MATZ Penetrations - A Plea!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F., thanks. I'll give it more thought when I have time.
Anybody: if Class E, would that be permanently so, or only during notified MATZ hours, or what? (Either way, I can't comment unless I talk to gliding people better versed than I in the implications, but I would like to know what question to ask or what it is based on.)
Chris N.
Anybody: if Class E, would that be permanently so, or only during notified MATZ hours, or what? (Either way, I can't comment unless I talk to gliding people better versed than I in the implications, but I would like to know what question to ask or what it is based on.)
Chris N.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fournicator
Although I haven't given it a massive amount of thought yet your proposal for Class E, as argued above, does seem to have some merit in providing guaranteed IFR separation, leaving see-and-avoid to handle the VFR traffic. Anyone think of any reasons why that would be a bad idea? Genuinely intrigued!
From MATS Part 1:
Class E
IFR and VFR
IFR flights to obtain ATC clearance before entry and comply with ATC instructions;
VFR flights do not require clearance
(a) separate IFR flights from other IFR flights
(b) pass traffic information, as far as practicable, to IFR flights on VFR flights.
(c) VFR flights in contact are to be given traffic information as far as practicable
(b) pass traffic information, as far as practicable, to IFR flights on VFR flights.
(c) VFR flights in contact are to be given traffic information as far as practicable
-------------------
So as the glider would have been VFR he wouldn't have needed clearance to enter the Class E, would not have been separated from any IFR traffic, and with radar out the mil FJ would have been no better off.
It seems to solve a problem that didn't exist except in the minds of some posters 
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rustle:
Thus forcing the gliders to stay away from cloudbase unless in communication with ATC.
Originally Posted by DFC
Because by making it mandatory for IFR flights to call, one can rest assured that all the flights in IMC will be known to ATC and by having increased VMC minima, the VFR flights who can be simply clear of cloud in class F and G must be 1000ft vertically from cloud etc even when below 3000ft thus giving the aircraft exiting cloud (and the VFR aircraft) more time to see and avoid.
i.e. no more gliders skimming the base being attacked by descending aircraft.
i.e. no more gliders skimming the base being attacked by descending aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fournicator started this thread with a realtively simple suggestion with which I think most people seem to have some agreement. It has degenerated into a bit of RAF pilot bashing. To Fournicator and others who have contributed, can you think af any reasons why this should be so? Why are the "professional" military pilots held in such low esteem? It must be a reflection of something that the military perhaps needs to address.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kent UK
Age: 70
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WorkingHard
Why are the "professional" military pilots held in such low esteem?
(Ask DP)Kev.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fournicator
Rustle:
Thus forcing the gliders to stay away from cloudbase unless in communication with ATC.
Originally Posted by DFC
Because by making it mandatory for IFR flights to call, one can rest assured that all the flights in IMC will be known to ATC and by having increased VMC minima, the VFR flights who can be simply clear of cloud in class F and G must be 1000ft vertically from cloud etc even when below 3000ft thus giving the aircraft exiting cloud (and the VFR aircraft) more time to see and avoid.
i.e. no more gliders skimming the base being attacked by descending aircraft.
i.e. no more gliders skimming the base being attacked by descending aircraft.
Thus forcing the gliders to stay away from cloudbase unless in communication with ATC.
The CAA view of life can be seen HERE
Clear of cloud below 3000'.
1000' below cloud between 3001' and FL100.
"Clear of cloud" means not in it: But you might only be 50' below it.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that you will find that ICAO Class E requires all aircraft to be 1000ft vertically from cloud regardless of level.
The question is will the UK adopt the ICAO airspace system or will the European airspace system impose it.
A review of airspace that would change the MATZ to a recogniseable form of airspace would include a review of the UKs version of the internationally recognised airspace.
Until then the RAF can simply expect to see the situation of flights (IFR and VFR) flying through MATZ without radio contact.........because the CAA says that it is OK to do so. and the CAA are the Authority when it comes to such things!
Is the CAA acting in an unsafe way by permitting such activity? or is there a duty of care issue with regard to the CAA and MOD's differing positions?
When a glider skimming the cloudbase inside a MATZ hits a military aircraft, the facts will be that both were entitled to be there and both were operating within the rules for the flights and it is the CAA and MOD who need to look at the procedures for such flights - not the pilots.
Roll on mode S and Known/Unknown airspace.
It is not just the military who suffer the problem with the CAA's airspace - commercial operators have highlighted for years the dangers of having VFR flights skimming the cloudbase in controlled airspace where they are not separated from IFR flights descending through the cloud.
However, the IFR GAT flights are restricted to 250Kt!
Regards,
DFC
The question is will the UK adopt the ICAO airspace system or will the European airspace system impose it.
A review of airspace that would change the MATZ to a recogniseable form of airspace would include a review of the UKs version of the internationally recognised airspace.
Until then the RAF can simply expect to see the situation of flights (IFR and VFR) flying through MATZ without radio contact.........because the CAA says that it is OK to do so. and the CAA are the Authority when it comes to such things!
Is the CAA acting in an unsafe way by permitting such activity? or is there a duty of care issue with regard to the CAA and MOD's differing positions?
When a glider skimming the cloudbase inside a MATZ hits a military aircraft, the facts will be that both were entitled to be there and both were operating within the rules for the flights and it is the CAA and MOD who need to look at the procedures for such flights - not the pilots.
Roll on mode S and Known/Unknown airspace.
It is not just the military who suffer the problem with the CAA's airspace - commercial operators have highlighted for years the dangers of having VFR flights skimming the cloudbase in controlled airspace where they are not separated from IFR flights descending through the cloud.
However, the IFR GAT flights are restricted to 250Kt!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DFC
It is not just the military who suffer the problem with the CAA's airspace - commercial operators have highlighted for years the dangers of having VFR flights skimming the cloudbase in controlled airspace where they are not separated from IFR flights descending through the cloud.
DFC
DFC
Until Scotland reclassified their E to D it was possible, but where else can there be a situation in the UK where VFR is in CAS, "skimming the cloudbase" and not talking to ATC?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until Scotland reclassified their E to D it was possible, but where else can there be a situation in the UK where VFR is in CAS, "skimming the cloudbase" and not talking to ATC?
Look North, East and West of Glasgow (or Northwest and West of Edinburgh, and also Northwest of Prestwick, if you prefer).
Parts of the Scottish TMA remain Class E below 6000' and I'm glad they are there, with my VFR pilot hat on
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PPRuNe Radar
In the remaining Class E in Scotland
Look North, East and West of Glasgow (or Northwest and West of Edinburgh, and also Northwest of Prestwick, if you prefer).
Parts of the Scottish TMA remain Class E below 6000'...
Look North, East and West of Glasgow (or Northwest and West of Edinburgh, and also Northwest of Prestwick, if you prefer).
Parts of the Scottish TMA remain Class E below 6000'...
Hadn't noticed, as the only time I've been into Scotland's (main) airports it has been OVC008
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fournicator
gasax:
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.
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?
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.
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?
I think MC hit your nail on the head. It seems RAF selection is about finding people who have the intelligence to act in a technological world, but lack any critical facilities to think through the implications of their actions.
You started with a plea for people to talk to MATZ controllers. I, like anyone who has had a serious of encounters with FJs, is only to keen to do so. ( the moral high ground only gives you a deeper grave!).
Last week I was 'puddlejumping' about 40 miles from home. There is no radar coverage, but traffic on the frequency (IFR) was getting a RAS about 30 miles north and were told to alter to avoid some FJ. Guessing where they had come from I thought they were coming my way. I spotted 3 out of the probably 4 - (must be my crap puddlejumping lookout). They went down my port side and I continued to 'puddlejump'. I was at 2500 and supposedly well above them - they passed at my height..
Out in the FIR I expect that. and I acccept that. So long as FJs are simply transiting I believe between them and me, we probably will not collide. However during the second week of Neptune Warrior we know at least 8 aircraft fly through 'our' circuit. But its OK, none of us were there - thank goodness.
Thanks to Forni, we now 'know' that whilst the RAF know it is an active airfield, it hasn't reached some secret level of activity at which point it would perhaps become suicidal for even the steel eyed professionals to try and fly through the circuit.
Enough of this crap - Working Hard makes the point. The reason many (most?) GA pilots distrust/dislike/are wary of the RAF is this continued lack of rationality. Their inability to understand that actions need to be considered, their potential effects understood - and if they're potentially very serious, those consequences actually avoided by the people creating the danger - not by just trying to scare other aircraft off.
If the low flying 'system' would grind to a halt if FJ had to avoid all the likely sources of conflict - then the 'system' is fundamentally flawed. I've met a few FJ drivers and they are likeable people - how can it be acceptable for a 'system' to direct them through areas where they have a reasonable expectation of encountering traffic they may not see and may not avoid?
You glibly ignore the possibility of collision with a scheduled carrier - probably for obvious reasons - no amount of double talk would get you out of that situation - it would end the present practices.
Compare our situation with France. The majority of their major airforce bases have a straight forward Class D or higher chunk of airspace. Their exercise areas are notified danger areas. Their FJ transit through their danger areas. The chances of coming into conflict with one of their FJ is pretty tiny unless you infringe a danger area. FJ descending into a quasi-controlled airspace with no radar cover - it's a situation that cannot happen.
I'll let your predecessors take the credit for saving them from the terrible Boche - So who has thought this through and - who hasn't?
We can continue with our quaint 'rules'. Sooner or later something will happen which will show the weakness of them to the general public. Any sensible approach would be to avoid this situation happening. The RAF have to understand that if they do not take action before an incident turns very bad then they are running a serious risk of not being able to operate at all. The RAF can continue to down light aircraft at a low rate without anything bad happening. Do it once to a scheduled flight - I rather suspect that a public response based on the Sprechen sie deutsch? approach may not cut it.
The RAF have a window to think through the way they operate (until something really bad happens!) and make it safer. It would seem from Forni's comments they cannot see through that window.
Strangely the AAC are trying to avoid horse riders. Having had to admit that their activites caused the death of a horse rider they have started to issue HV waiscoats to horse riders and try to avoid established stables. At the time of the court case the Military forum was full of 'stuff them', now they have to be flown around and avoided and given free HV vests.
How much longer will it be acceptable for FJ to drop into VMC without any form of known environment? To carry out high energy manoeuvres along advisory routes? Live firing in the open FIR? None of this requires much intelligence to sort out - simply the will to understand.
Guest
Posts: n/a
gasax:
How many scheduled carriers operate into unlicensed airfields which don't have enough movements even to qualify as a low flying avoid?
As a minor point of interest the horse rider death I believe you refer to involved an RAF Chinook; you would be well advised to review both the RAF Board of Inquiry and the local civilian verdict before you start making unqualified comments here. Horse riders have always been avoided by low flying military helos, the incident in question occurred when the horse riders were riding down a path lined with tall hedges, so the helo crew were unable to see them until they flew over. I don't really want to go into any more than that here, by all means start an "I should've worked harder at school and got into the RAF but I didn't and now I'm bitter about it" thread if you really must.
It is a dangerous world, accidents do happen, despite the best efforts of all involved. I for one don't want to see the UK following the US down the road of ridiculous risk aversion in life generally, and that includes overregulation of aviation.
Which air force is pretty much universally acknowledged as being the world leader at low level work? Not the French ...... yes, you guessed it, it's the RAF. Surely that says something about the quality of training available in the UKLFS?
How many scheduled carriers operate into unlicensed airfields which don't have enough movements even to qualify as a low flying avoid?
As a minor point of interest the horse rider death I believe you refer to involved an RAF Chinook; you would be well advised to review both the RAF Board of Inquiry and the local civilian verdict before you start making unqualified comments here. Horse riders have always been avoided by low flying military helos, the incident in question occurred when the horse riders were riding down a path lined with tall hedges, so the helo crew were unable to see them until they flew over. I don't really want to go into any more than that here, by all means start an "I should've worked harder at school and got into the RAF but I didn't and now I'm bitter about it" thread if you really must.
It is a dangerous world, accidents do happen, despite the best efforts of all involved. I for one don't want to see the UK following the US down the road of ridiculous risk aversion in life generally, and that includes overregulation of aviation.
Which air force is pretty much universally acknowledged as being the world leader at low level work? Not the French ...... yes, you guessed it, it's the RAF. Surely that says something about the quality of training available in the UKLFS?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are none so blind as those who will not see.
"How many scheduled carriers operate into unlicensed airfields which don't have enough movements even to qualify as a low flying avoid?" No idea - the military mind appears to have some threshold - what it is no one has ever told us - 30 based aircraft are obviously not enough so I suppose it must be some function about the percent of time that the critical zone is occupied? Are you really suggesting that someone in the RAF has defined a particular level of activity as being unacceptable? If so then I would be very interested in knowing what it was.
You're right I'm wrong - so why are the AAC giving away HV vests after paying damages - because they were right????
The RAF may be the greatest at low level flying - to what ends? Hazarding or even killing their own aircrew and civilians?
You don't want to be like the US? You mean to have proper ranges where real exercises can be carried out where only the participants are at risk - I can see that would take all the fun out of it!
"Horse riders have always been avoided by low flying military helos, the incident in question occurred when the horse riders were riding down a path lined with tall hedges, so the helo crew were unable to see them until they flew over. I don't really want to go into any more than that here, by all means start an "I should've worked harder at school and got into the RAF but I didn't and now I'm bitter about it" thread if you really must."
So horse riders have always been avoided - but airfields are not.... Ok this is obviously advanced military thinking! I'm not sure of the relevance of the working harder at school - when I was there, RAF entry qualifications were pretty modest - I'm fast understanding why!
"I don't really want to go into any more than that here" - no obviously not, here is a real example of how military custom and practice has been found wanting and as a result actions have had to be taken. Just imagine if that practice had to be applied everywhere - where would it end?
Get it through your head - accidents do not have to happen. They occur because perfectly forseeable incidents actually occur and nothing has been done to either eliminate their possibility or to minimise their consequences. That inaction is usually referred to as negligence. It is the reason that damages are paid and criminal proceedings are taken.
EASA may well sort much of this out with the whole 'One Sky' stuff - or we may have to continue with interesting discussions on airspace classification. But the military have to understand that doing what they have 'always done' is not sensible, not defensible and not smart. Some proactive thinking would make a huge difference. Collisons between French FJ and other aircraft - virtually never happen - we have a permanent committee to ajudge their seriousness - who is getting this right - well obviously not those cowardly French!
"How many scheduled carriers operate into unlicensed airfields which don't have enough movements even to qualify as a low flying avoid?" No idea - the military mind appears to have some threshold - what it is no one has ever told us - 30 based aircraft are obviously not enough so I suppose it must be some function about the percent of time that the critical zone is occupied? Are you really suggesting that someone in the RAF has defined a particular level of activity as being unacceptable? If so then I would be very interested in knowing what it was.
You're right I'm wrong - so why are the AAC giving away HV vests after paying damages - because they were right????
The RAF may be the greatest at low level flying - to what ends? Hazarding or even killing their own aircrew and civilians?
You don't want to be like the US? You mean to have proper ranges where real exercises can be carried out where only the participants are at risk - I can see that would take all the fun out of it!
"Horse riders have always been avoided by low flying military helos, the incident in question occurred when the horse riders were riding down a path lined with tall hedges, so the helo crew were unable to see them until they flew over. I don't really want to go into any more than that here, by all means start an "I should've worked harder at school and got into the RAF but I didn't and now I'm bitter about it" thread if you really must."
So horse riders have always been avoided - but airfields are not.... Ok this is obviously advanced military thinking! I'm not sure of the relevance of the working harder at school - when I was there, RAF entry qualifications were pretty modest - I'm fast understanding why!
"I don't really want to go into any more than that here" - no obviously not, here is a real example of how military custom and practice has been found wanting and as a result actions have had to be taken. Just imagine if that practice had to be applied everywhere - where would it end?
Get it through your head - accidents do not have to happen. They occur because perfectly forseeable incidents actually occur and nothing has been done to either eliminate their possibility or to minimise their consequences. That inaction is usually referred to as negligence. It is the reason that damages are paid and criminal proceedings are taken.
EASA may well sort much of this out with the whole 'One Sky' stuff - or we may have to continue with interesting discussions on airspace classification. But the military have to understand that doing what they have 'always done' is not sensible, not defensible and not smart. Some proactive thinking would make a huge difference. Collisons between French FJ and other aircraft - virtually never happen - we have a permanent committee to ajudge their seriousness - who is getting this right - well obviously not those cowardly French!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Workinghard stirring up military banter, surely not? Why aren't you being a total pain about low flying???
I know your type. Why don't you worry about being better rather than worrying about RAF pilots, you were never one, never will be one and therefore do not need to worry about our rep.
You would love to associate yourself with the RAF, as may of your posts prove, but all it proves is that you shined your @rse for many years and are now a boring critic of the hand that fed you for many years. Go away and stop winging about the RAF. You may have been in "it" but you weren't a professional aviator in the mob.
Sorry about the rant but workinghard is in my humble opinion a total @rse
DS
I know your type. Why don't you worry about being better rather than worrying about RAF pilots, you were never one, never will be one and therefore do not need to worry about our rep.
You would love to associate yourself with the RAF, as may of your posts prove, but all it proves is that you shined your @rse for many years and are now a boring critic of the hand that fed you for many years. Go away and stop winging about the RAF. You may have been in "it" but you weren't a professional aviator in the mob.
Sorry about the rant but workinghard is in my humble opinion a total @rse
DS
Last edited by PPRuNeUser0172; 25th Jul 2006 at 20:13.
Guest
Posts: n/a
gasax, a few points:
To reiterarate, it is not just the AAC who are handing out hi viz vests. The policy is MOD-wide after an incident betwen an RAF Chinook and a horse rider.
The French may have a better sytem, I don't know. Statistics tell us that the last GA/Mil mid air was in France. That is not a glib statement, a matter of fact. How many GA/Mil mid airs have there been in the UK? Again, not arrogant, merely trying to ascertain the scale of the problem.
You appear to hold the military in some disdain. As a GA and military man, I can speak with some authority and find your comments as myopic as some of the more 'merry', Friday night military men.
I suggest that this is rather a silly statement. Jumping into any aircraft adds risk to our lives. If the CAA/MOD etc are to do anything, they need to assess the level of risk. We can all make flying far safer (enhanced separation within CAS, more CAS etc, closure of Scotland to all aviation but military), but in modern soceity a balance has to be struck. If we accept that the actual number of collisions is so small that it is difficult to spot a trend, then one method of ascertaining risk is to look a cat A Airprox. The stats are quite interesting in identifying the main threats. (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/423/Bk13web.pdf)
European Commision actually. Work being carried out by EUROCONTROL. Nothing to do with EASA, yet.
Finally, it would appear that whatever is said on this forum, you will have your view and the military another. Could I be so bold as to suggest that you arrange an exchange visit? At least that would allow each operator to see the other's problems.
To reiterarate, it is not just the AAC who are handing out hi viz vests. The policy is MOD-wide after an incident betwen an RAF Chinook and a horse rider.
Collisons between French FJ and other aircraft - virtually never happen - we have a permanent committee to ajudge their seriousness - who is getting this right - well obviously not those cowardly French!
You appear to hold the military in some disdain. As a GA and military man, I can speak with some authority and find your comments as myopic as some of the more 'merry', Friday night military men.
Get it through your head - accidents do not have to happen
EASA may well sort much of this out with the whole 'One Sky' stuff
Finally, it would appear that whatever is said on this forum, you will have your view and the military another. Could I be so bold as to suggest that you arrange an exchange visit? At least that would allow each operator to see the other's problems.
Last edited by London Mil; 25th Jul 2006 at 05:38.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Which air force is pretty much universally acknowledged as being the world leader at low level work?
Please can someone explain to me what benefit low level flying delivers, in military terms.
Also, what has FJ low level flying accomplished in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I am genuinely interested, as a non military person.
Please can someone explain to me what benefit low level flying delivers, in military terms.
Also, what has FJ low level flying accomplished in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I am genuinely interested, as a non military person.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by London Mil
Could I be so bold as to suggest that you arrange an exchange visit? At least that would allow each operator to see the other's problems.
3Greens:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...lyingToday.htm
Sorry to fob you off with an internet link, but think it answers most of your questions, feel free to ask if it doesn't!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,609
Received 467 Likes
on
247 Posts
Chris N said: "Is anyone prepared to take up with the military that it might be a good idea either to NOTAM such exercises when planned in advance, or if spontaneous to call out to passing gliders on 130.4 when such manoeuvres, in or dropping out of, soarable cumulus clouds are contemplated from ABOVE a MATZ (not in, as F's original point was addressing)? Or is safety just a one-way street?"
We've heard this one before. Chris, your post shows a lack of understanding of military flying operations and the workload involved, especially in a manoeuvre like this. There's no need for a NOTAM, it is a routine and necessary emergency drill for FJ pilots to practice. It happens above MATZs, always has, ever since the RAF has flown jet aircraft. That's just one of the reasons why there's a MATZ there - it's a bonus that they aren't controlled airspace and don't extend up to a higher altitude.
Now you're personally aware perhaps you might reconsider calling ATC, and/or avoiding thermalling the overhead of a MATZ? The RAF aren't going to change their procedures around the fairly remote chance that there is a glider in the vicinity, certainly not when all it takes from passing pilots is a simple R/T call on the appropriate published frequency...
General point:
I despair at the unrealistic, inward looking and selfish attitude shown by some aviators (not only glider pilots, btw). For example:
"I'm legally allowed to do this so I will - if there's a problem, everyone else must change to suit me!
Steam MUST always give way to sail but NO, I won't help you see me, everyone knows gliders can't carry a bigger battery and I WON'T fit a transponder. Why should I pay money out to benefit only everyone else.*
*(although there are always at least TWO aircraft in all the mid-air collision reports I've read..)
What's more - I won't communicate with YOU, you must come to MY frequency!"
BTW, I'm a civvy pilot. I did some gliding well over thirty years ago - that's where it began for me, too. Did a bit of military stuff (18 yrs, jets, SEP and helicopters). I now fly rotary wing, mainly in class G. Whenever I transit a MATZ, or over it, I treat it as quite normal to communicate with military ATC simply because it's my neck I'm interested in saving, as well as everyone else's. If there's no reply I put out a blind call on that frequency, stating my intentions, and if possible call another agency to confirm that the MATZ is not in use.
typos...
We've heard this one before. Chris, your post shows a lack of understanding of military flying operations and the workload involved, especially in a manoeuvre like this. There's no need for a NOTAM, it is a routine and necessary emergency drill for FJ pilots to practice. It happens above MATZs, always has, ever since the RAF has flown jet aircraft. That's just one of the reasons why there's a MATZ there - it's a bonus that they aren't controlled airspace and don't extend up to a higher altitude.
Now you're personally aware perhaps you might reconsider calling ATC, and/or avoiding thermalling the overhead of a MATZ? The RAF aren't going to change their procedures around the fairly remote chance that there is a glider in the vicinity, certainly not when all it takes from passing pilots is a simple R/T call on the appropriate published frequency...
General point:
I despair at the unrealistic, inward looking and selfish attitude shown by some aviators (not only glider pilots, btw). For example:
"I'm legally allowed to do this so I will - if there's a problem, everyone else must change to suit me!
Steam MUST always give way to sail but NO, I won't help you see me, everyone knows gliders can't carry a bigger battery and I WON'T fit a transponder. Why should I pay money out to benefit only everyone else.*
*(although there are always at least TWO aircraft in all the mid-air collision reports I've read..)
What's more - I won't communicate with YOU, you must come to MY frequency!"
BTW, I'm a civvy pilot. I did some gliding well over thirty years ago - that's where it began for me, too. Did a bit of military stuff (18 yrs, jets, SEP and helicopters). I now fly rotary wing, mainly in class G. Whenever I transit a MATZ, or over it, I treat it as quite normal to communicate with military ATC simply because it's my neck I'm interested in saving, as well as everyone else's. If there's no reply I put out a blind call on that frequency, stating my intentions, and if possible call another agency to confirm that the MATZ is not in use.
typos...
Last edited by ShyTorque; 26th Jul 2006 at 00:42.