MATZ Penetrations - A Plea!
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,402
Likes: 858
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
If you are refused access to Class D airspace - and that includes "Station calling, remain clear of controlled airspace", you should submit a CHIRP report after advising the Air Trafficker that will be doing so. The form is here: http://www.aopa.co.uk/newsfromaopa/C...ReportForm.doc
A certain well-known Class D airspace 'controller' is often too busy giving unnecessary RIS to puddlejumpers in 100% CAVOK Wx to control its own ATZ crossing requests; if people submit CHIRP reports then perhaps that might change?
Incidentally, unless it's in a TRA, you cannot be refused access to a MATZ, although you may be instructed to remain clear of the co-located ATZ.
A certain well-known Class D airspace 'controller' is often too busy giving unnecessary RIS to puddlejumpers in 100% CAVOK Wx to control its own ATZ crossing requests; if people submit CHIRP reports then perhaps that might change?
Incidentally, unless it's in a TRA, you cannot be refused access to a MATZ, although you may be instructed to remain clear of the co-located ATZ.
Moderator
Joined: Jul 1997
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 3,231
Likes: 21
From: Europe
I think AOPA or CHIRP should rename the file name of the form. If it really is a 'Class D Infringement Report', then you'll find it is actually the Air Trafficker completing a MOR or Alleged Breach of Legislation form against you, that being a more relevant kind of report for an infringement 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
Radar,
No it is correctly titled and it has nothing to do with infringements. Pilots who are refused access to class D as BEagle said are advised to file a report with CHIRP detailing the situation.
It's about data collection from both sides.
-------
Dimensional etc,
"roughly laminar "
Your assumption that one must be able to see the ground if VFR or if VMC is incorrect.
There are a number of legal obligations that require a pilot to be aware of their altitude at all times and to be able to relate that to obstacles, terrain and other information displayed on our charts as AMSL.
The assumption that altitude information is only used to determin separation from terrain is also incorrect.
As for QFE being used to "deconflict".......well if your circuit pattern is 1000ft above a field elevation of 400ft then you would probably find it easy to work out that provided you keep transist at 1900 QNH or above, (even though you are not required to provide any separation) there is no confliction. So you simply remember that all transits below 1900ft QNH are going to conflict with your traffic pattern. Do the same for your radar pattern and put it on a postit.
But do not ask me to do the same for the terrain, obstacles, built up areas, ATZs Danger Areas, Controlled Airspace etc close to every military aerodrome that I might talk to as I pass by.
An example where QFE can be dangerous is when one has to work out if one will enter a nearby civil ATZ when flying on a different airfields QFE. Normally I would simply say that if altitude - 2000 is greather than field elevation, one is above the ATZ. Try that one with the QFE of an aerodrome which you do not know the elevation of set! Even if one does know the QFE datum, there is more thinking required than is necessary.
----------
Chevvron,
The answer is to make a MATZ class E airspace. Same for civil fields with IAPs - give them class E. That makes it a legal requirement for those who can not see much out the window to obtain a clearance. It also increases the VMC minima from that in class G which improves the ability for the flier in visual conditions to see and avoid when in that airspace.
Regards,
DFC
No it is correctly titled and it has nothing to do with infringements. Pilots who are refused access to class D as BEagle said are advised to file a report with CHIRP detailing the situation.
It's about data collection from both sides.
-------
Dimensional etc,
"roughly laminar "
Your assumption that one must be able to see the ground if VFR or if VMC is incorrect.
There are a number of legal obligations that require a pilot to be aware of their altitude at all times and to be able to relate that to obstacles, terrain and other information displayed on our charts as AMSL.
The assumption that altitude information is only used to determin separation from terrain is also incorrect.
As for QFE being used to "deconflict".......well if your circuit pattern is 1000ft above a field elevation of 400ft then you would probably find it easy to work out that provided you keep transist at 1900 QNH or above, (even though you are not required to provide any separation) there is no confliction. So you simply remember that all transits below 1900ft QNH are going to conflict with your traffic pattern. Do the same for your radar pattern and put it on a postit.
But do not ask me to do the same for the terrain, obstacles, built up areas, ATZs Danger Areas, Controlled Airspace etc close to every military aerodrome that I might talk to as I pass by.
An example where QFE can be dangerous is when one has to work out if one will enter a nearby civil ATZ when flying on a different airfields QFE. Normally I would simply say that if altitude - 2000 is greather than field elevation, one is above the ATZ. Try that one with the QFE of an aerodrome which you do not know the elevation of set! Even if one does know the QFE datum, there is more thinking required than is necessary.
----------
Chevvron,
The answer is to make a MATZ class E airspace. Same for civil fields with IAPs - give them class E. That makes it a legal requirement for those who can not see much out the window to obtain a clearance. It also increases the VMC minima from that in class G which improves the ability for the flier in visual conditions to see and avoid when in that airspace.
Regards,
DFC
Moderator
Joined: Jul 1997
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 3,231
Likes: 21
From: Europe
No it is correctly titled and it has nothing to do with infringements.
When you read something, perhaps read it again carefully before commenting. I did not mention the 'title', I mentioned the 'file name', which is:
ClassDInfringementReportForm.doc
Click on the properties of the link given by BEagle and tell me if you think it is anything different.
Guest
Posts: n/a
DFC:
You're missing the point - yes, the obstacles listed on your chart are listed AMSL, but you really really should be able to look out of the window (a shocking idea for many puddlejumpers I know) and avoid the big honking mast you can see visually.
More shocking news - military aircraft inside a MATZ will be operating at a whole range of different heights, doing a whole range of different things, manoevring with relatively high energy in a range of different directions, horizontally and vertically, very different to a civil airfield - not just in the vis or radar ccts. It therefore behoves you to set QFE, so that other MATZ users can take whatever action necessary to avoid ruining your day.
Being roughly aware of your altitude for the legal reasons you quote does not mean you have to keep QNH religiously set on your altimeter at all times.
Yes, there are a few civil ATZs inside MATZs, but:
a) If you're close enough that setting QFE or QNH will make a difference to whether you're inside the ATZ, maybe you should give them a call anyway.
b) The MATZ controller will generally be aware of their activity, many GA airfields inside MATZs have local agreements whereby they will call the mil zone controller on departure and recovery, for EVERYONE'S safety.
c) Is it really that much harder to compare the two elevations of the mil airfield and the civil one (chances are they're gonna be pretty similar anyway) and deduce your height above the cicil airfield from that?
Mil ac will often transit a MATZ other than that of their home base. When they do so, they will set the QFE of the controlling airfield. Somehow, amazingly, they manage to avoid any fixed objects, ATZs etc, while on QFE, and while travelling a good deal faster than I imagine you do. Setting the same altimeter setting as others using the same piece of airspace is fundamental to collision avoidance. Trust us, we do this for a living, and we do it rather well.
Roll that up in your post-it note and smoke it.
You're missing the point - yes, the obstacles listed on your chart are listed AMSL, but you really really should be able to look out of the window (a shocking idea for many puddlejumpers I know) and avoid the big honking mast you can see visually.
More shocking news - military aircraft inside a MATZ will be operating at a whole range of different heights, doing a whole range of different things, manoevring with relatively high energy in a range of different directions, horizontally and vertically, very different to a civil airfield - not just in the vis or radar ccts. It therefore behoves you to set QFE, so that other MATZ users can take whatever action necessary to avoid ruining your day.
Being roughly aware of your altitude for the legal reasons you quote does not mean you have to keep QNH religiously set on your altimeter at all times.
Yes, there are a few civil ATZs inside MATZs, but:
a) If you're close enough that setting QFE or QNH will make a difference to whether you're inside the ATZ, maybe you should give them a call anyway.
b) The MATZ controller will generally be aware of their activity, many GA airfields inside MATZs have local agreements whereby they will call the mil zone controller on departure and recovery, for EVERYONE'S safety.
c) Is it really that much harder to compare the two elevations of the mil airfield and the civil one (chances are they're gonna be pretty similar anyway) and deduce your height above the cicil airfield from that?
Mil ac will often transit a MATZ other than that of their home base. When they do so, they will set the QFE of the controlling airfield. Somehow, amazingly, they manage to avoid any fixed objects, ATZs etc, while on QFE, and while travelling a good deal faster than I imagine you do. Setting the same altimeter setting as others using the same piece of airspace is fundamental to collision avoidance. Trust us, we do this for a living, and we do it rather well.
Roll that up in your post-it note and smoke it.
Last edited by Fournicator; 20th July 2006 at 05:39.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
From: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
DFC
There's not a lot of point in arguing with Fournicator. He doesn't just think he is right, he's convinced of it. It is to a certain extend our fault. We train people in the military to have absolute confidence in what they are told to do and not to question military perceptions.
When he gets older he will realise that life is not so black and white. I've been there, done that, been shot at and seen people under my command killed, and I have my own thoughts and my own views.
I doubt he's aware of the table at 6.3 in Section 1 Chapter 6 of CAP493.
Mike
There's not a lot of point in arguing with Fournicator. He doesn't just think he is right, he's convinced of it. It is to a certain extend our fault. We train people in the military to have absolute confidence in what they are told to do and not to question military perceptions.
When he gets older he will realise that life is not so black and white. I've been there, done that, been shot at and seen people under my command killed, and I have my own thoughts and my own views.
I doubt he's aware of the table at 6.3 in Section 1 Chapter 6 of CAP493.
Mike
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
From: Here to Eternity
DFC, MC et al:
Could it be, shockingly, that there's not one right way of doing things (outside of the rules), but instead that there are varying degrees of sensible, efficient and easy? We are, after all, merely discussing matters of interpretation: you think something is the way forward, both F and I disagree with you. We have our reasons, as do you.
For instance, to bring this back on track: it is no doubt easier not to contact someone before overflying their MATZ, but is it sensible? [Ans: I'd say so!] Is it efficient to call someone when passing ten miles abeam and asking for a FIS? Is it easy to negotiate a transit of Stansted Zone? Is it good airmanship to use QFE or QNH for the final phases of an instrument approach? Is it clever for an IMCR-rated pilot to operate to IR minima?
Shockingly, both F and I agree that nearly all the practices we're taught in the military are more efficient than the civil world. They can afford to be: we're training to fly fast-and-pointy things at meningyknots around hills with people trying to stop us in a most unpleasant fashion. Things such as MDR as opposed to an obsessive love for the Whizz-wheel, the use of QFE wherever possible, and the Run-in-and-break all have their place in military aviation. What's more, as we can select the best pilots, the best instructors et cetera, there is a culture of assuming that the military way is the best way (reinforced when you consider, for one example, just how far CFS teaching has pervaded through the civil FI world).
To be honest, much of what I see when I fly light aircraft for fun reinforces some of the absolutely dire impressions I have of the vast minority of civil, low hours, low currency PPLs. I'm fortunate, as is F, to be able to keep my skills as current as they can be thanks to the generosity of Auntie Betty's Flying Club. While I appreciate that most people don't have that, some of the airmanship and flying skill standards I've seen, most notably last weekend, drive me to wonder whether some people find their licence at the bottom of their morning cereal packet...
Incidentally, having just looked up your table 6.3, what pray tell does it tell me that, say, Vol. 2 of Trevor Thom doesn't or, dare I suggest it, the knowledge that one should really have before committing aviation anyway...
(For those that can't be bothered to look it up: the somewhat cryptic reference to the Manual of Air Traffic Services merely concerns the definition of words such as 'height', 'altitude' and 'flight level' and their common uses. Note: under QFE/Height it says 'normally on final approach'; my emphasis. I do hope you weren't aiming to look clever by quoting the rulebook at us...)
I can assure you, both F and I have been flying for a fair while; and while not as long as your venerable selves no doubt, we have our fair share of experience of flying light aircraft around. Both of us are very much near the bottom of the military flying training pipeline; F slightly further than myself. Neither of us have (hopefully) forgotten what it means to throw a small aircraft around as a PPL -- I certainly haven't.
How having people shoot at you affects your preferences for altimeter setting is somewhat beyond me, however...
--D
Could it be, shockingly, that there's not one right way of doing things (outside of the rules), but instead that there are varying degrees of sensible, efficient and easy? We are, after all, merely discussing matters of interpretation: you think something is the way forward, both F and I disagree with you. We have our reasons, as do you.
For instance, to bring this back on track: it is no doubt easier not to contact someone before overflying their MATZ, but is it sensible? [Ans: I'd say so!] Is it efficient to call someone when passing ten miles abeam and asking for a FIS? Is it easy to negotiate a transit of Stansted Zone? Is it good airmanship to use QFE or QNH for the final phases of an instrument approach? Is it clever for an IMCR-rated pilot to operate to IR minima?
Shockingly, both F and I agree that nearly all the practices we're taught in the military are more efficient than the civil world. They can afford to be: we're training to fly fast-and-pointy things at meningyknots around hills with people trying to stop us in a most unpleasant fashion. Things such as MDR as opposed to an obsessive love for the Whizz-wheel, the use of QFE wherever possible, and the Run-in-and-break all have their place in military aviation. What's more, as we can select the best pilots, the best instructors et cetera, there is a culture of assuming that the military way is the best way (reinforced when you consider, for one example, just how far CFS teaching has pervaded through the civil FI world).
To be honest, much of what I see when I fly light aircraft for fun reinforces some of the absolutely dire impressions I have of the vast minority of civil, low hours, low currency PPLs. I'm fortunate, as is F, to be able to keep my skills as current as they can be thanks to the generosity of Auntie Betty's Flying Club. While I appreciate that most people don't have that, some of the airmanship and flying skill standards I've seen, most notably last weekend, drive me to wonder whether some people find their licence at the bottom of their morning cereal packet...
Incidentally, having just looked up your table 6.3, what pray tell does it tell me that, say, Vol. 2 of Trevor Thom doesn't or, dare I suggest it, the knowledge that one should really have before committing aviation anyway...
(For those that can't be bothered to look it up: the somewhat cryptic reference to the Manual of Air Traffic Services merely concerns the definition of words such as 'height', 'altitude' and 'flight level' and their common uses. Note: under QFE/Height it says 'normally on final approach'; my emphasis. I do hope you weren't aiming to look clever by quoting the rulebook at us...)
I can assure you, both F and I have been flying for a fair while; and while not as long as your venerable selves no doubt, we have our fair share of experience of flying light aircraft around. Both of us are very much near the bottom of the military flying training pipeline; F slightly further than myself. Neither of us have (hopefully) forgotten what it means to throw a small aircraft around as a PPL -- I certainly haven't.
How having people shoot at you affects your preferences for altimeter setting is somewhat beyond me, however...
--D
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
From: Dublin
What this basically boils down to, is two people doing something that is not as safe as it could be.
One is flying a the cloud base in a MATZ, which indicates it's a high movement area, without talking to the most appropriate unit. We are of course assuming that they are radio equipped. If they were not then that raises other questions.
The other is performing high energy manoeuvres in an environment where non-transponding traffic is unknown. They are treating a unknown traffic environment as if it were a known traffic environment.
I was going to say that each is asking the other to stop doing things how they are doing it, so that the other can continue. But actually no one asked F or D to stop doing things that they are doing. They simply asked them to consider how safe what they were doing was, before criticising someone else.
Men in glass houses and all?
As an aside, out of curiosity, if the RAF go to a war zone and have to operate in high altitude environment (by this I mean use high altitude airports) then presumably they must revert to using QNH for landing?
dp
One is flying a the cloud base in a MATZ, which indicates it's a high movement area, without talking to the most appropriate unit. We are of course assuming that they are radio equipped. If they were not then that raises other questions.
The other is performing high energy manoeuvres in an environment where non-transponding traffic is unknown. They are treating a unknown traffic environment as if it were a known traffic environment.
I was going to say that each is asking the other to stop doing things how they are doing it, so that the other can continue. But actually no one asked F or D to stop doing things that they are doing. They simply asked them to consider how safe what they were doing was, before criticising someone else.
Men in glass houses and all?
As an aside, out of curiosity, if the RAF go to a war zone and have to operate in high altitude environment (by this I mean use high altitude airports) then presumably they must revert to using QNH for landing?
dp
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dimwit:
Eloquently put, far better than me, as Mr "Subtle as a Rhino up the Backside" could manage before I went to work today.
Mike:
I have been known to make some pretty glaring mistakes; young Dimwit has witnessed a few of them. What he has also witnessed is me having the moral courage to admit when I've messed up and even have a joke at my own ineptitude; an awareness of one's own failings is another thing religiously drummed into us in the military flying training world, far more so than my experiences of private flying. The important thing is to learn from it so you do don't do it again; what's done is done (D - you have been known to occasionally mess up to - which river? ).
However, in this case I believe that the shades of grey are distinctly favouring my side of the fence - transitting a MATZ without talking to ATC or on a different altimeter datum than everyone else in the MATZ are pretty blatant examples of bad airmanship in my view, whereas practicing a recognised procedure in a piece of airspace notified on civilian charts as containing a large number of fast-movers is somewhat more defensible.
DP:
Yes. An added "complexity" of operating at high altitudes in either peacetime or conflict. That doesn't mean we have to operate all UK mil airfields on QNH, just as one doesn't do a glide approach on every puddlejumper landing to practice for the day your donk gives out.
Eloquently put, far better than me, as Mr "Subtle as a Rhino up the Backside" could manage before I went to work today.
Mike:
I have been known to make some pretty glaring mistakes; young Dimwit has witnessed a few of them. What he has also witnessed is me having the moral courage to admit when I've messed up and even have a joke at my own ineptitude; an awareness of one's own failings is another thing religiously drummed into us in the military flying training world, far more so than my experiences of private flying. The important thing is to learn from it so you do don't do it again; what's done is done (D - you have been known to occasionally mess up to - which river?
).However, in this case I believe that the shades of grey are distinctly favouring my side of the fence - transitting a MATZ without talking to ATC or on a different altimeter datum than everyone else in the MATZ are pretty blatant examples of bad airmanship in my view, whereas practicing a recognised procedure in a piece of airspace notified on civilian charts as containing a large number of fast-movers is somewhat more defensible.
DP:
Yes. An added "complexity" of operating at high altitudes in either peacetime or conflict. That doesn't mean we have to operate all UK mil airfields on QNH, just as one doesn't do a glide approach on every puddlejumper landing to practice for the day your donk gives out.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
From: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Dimensional
Where, pray in the UK do you have that happening? I have absolutely no problem with you doing it in a war zone, however you are not operating in one. Your attitude and that of Fournicator demonstrate what I was trying to put over. You are reacting in accordance with the way you have been trained and assuming that you are in the right.
Your wording
is tosh.
1. There is nothing cryptic about the reference I gave, it's concise.
2. I have no need to try and look clever as you put it, I'm simply trying to get you to acknowledge that the Mil practice of using QFE for height reporting in a MATZ is not in compliance.
3. Your statement "merely concerns the definition of words such as 'height', 'altitude' and 'flight level' and their common uses." is wrong. The reference is prescriptive and uses the wording "is reported" and "are used" not "may be reported" or "may be used".
I don't think any of us are disagreeing with you that it is good airmanship to make use of the facilities that are available, which was Fournicator's original point.
We are however trying to get the pair of you to acknowledge that a MATZ is not CAS, that you will encounter unknown traffic in it, and it is both sensible and good airmanship for us all to conform to a common standard.
While you may think that
ignoring the civil world is not an option that is open to you. The civil aviation world in the UK is quite a few orders of magnitude greater than the military one.
Mike
Shockingly, both F and I agree that nearly all the practices we're taught in the military are more efficient than the civil world. They can afford to be: we're training to fly fast-and-pointy things at meningyknots around hills with people trying to stop us in a most unpleasant fashion.
Your wording
(For those that can't be bothered to look it up: the somewhat cryptic reference to the Manual of Air Traffic Services merely concerns the definition of words such as 'height', 'altitude' and 'flight level' and their common uses. Note: under QFE/Height it says 'normally on final approach'; my emphasis. I do hope you weren't aiming to look clever by quoting the rulebook at us...)
1. There is nothing cryptic about the reference I gave, it's concise.
2. I have no need to try and look clever as you put it, I'm simply trying to get you to acknowledge that the Mil practice of using QFE for height reporting in a MATZ is not in compliance.
3. Your statement "merely concerns the definition of words such as 'height', 'altitude' and 'flight level' and their common uses." is wrong. The reference is prescriptive and uses the wording "is reported" and "are used" not "may be reported" or "may be used".
6.3 The table below shows the altimeter subscale settings, the terms in which vertical position is reported and the occasions on which they are used to report to air traffic services units.
QNH......
1. At, or below, the transition altitude (i.e. in the vicinity of an aerodrome).
2. Descending through the transition layer.
3. At the pilots discretion during final approach.
QFE....
Normally during final approach
QNH......
1. At, or below, the transition altitude (i.e. in the vicinity of an aerodrome).
2. Descending through the transition layer.
3. At the pilots discretion during final approach.
QFE....
Normally during final approach
We are however trying to get the pair of you to acknowledge that a MATZ is not CAS, that you will encounter unknown traffic in it, and it is both sensible and good airmanship for us all to conform to a common standard.
While you may think that
nearly all the practices we're taught in the military are more efficient than the civil world
Mike
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
From: Dublin
That doesn't mean we have to operate all UK mil airfields on QNH
However, in this case I believe that the shades of grey are distinctly favouring my side of the fence -
dp
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
From: Oxford
Shockingly, both F and I agree that nearly all the practices we're taught in the military are more efficient than the civil world. They can afford to be: we're training to fly fast-and-pointy things at meningyknots around hills with people trying to stop us in a most unpleasant fashion.
Tim
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
From: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Not suggesting that at all. However what you do in a battlefield situation when you're being shot at is different to what you do in training. The fact that the Army need to train for street fighting in Iraq doesn't give them carte blanche to carry out live firing in Salisbury High Street. They do it out on the training area where the exercise has been planned, the risks have been assessed and the exercise can be carried out safely.
Last edited by Mike Cross; 20th July 2006 at 15:12.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
From: Here to Eternity
Therein lies the problem with *not* doing this manoeuver (and other, similar ones) -- the pace of training as I understand it is so hectic that you can't *not* do it just because the radar is SSR only (training requirements) -- and if you're going to do it anywhere, surely it's better to do it under (at least a limited) radar service in an area notified to other air traffic as containing potentially hazardous activities...
Guest
Posts: n/a
DP:
Funny old thing mate, this being on the Private Flying forum there are a fair few voices saying that, yes. What do you reckon would happen if it were on the Mil Aircrew forum?
Mike:
I have AT NO TIME said that a MATZ is CAS, what on earth has given you that idea? I fully understand the legal rights of other airspace users to use a MATZ. However, just as you wouldn't fly through an active danger area, I still think anyone flying through a MATZ without talking to ATC is committing a gross breach of airmanship. It is a requirement for military aircraft to operate in, what would seem to you at least, a very high energy fashion. You do not understand these operations in detail; you have no need to. But you do need to understand that if you operate near or in a MATZ, or indeed in a notified AIAA, you are very likely to encounter mil ac doing their thing, potentially ruining everyone's day. We at least have the luxury of explosive furniture, I am as much thinking of your safety as my own.
Once again to make sure I am understood - I am not saying that a MATZ is (or indeed should be, unlike the opinion of many of my colleagues) CAS, I fully understand other traffic will be operating there. A great many civil ac transit MATZs talking to ATC, I am more than happy to go out of my way to do the lion's share of the avoidance if so. Why can't everyone stick to the same basic standard of airmanship?
Many people are using this thread for their own personal attacks on military aviation, that is not what I wanted to do. If you feel the need, then by all means start a more clearly titled thread for doing so. The point here is a plea for all users of a MATZ to make ATC aware of their presence if at all possible.
Edited to echo and amplify Dim's thoughts:
Where else than a military airfield, notifed with a MATZ, would you have us practice mil procedures? Surely you don't want us to have to establish controlled airspace to give us 'total' (except for errant PPL holders bumbling into it) protection for our operations? I certainly would much rather it didn't come to that.
Originally Posted by dublinpilot
I'm not sure you're reading the same thread as the rest of us. Seems only you & D refuse to acknowledge that what you are doing is equally increasing the risk.
dp
dp
Mike:
I have AT NO TIME said that a MATZ is CAS, what on earth has given you that idea? I fully understand the legal rights of other airspace users to use a MATZ. However, just as you wouldn't fly through an active danger area, I still think anyone flying through a MATZ without talking to ATC is committing a gross breach of airmanship. It is a requirement for military aircraft to operate in, what would seem to you at least, a very high energy fashion. You do not understand these operations in detail; you have no need to. But you do need to understand that if you operate near or in a MATZ, or indeed in a notified AIAA, you are very likely to encounter mil ac doing their thing, potentially ruining everyone's day. We at least have the luxury of explosive furniture, I am as much thinking of your safety as my own.
Once again to make sure I am understood - I am not saying that a MATZ is (or indeed should be, unlike the opinion of many of my colleagues) CAS, I fully understand other traffic will be operating there. A great many civil ac transit MATZs talking to ATC, I am more than happy to go out of my way to do the lion's share of the avoidance if so. Why can't everyone stick to the same basic standard of airmanship?
Many people are using this thread for their own personal attacks on military aviation, that is not what I wanted to do. If you feel the need, then by all means start a more clearly titled thread for doing so. The point here is a plea for all users of a MATZ to make ATC aware of their presence if at all possible.
Edited to echo and amplify Dim's thoughts:
Where else than a military airfield, notifed with a MATZ, would you have us practice mil procedures? Surely you don't want us to have to establish controlled airspace to give us 'total' (except for errant PPL holders bumbling into it) protection for our operations? I certainly would much rather it didn't come to that.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
From: Norfolk
Interesting series of topics and arguements on this thread.
However, am I alone in thinking that most of wouldn't enter a MATZ without at least trying to make contact?
Trying being the operative word when most MATZ's are shut after an early stack on a Friday when the service sky-Gods retire to the mess for Happy Hour or a posting barell and whinge about us pesky private flyers in our "puddle-jumpers"!
I quite like PJ as a new appelation for my "jet"!
Marham is the RAF zone that I enter most frequently and I have no problems with setting QFE. On handover to the first civillian agency (Norwich if homeward bound) they pass me the regional QNH anyway and if I was between stations I could always request the QNH from Marham.
Stik
However, am I alone in thinking that most of wouldn't enter a MATZ without at least trying to make contact?
Trying being the operative word when most MATZ's are shut after an early stack on a Friday
when the service sky-Gods retire to the mess for Happy Hour or a posting barell and whinge about us pesky private flyers in our "puddle-jumpers"!I quite like PJ as a new appelation for my "jet"!
Marham is the RAF zone that I enter most frequently and I have no problems with setting QFE. On handover to the first civillian agency (Norwich if homeward bound) they pass me the regional QNH anyway and if I was between stations I could always request the QNH from Marham.
Stik
Guest
Posts: n/a
WR:
Thanks!
All very sensible stuff, exactly what I do when PPL flying/gliding of a weekend. Is also quite painful hearing G-ABCD repeatedly (i'm talking 5 or more times here!) trying to get hold of a controller at the weekend, when we're all off pretending to be normal people.
Glad to hear some more voices being added to the side of common sense and airmanship, eh Dublin?
Thanks!
All very sensible stuff, exactly what I do when PPL flying/gliding of a weekend. Is also quite painful hearing G-ABCD repeatedly (i'm talking 5 or more times here!) trying to get hold of a controller at the weekend, when we're all off pretending to be normal people.
Glad to hear some more voices being added to the side of common sense and airmanship, eh Dublin?
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
From: Dublin
F,
I don't disagree with anything that stick or WR have said.
Let me take you back to what MC said just a few posts ago
I don't think anyone has yet said that it's not a good idea to call ATC if operating inside a MATZ (which was your initial point).
We are just trying to get you to see that what you were doing yourself wasn't exactly the cleverest either.
But as MC has pointed out:
I think you've clearly proved his point.
dp
I don't disagree with anything that stick or WR have said.
Let me take you back to what MC said just a few posts ago
I don't think any of us are disagreeing with you that it is good airmanship to make use of the facilities that are available, which was Fournicator's original point.
We are however trying to get the pair of you to acknowledge that a MATZ is not CAS, that you will encounter unknown traffic in it, and it is both sensible and good airmanship for us all to conform to a common standard.
We are however trying to get the pair of you to acknowledge that a MATZ is not CAS, that you will encounter unknown traffic in it, and it is both sensible and good airmanship for us all to conform to a common standard.
We are just trying to get you to see that what you were doing yourself wasn't exactly the cleverest either.
But as MC has pointed out:
There's not a lot of point in arguing with Fournicator. He doesn't just think he is right, he's convinced of it. It is to a certain extend our fault. We train people in the military to have absolute confidence in what they are told to do and not to question military perceptions.
dp