MATZ Penetrations - A Plea!

[Dimensional]

I don't think it's that, DP, it's just that F and I aren't convinced by your arguments -- I, at least, and I think F likewise, have listened to your arguments (such as they are) -- and we disagree with you.

No inbuilt 'military superiority complex', it's exactly the same beliefs I held before I started mil flying training...

--D

[dublinpilot]

No inbuilt 'military superiority complex', it's exactly the same beliefs I held before I started mil flying training...

If that's what you think we are trying to argue, then I suggest you reread this thread.

dp

[Dimensional]

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.

Errr... wossat then?

(apologies for taking this somewhat off-thread...)

--D

[dublinpilot]

D,

That is MC explaining why F does not seem to be able to question his own actions, only those of others.

Take a look back to MC's very first post on this thread.

There's cloud and no radar, it's uncontrolled airspace, but what the hell, let's plummet through cloud into an unknown environment anyway.

There are two ways to look at this scenario.

It's the gliding season. Gliders climb to cloud base, it's not an unusual situation.

He's not defending anyone being in a MATZ without talking to ATC. He's not accusing RAF pilots of having a superiority complex. He's simply asking F to consider how sensible his own actions were. To look at the situation from someone else's point of view.

I'm surprised that this thread could continue for so long, and you guys still haven't managed to see that point. It's the point MC has been trying to get across since his very first post on this thread.

Try reading with an open mind. If you can understand where the other person is coming from the debate will be much easier

dp

[Dimensional]

I can see perfectly well where you're coming from, but I still disagree with you -- it's a training objective, it's the safest place to do it, it's a manoeuver simulating a critical emergency where the other option is stepping out of the airframe and letting it do its own thing...

What, pray tell, would be your solution to a simulated engine emergency over 8/8ths cloud in a fast and pointy airframe?

-D

[dublinpilot]

What, pray tell, would be your solution to a simulated engine emergency over 8/8ths cloud in a fast and pointy airframe?

I think the point is not how to deal with the simulated engine emergency, but rather whether to simulate at all, in an unknown traffic environment under such circumstances.

As to what your options are to be able to train for such an emergency, I'll again draw you back to MC's earlier posting :

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.

I'd add
5. Go and do it somewhere else, where there is a known traffic environment.

dp

[chrisN]

I don't think I'm getting anywhere, but as a glider pilot I would like to add one more alternative for consideration before high descent rates through cloud in class G (whether over a MATZ or not, but I'm not sure how necessary in an AIAA): Call on 130.4, or have somebody do it for you, to see if any gliders are cloud flying or close to cloud base in the area. As I pointed out before, there is no one frequency that gliders can monitor to see if others are about, but there is one frequency that any cloud-flying gliders will be on.

Hope that helps.

Chris N.

[DFC]

Originally Posted by Fournicator

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.

No. You are (shockingly for a pilot) unaware that;

There is no requirement for me to be able to see the surface or any obstacles (which could be in cloud). I am still VFR and am using the QNH to ensure MSD from the unseen obstacles, terrain and built up areas.

Originally Posted by Fournicator

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.

The CAA say that - The purpose of the MATZ is to provide a volume of airspace within which increased protection may be given to aircraft
in the critical stages of circuit, approach and climb-out.

Seems that your using a MATZ for something that it is not intended.

Danger areas are required to be established when dangerous activities need to be segregated.

So either it is not dangerous or the RAF have a duty of care to complete such dangerous activities in segregated airspace aka danger areas.

If it is dangerous for a civil aircraft to transit a MATZ then perhaps you are not doing your job as well as you think!

I have gained one piece of knowledge from this discussion - Forget all that hardware on show at Farnborough. All one needs is a few puddlejumpers operating non-radio and the RAF have severe problems completing missions. Forget SAMs, puddlejumpers are the new weapon.

Regards,

DFC

[Fournicator]

DFC:
What I said in no way disagrees with the description of a MATZ you provided, but you seem unable to understand that aircraft departing or approaching the airfield may do so at any number of different directions and heights, not just aligned with the runway in use, or i the radar cct. To separate yourself from this range of traffic you really shoudl set QFE.
As regards obstacle clearance, I'm well aware that you can legally be VMC on top. However, a layer of low level stratus that would be the typical scenario for you to still be inside the MATZ but VMC on top would not stop you from seeing obstacles - they'd stick out in front of you. If you are VMC/VFR, then simply looking ahead will sort out your terrian separation - just don't fly into any bloody clouds, which might have solid centres.
If you are VFR, regardless of whether you can see the surface or not, you can easily get separation from any obstacles simply by looking out of the window. Trust me, I do this for a living.
It is not dangerous for civil aircraft to transit a MATZ, to do so without advising ATC may well be.

Dublin"Pilot":
You really are quite irritating. To echo Dimensional, I am more than happy to back down when I see that my case is wrong, but why should I here? A whole load of very experienced professional aviators I work with consider our operations acceptable, why should I change my mind just because a couple of PPLs get offended and start throwing their teddies out of the pram? I have listened to your arguments, considered them, and I still disagree.
You also display a shocking understanding of the mil avaition mindset - we live in a working environment where we contantly take criticism, and use it productively to improve our flying.

[PPRuNe Radar]

There is no requirement for me to be able to see the surface or any obstacles (which could be in cloud). I am still VFR and am using the QNH to ensure MSD from the unseen obstacles, terrain and built up areas.

DFC

But if you comply with the ANO, then you have to be 1000' vertically from cloud, and so will never come close to any unseen obstacle in the cloud. The pressure setting is irrelevant since however you determine your vertical separation from the cloud, it still requires 1000' minimum separation distance for you to be VFR.

If you are using a reported ceiling as your datum to calculate your 'separation', then you coud still be breaking the law as it will not be a uniform figure and could change at any moment from the figure you are using. But obtaining hard evidence and prosecuting you could be tricky

[BEagle]

Quite so!

Below 3000 ft amsl, the alternative VFR limits (5 km flight visibility in Class B, C, D or E or if above 140 KIAS in Class F or G, 1.5km below 140KIAS if fixed wing in Class F or G) and 'clear of cloud' also mandate and in sight of the surface.

So if you are not 'in sight of the surface', to be in VMC you must be at least 1000 ft clear of cloud vertically, 1500m horizontally and have a flight visibility of 5km (8km above FL100).

And remember that it's 3000 ft amsl, so if you're using QFE in a MATZ you must also add aerodrome elevation to establish your true altitude when stating whether or not you're VFR.

[dublinpilot]

You really are quite irritating. To echo Dimensional, I am more than happy to back down when I see that my case is wrong

If I am being iritating, the presumably a little bit of what I am saying is actually sinking in somewhere. That's good.

As for D, I think until yesterday evening, he didn't understand what we were trying to argue.

If you think that we are trying to get you to "back down" then you are taking this the wrong way. We are simply trying to help improve your understanding of the environment that you share, and the risks that you take and impose on others.

You also display a shocking understanding of the mil avaition mindset - we live in a working environment where we contantly take criticism, and use it productively to improve our flying.

I think just about everything you've said on this thread, including your name calling "banter" shows a complete lack of abilty to take criticism constructively.

You have yet to comment on why MC's suggestions of what your options are for such manouvers when you have no Primiary radar available. Instead you fail to look at your own actions and either justify them or explain why you have no alternative. You just keep insisting simply that you have "listened but still disagree".

You already said that you don't consider it safe to be descending through cloud at 4000ft pm without primiary radar, which unknown traffic around...the whole point of this thread.

Given that, why do you still disagee that it's not dangerous to continue? As for your case being wrong....you have yet to make a case for continuting these actions under such conditions.

dp

[Dimensional]

dp:
Would it make it OK to carry out a RPFL if there was primary radar available? How about in controlled airspace? When, pray tell, would you consider it acceptable to carry out this manoeuver?

If you think the requirement is for a perfectly known traffic environment, then might I suggest that would lead to covering most of the East coast of the UK in controlled airspace?

Bear in mind it's either practice RPFL's or step out of the airframe...

-D

(incidentally, I've understood all along what you're getting at but I still think you're wrong... You've managed to display no concept whatsoever of what mil flying training is like, either from an operational or a cultural point of view; that includes banter, which is perfectly normal (and healthy) as far as I have seen in my limited experience of mil flying training, in short: please come up with a worthwhile suggestion that helps matters or dry your eyes.)

[TangoZulu]

I have followed this thread with interest - in fact was discussing a related subject last night over a pint in the club bar after a local flight.
To start with - PPL/IMC/Night - about 170 hrs total - if this makes a difference to a particular viewpoint I am not sure, however just being open.
It strikes me that there is a lot of discussion about legalities etc - when in reality surely this comes down to airmanship - whilst it may be legal to fly through, or in a MATZ without talking to the controller - is it really sensible?
After all what is it called again - ah yes, a MATZ - what does the M stand for - therefore should we really be surprised if the military choose to use thier bit of airspace as shown on a map?
Ultimately the information is there on the map and in my personal opinion it is fairly shortsighted, maybe even selfish for someone to operate in the MATZ without talking to anyone - just because they can - after all the controller is more likely to help you in my experience than the opposite (particular experience of MATZ controllers at Brize, Benson and Yeovilton all being very helpful when called).
But just my view for what it may be worth

Edited for spelling as I cannot type!

[tmmorris]

Caution: Brize isn't a MATZ, it's class D. Though someone needs to tell the Brize controllers that its ceiling is 3500' AMSL, as they often attempt to control traffic above that level...

Tim

[chevvron]

DFC: I don't know where you got the rules for Class E; in my book it says ATC clearance and RTF contact are not required for VFR aircraft, thus it would be of no use whatever for a MATZ to be class E.
Class E actually seems to be no better than F or G, so why bother with it anyway?

[rustle]

Originally Posted by TangoZulu

After all what is it called again - ah yes, a MATZ - what does the M stand for - therefore should we really be surprised if the military choose to use thier bit of airspace as shown on a map?
Ultimately the information is there on the map and in my personal opinion it is fairly shortsighted, maybe even selfish for someone to operate in the MATZ without talking to anyone - just because they can - after all the controller is more likely to help you in my experience than the opposite (particular experience of MATZ controllers at Brize, Benson and Yeovilton all being very helpful when called).
But just my view for what it may be worth

Edited for spelling as I cannot type!

I don't think I have read anywhere on this thread anyone disputing the "airmanship" side of calling a MATZ controller prior to entering a MATZ.

It goes without saying, I would have thought, that that is a particularly good idea notwithstanding that you are not bound to.

The other side of this discussion has been about the airmanship of the mil crew who have elected to carry out high-energy manoeuvres when they had/have no idea what else is in the area...

Despite protestations from two posters here, I am unconvinced that descending at x000fpm through IMC in a MATZ just because you can is clever or necessary, especially when it is known that primary radar cover is not available.

When discussions like this go on, I often think "what would the AAIB report (and/or the BOI report) read like"? IMO they would not be complementary about either the glider pilot or whoever authorised the high-energy descent in IMC for the mil aircraft.

Realistically there is room for improvement in "airmanship" on both sides of this discussion: Glider in a MATZ without speaking to anyone AND Mil Jet in high-energy manoeuvres without primary radar cover or the benefit of CAS/DA/RA/TRA status.

Only one side is arguing the toss about that from what I can see...

[PPRuNe Radar]

Just to return to the perceived difficulties some have with applying separation from terrain and obstacles which are shown on the chart as AMSL, when using the QFE.

Since we are talking about MATZ airspace, we must be talking about UK airfields. And since that is the case, I know of no UK military airfield (or otherwise) below sea level. Leuchars, Lossie, and Kinloss are probably the lowest you will get. Therefore if an obstacle or terrain is showing 1800' amsl on the chart and you decide you'd like to overfly it at not less than 2800' indicated on your altimeter, then the absolute minimum altitude you would actually overfly it at, if using QFE as your datum, would be 2800' PLUS the airfield elevation. In other words, the separation distance will always be more if you are using the QFE. So what's the safety issue there ??

Leaving the ATZ and entering another piece of airspace, or not as the case may be, would work on a similar principle if you were intending to overfly it. The only time you would need to calculate things would be if you intended to fly under airspace with a base above the surface. Subtracting the MATZ airfield elevation from your indicated height gives you that calculation in a nanosecond.

They're both non issues in my mind.

[Mike Cross]

I have no problems with using whatever the controller wants me to use. I was just highlighting that the practice of using QFE throughout the MATZ is not in compliance with what is written in MATS Part 1, which perhaps explains why those users who know and understand the requirements are expecting it to be QNH.

Incidentally what happens when the MATZ controller does not answer? So I'm flying happily through the Wallop/Boscombe CMATZ making blind calls. What am I supposed to set my altimeter to? What for that matter is a Mil a/c doing the same thing going to set his altimeter to? Common sense suggests the RPS.

And the club aircraft operating out of Boscombe? Presumably they're flying outside their ATZ with QFE still set if that's the Mil practice while Old Sarum, which is a licensed a/d within the CMATZ are using their QFE within their ATZ and QNH outside it.

It's all part of the wonderful joined up safety-conscious aviation world.

As PPRR says, it's a non-issue.

Mike

[London Mil]

I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused how anyone can assume that a RPFL is a 'high energy manouevre'. It is no more 'high energy' than me carrying-out aeros in a T67M or the like.


Mike X

I have no problems with using whatever the controller wants me to use. I was just highlighting that the practice of using QFE throughout the MATZ is not in compliance with what is written in MATS Part 1, which perhaps explains why those users who know and understand the requirements are expecting it to be QNH.

Of course, MATS Pt1 (and indeed much of CAP393) doesn't apply to military aircraft. I thought we all knew that.