhaps did not make it sufficiently clear that I have on occasions flown over a MATZ, not penetrated it, while monitoring its frequency. Though legal to penetrate the MATZ (keeping outside the ATZ, though) without making contact, I don't intentionally do it, as a matter of courtesy and good practice. Unintentional penetration might be a fleeting incidence when gliding over, encountering sinking air, and failing to keep high enough when trying to clear the far boundary - it all happens too fast to make a call sometimes, if their radio is a bit busy. I do endeavour not to get into that scenario. But that is just me, of course - I can't speak for others.
Chris N.
Chris N.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
From: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
On a point of curiosity:-
If ATC can combine frequencies so that everything is heard on both why can't the mil?
That way you wouldn't have half the traffic not hearing the other half and it would be a win-win for situational awareness.
If ATC can combine frequencies so that everything is heard on both why can't the mil?
That way you wouldn't have half the traffic not hearing the other half and it would be a win-win for situational awareness.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
Originally Posted by Mike Cross
If ATC can combine frequencies so that everything is heard on both why can't the mil?
I worked at a DERA unit where you could (and did) cross couple VHF and UHF so that both sides could hear all R/T. It was the same Comms fit as is standard in Military ATC units but with an extra software upgrade.
However, it is dubious whether this would have any benefit with the Military set up in ATC. The Zone / LARS position may be standalone, in which case that's all that particular Controller is working, or it might be combined with Approach. If the latter is the case you may only hear traffic departing (though some units have a separate departures frequency) or traffic initially calling for join. SOP then is if they are VFR they tend to stay with Approach, IFR they will then get handed to Director - so you won't hear them anyway.
The Civil system of 1 ATCO - 1 bit of airspace is totally different to the Military system which is based on 1 ATCO - 1 particular task.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chris-
While I appreciate your situational awareness, it may also be an idea to talk to the controller when operating near to the MATZ but outside its boundaries, either lateral or vertical. Don't mean to patronise you, but fairly obviously the mil traffic doesn't just disappear at the MATZ boundary, and the departure and approach phases of flight are likely to be sufficiently busy that the lookout of aforementioned steely eyed aviators may well be degraded.
As regards the combined frequency idea - while I can see the logic behind combined zone freqs (and indeed most mil zone controllers will transit all their messages on both VHF and UHF if they are working VHF traffic too), the whole idea behind separate freqs for deps/app/dir/zone etc is to avoid cluttering up a single freq! The zone controller will be able to deconflict you from the traffic being worked by the other screens, but you may well only know it's there if you bother talking to him.
While I appreciate your situational awareness, it may also be an idea to talk to the controller when operating near to the MATZ but outside its boundaries, either lateral or vertical. Don't mean to patronise you, but fairly obviously the mil traffic doesn't just disappear at the MATZ boundary, and the departure and approach phases of flight are likely to be sufficiently busy that the lookout of aforementioned steely eyed aviators may well be degraded.
As regards the combined frequency idea - while I can see the logic behind combined zone freqs (and indeed most mil zone controllers will transit all their messages on both VHF and UHF if they are working VHF traffic too), the whole idea behind separate freqs for deps/app/dir/zone etc is to avoid cluttering up a single freq! The zone controller will be able to deconflict you from the traffic being worked by the other screens, but you may well only know it's there if you bother talking to him.
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
From: Oxford
I must say that I was left pondering the usefulness or otherwise of MATZs as I watched two Hawks in a day (one morning, one afternoon) carrying out aeros in the overhead at a Secret Yorkshire Fast Jet Base last week. There's no way 3000ft of vertical space, or even the 5nm radius, is enough to contain a Hawk shaking its booty in that way. A loop alone must use up 5000ft from base height (says he, not really knowing the answer for a Hawk, but basing this on the Red Arrows' tendency to fly a 'flat' show when the cloudbase is <5000ft AGL).
So in that particular case, I couldn't think of much use for the MATZ apart from IFR traffic, and even for that, most of the procedures I saw wouldn't have been contained in it anyway. Certainly the SID/radar approach I saw drawn on the Tonka sim boards wouldn't have fitted.
Tim
So in that particular case, I couldn't think of much use for the MATZ apart from IFR traffic, and even for that, most of the procedures I saw wouldn't have been contained in it anyway. Certainly the SID/radar approach I saw drawn on the Tonka sim boards wouldn't have fitted.
Tim
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tim,
If you had, however, checked the NOTAMs, you would have seen the Hawk display aeros practice clearly advertised.
However, you're right, most of our procedures do not fit inside the relatively limited (for the speeds involved) confines of a MATZ, just as civil procedures for airfields such as Cranfield, Finningley (anyone for a bite) and Humberside lack the protection of CAS. A MATZ does NOT limit the mil operations to its confines; as I said previously I would urge anyone operating anywhere near a MATZ to contact ATC, for the safety and security of everyone's warm and fuzzy feeling.
If you had, however, checked the NOTAMs, you would have seen the Hawk display aeros practice clearly advertised.
However, you're right, most of our procedures do not fit inside the relatively limited (for the speeds involved) confines of a MATZ, just as civil procedures for airfields such as Cranfield, Finningley (anyone for a bite) and Humberside lack the protection of CAS. A MATZ does NOT limit the mil operations to its confines; as I said previously I would urge anyone operating anywhere near a MATZ to contact ATC, for the safety and security of everyone's warm and fuzzy feeling.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: UK
LM, I don't know if "all" have agreed your proposition; but I do, where I know about them - with the reservation that I don't necessarily "know" where all these higher utilisation activities are or who to talk to about them. Like I did not know until now about F's advice that overhead MATZ's there are rapid descents from cloud into the MATZ top, by PFL's in erect and/or inverted attitudes. Who did know? And nobody has answered my questions as to who, by what means, has taken the trouble to propagate this effectively, and continues to do so to all new entrants to the world of solo GA/glider/PFA-type/microlite flying. I read it here - does anybody think this is the right medium?
I don't habitually hang about around the extended centreline of MATZ stubs where, in my innocence, I presumed the main entrance and exit of fast jets to be. If I need to use that bit of class G, I call. I did not expect mil a/c to enter or emerge much sideways, or up and down at the top of a MATZ. Seems I was wrong. I have to get round or over MATZ's somehow, using thermals and climb/glide techniques, and avoid other gliders as well as GA and the military - to say nothing of CAT cutting corners to save fuel (yes, they sometimes do - and BALPA has defended that practice in Airprox Board discussions).
And talking about "play[ing] around unannounced in a bit of airspace where you know there is an increased risk of another, dissimilar aviation activity" - well, I and other glider pilots habitually climb up to, and sometimes inside, clouds, because it is fundamental to our means of locomotion; which is also why the CAA when it regulated such things granted us the ability to do it; so the boot could equally be on the other foot - if others want to share that airspace, particularly in a rapid descent out of cloud, in a manner that e.g. parachutists are not permitted to because it is stupid, how about they should call out on 130.4 to see which gliders are there, rather than expect us to know if GA and/or mil a/c are on Mildenhall/Lakenheath, or Wattisham, or Essex Radar, or London info, or Cambridge, or illegally using 123.45, or non-radio and we need extra-sensory perception. Sauce for the goose . . .
Chris N.
I don't habitually hang about around the extended centreline of MATZ stubs where, in my innocence, I presumed the main entrance and exit of fast jets to be. If I need to use that bit of class G, I call. I did not expect mil a/c to enter or emerge much sideways, or up and down at the top of a MATZ. Seems I was wrong. I have to get round or over MATZ's somehow, using thermals and climb/glide techniques, and avoid other gliders as well as GA and the military - to say nothing of CAT cutting corners to save fuel (yes, they sometimes do - and BALPA has defended that practice in Airprox Board discussions).
And talking about "play[ing] around unannounced in a bit of airspace where you know there is an increased risk of another, dissimilar aviation activity" - well, I and other glider pilots habitually climb up to, and sometimes inside, clouds, because it is fundamental to our means of locomotion; which is also why the CAA when it regulated such things granted us the ability to do it; so the boot could equally be on the other foot - if others want to share that airspace, particularly in a rapid descent out of cloud, in a manner that e.g. parachutists are not permitted to because it is stupid, how about they should call out on 130.4 to see which gliders are there, rather than expect us to know if GA and/or mil a/c are on Mildenhall/Lakenheath, or Wattisham, or Essex Radar, or London info, or Cambridge, or illegally using 123.45, or non-radio and we need extra-sensory perception. Sauce for the goose . . .
Chris N.
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
As far as I know from what I was taught years ago as an ATC Cadet, the MATZ is established to protect traffic carrying out instrument approaches to the airfield they surround (hence the 'stub' in line with the instrument runway), it's NOT there to cover traffic carrying out aero's etc overhead the airfield.
I've no objection to military airfields with iap's getting class D airspace, provided all civil airfields with iaps also get class D airspace of equivalent dimensions eg Cranfield, Norwich, Humberside, Farnborough, Exeter, Gloucester, Biggin, Lydd, Manston, Filton, Shoreham, Walney Island and lots more!
I've no objection to military airfields with iap's getting class D airspace, provided all civil airfields with iaps also get class D airspace of equivalent dimensions eg Cranfield, Norwich, Humberside, Farnborough, Exeter, Gloucester, Biggin, Lydd, Manston, Filton, Shoreham, Walney Island and lots more!
Guest
Posts: n/a
FlyingD:
I am a big fan of the current MATZ system, UK airspace is regulated plenty enough without yet more class D.
As an additional point, it's just occurred to me to point out that the MATZ and it's surrounding area lie in a notified AIAA, yet another reason why I would argue that pilots operating nearby, let alone inside the MATZ, should talk to mil ATC.
I am a big fan of the current MATZ system, UK airspace is regulated plenty enough without yet more class D.
As an additional point, it's just occurred to me to point out that the MATZ and it's surrounding area lie in a notified AIAA, yet another reason why I would argue that pilots operating nearby, let alone inside the MATZ, should talk to mil ATC.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: UK
F., do all "MATZ and it's surrounding area lie in a notified AIAA"?
I certainly did not know that Wattisham is.
I do regard the whole Mildenhall/Lakenheath/Honington area as if it were one big MATZ, but I don't know how busy they are, and I certainly don't call them up when flying outside them unless I either hear of a potential conflict or I have reason to want to go in, or fly over with not much clear space between me and them. They often sound busy on the radio, but typically seem to be doing as much with passing spamcans as their own traffic. Do they really want to hear from me (in a glider) too? And from all other say 100 or so cross-country gliders that might be flying from the 6 clubs in East Anglia?
Chris N.
I certainly did not know that Wattisham is.
I do regard the whole Mildenhall/Lakenheath/Honington area as if it were one big MATZ, but I don't know how busy they are, and I certainly don't call them up when flying outside them unless I either hear of a potential conflict or I have reason to want to go in, or fly over with not much clear space between me and them. They often sound busy on the radio, but typically seem to be doing as much with passing spamcans as their own traffic. Do they really want to hear from me (in a glider) too? And from all other say 100 or so cross-country gliders that might be flying from the 6 clubs in East Anglia?
Chris N.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
From: Here to Eternity
ChrisN:
Slightly dubious editing, I'd say: F stated that "the MATZ and its surroundings are in an AAIA, not that all MATZs are: in fact, I can only think of a handful (Wattisham, Lakenheath/Mildenhall/Marham) that aren't in notified AAIAs...
Lakenheath and Mildenhall can certainly get *very* busy, and once again you probably won't hear much on published VHF frequencies except GA calling for zone transits and the like as the controllers may well have their work cut out with mil traffic on UHF.
As for calling whilst gliding, it might well make sense, certainly if you're not part of a large-scale task; ISTR the latest BGA guidelines for task setting recommend contacting any ATS providers near the set route before the event, which would at least ensure the unit would be aware of increased gliding activity.
--D
Slightly dubious editing, I'd say: F stated that "the MATZ and its surroundings are in an AAIA, not that all MATZs are: in fact, I can only think of a handful (Wattisham, Lakenheath/Mildenhall/Marham) that aren't in notified AAIAs...
Lakenheath and Mildenhall can certainly get *very* busy, and once again you probably won't hear much on published VHF frequencies except GA calling for zone transits and the like as the controllers may well have their work cut out with mil traffic on UHF.
As for calling whilst gliding, it might well make sense, certainly if you're not part of a large-scale task; ISTR the latest BGA guidelines for task setting recommend contacting any ATS providers near the set route before the event, which would at least ensure the unit would be aware of increased gliding activity.
--D
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
Originally Posted by London Mil
Have we agreed yet that, despite the legalities, it isn't overly clever to play around unannounced in a bit of airspace where you know there is an increased risk of another, dissimilar aviation activity?
Personally, I will avoid the MATZ when IFR but if VFR, I will simply notify the unit of my routing and level which will be based on QNH.
These days, there is no more risk of collision flying good VMC within a MATZ than flying in the rest of the Class G.
I often wish I had not bothered to call when we get all this waffle about QFE (there goes terrain awareness out the window) and fly at or below or above xxx height.
The Controller in a MATZ has the same ability to approve, refuse or control a MATZ transit as an AFISO or A/G operator has the ability to control a transit of their ATZ...........None
The response to a call indicating a flight (not getting a RIS or RAS) will transit the MATZ should be "G-ABCD roger, Traffic information......
That enables me as the person responsible for 1 the safety of the flight and 2 not colliding with other traffic to make an informed decision just like we do when transiting an ATZ with no ATC service.
Farnborough operate the Odiham MATZ. Never had to obtain a MATZ transit from them. Never had one approved. Always get traffic information (usually gliding at the field) and never had a complaint from Farnborough - one of the busiest LARS units in the country.
If Farnborough can operate that way why can't the rest?
Regards,
DFC
Guest
Posts: n/a
DFC:
Good rant. But surely it sounds like you agree with my point - that you should contact the MTAZ controller for traffic information. At no time have I ever tried to say others should not enter MATZs, just that airmanship should dictate a call.
"Waffle" about QFE. Mil ac operate on QFE, I for one agree with this policy, but its discussion is a separate issue. Fot you to be deconflicted with mil ac during your MATZ transit, it makes things a hell of a lot easier if everyone's on the same pressure setting. I really don't think it's too much to ask for you to go the massive effort of changing your altimeter datum. If you're transiting a MATZ VFR then terrain separation really shouldn't be an issue!
Chris:
As Dimwit correctly stated, I was indeed referring to the specifics of my situation, about which I'd originally complained. Don't actually think my original post about that was too confusing, sorry if it was.
Dimwit:
Thanks. You still bored? Found anything yet to entertain you besides the inevitable self-abuse?
Good rant. But surely it sounds like you agree with my point - that you should contact the MTAZ controller for traffic information. At no time have I ever tried to say others should not enter MATZs, just that airmanship should dictate a call.
"Waffle" about QFE. Mil ac operate on QFE, I for one agree with this policy, but its discussion is a separate issue. Fot you to be deconflicted with mil ac during your MATZ transit, it makes things a hell of a lot easier if everyone's on the same pressure setting. I really don't think it's too much to ask for you to go the massive effort of changing your altimeter datum. If you're transiting a MATZ VFR then terrain separation really shouldn't be an issue!
Chris:
As Dimwit correctly stated, I was indeed referring to the specifics of my situation, about which I'd originally complained. Don't actually think my original post about that was too confusing, sorry if it was.
Dimwit:
Thanks. You still bored? Found anything yet to entertain you besides the inevitable self-abuse?
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
From: Here to Eternity
DFC:
Another thing to consider might be the type of traffic: Odiham will be operating RW aircraft, often below 250' MSD, at low speeds and with little requirement to interact with ATC. A busy fast-and-pointy station will, however, not have the same luxury as controllers try and integrate your transit with anything that might be flying around.
I, personally, would quite like to see a MATZ given the same priority and legal status as a normal ATZ; after all, how much effort is it to call someone, really? As DFC so vehemently points out, there's no legal requirement to obtain permission to cross an ATZ, especially with AFIS or A/G service. However, I'd contest, it's not particularly clever; neither is flying over the top at 2,001' aal (or 3,001' aal for a MATZ).
Out of interest, what is the universal obsession with altimetry to ensure terrain clearance in good VMC? You can *see* the ground, it's the large, roughly laminar thing underneath the aircraft (hopefully), so why are you so worried about setting QFE and losing your all-important "terrain awareness"? The only reason I can think of is inadvertent IMC; in which case I would contend you have far more to worry about as a non-IMCR holder, or if so licenced should have little difficulty dealing with the situation. Either way, it's not much to ask to ensure you don't hit something.
F-up:
Shouldn't you be at work or something? Been chopped yet?
-D
Another thing to consider might be the type of traffic: Odiham will be operating RW aircraft, often below 250' MSD, at low speeds and with little requirement to interact with ATC. A busy fast-and-pointy station will, however, not have the same luxury as controllers try and integrate your transit with anything that might be flying around.
I, personally, would quite like to see a MATZ given the same priority and legal status as a normal ATZ; after all, how much effort is it to call someone, really? As DFC so vehemently points out, there's no legal requirement to obtain permission to cross an ATZ, especially with AFIS or A/G service. However, I'd contest, it's not particularly clever; neither is flying over the top at 2,001' aal (or 3,001' aal for a MATZ).
Out of interest, what is the universal obsession with altimetry to ensure terrain clearance in good VMC? You can *see* the ground, it's the large, roughly laminar thing underneath the aircraft (hopefully), so why are you so worried about setting QFE and losing your all-important "terrain awareness"? The only reason I can think of is inadvertent IMC; in which case I would contend you have far more to worry about as a non-IMCR holder, or if so licenced should have little difficulty dealing with the situation. Either way, it's not much to ask to ensure you don't hit something.
F-up:
Shouldn't you be at work or something? Been chopped yet?
-D
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dimensional has nicely expanded on my point - terrian separation by use of the altimeter should not be an issue for VFR flight; see and avoid applies equally well to the ground as other aircraft, only it's distinctly easier to do.
Dimwitduncehead:
I *am* (strewth, even catching your "*" disease) at work, and have been here since 0645, and have probably sweated more flying today than a big horrible sweaty thing, so get back in your slack doing-nothing box. Will probably harass you later with tales of how great I am.
Dimwitduncehead:
I *am* (strewth, even catching your "*" disease) at work, and have been here since 0645, and have probably sweated more flying today than a big horrible sweaty thing, so get back in your slack doing-nothing box. Will probably harass you later with tales of how great I am.
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
Dimensional: OK give a MATZ the same status as a Rule 39 ATZ; fine, but then all civil airfields with instrument approach procedures should be given the same size ATZ. Also don't forget that a MATZ only exists when the airfield it serves is open for operational flying (JSP 318a - now superseded) and many military airfields open at odd times according to operational requirements.
I tried to suggest increasing the size of the ATZ to the CAA a couple of years ago (on the lines that things like 737's weren't protected in any way by even a 2.5nm ATZ), and was told that the present ATZ dimensions were agreed with various organisations after much discussion, and the ain't gonna be changed again.
I tried to suggest increasing the size of the ATZ to the CAA a couple of years ago (on the lines that things like 737's weren't protected in any way by even a 2.5nm ATZ), and was told that the present ATZ dimensions were agreed with various organisations after much discussion, and the ain't gonna be changed again.