MATZ Penetrations - A Plea!
Guest
Posts: n/a
London Mil
Military pilots all have a death wish and have no sense of self preservation.
Part of the reason that many civilian pilots tell me that they are suspicious of military pilots is that they have very different perceptions of acceptable risks, so relatively speaking, your jest is grounded in fact.
Military pilots all have a death wish and have no sense of self preservation.
Part of the reason that many civilian pilots tell me that they are suspicious of military pilots is that they have very different perceptions of acceptable risks, so relatively speaking, your jest is grounded in fact.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I, and all my colleagues, are very big fans of staying alive to enjoy our flying; why people seem to think we want to kill ourselves is beyond me!
The military flight safety empire is a very powerful one, and indeed many of my military workmates consider most GA shockingly dangerous. It's all about the perceptions, it works both ways. Understanding from both sides is required!
The military flight safety empire is a very powerful one, and indeed many of my military workmates consider most GA shockingly dangerous. It's all about the perceptions, it works both ways. Understanding from both sides is required!
The implication from much posted on this thread is that a MATZ extends vertically to a much higher level in practice than the published altitude.
As a non-radio flyer on occasions this bothers me somewhat, as I tend to fly over the top of them, at a decent separation distance, from time to time. Carrying a radio is simply impossible for physical reasons, but I have always assumed that provided I kept to the open FIR and maintained a good lookout I could happily operate in reasonable safety.
I have a fair amount of military flying experience, so understand both sides of this issue, but had not come across the concept of extended vertical airspace above a MATZ being assumed by FJs.
In fact, as the former OiC of a couple of ranges and associated air danger areas I had always assumed that the only safe operational procedure was to carry out any activity where "see and avoid" could not be strictly adhered to under some other means of alternative safety control, usually a functioning primary radar as a bare minimum. I cannot believe that the normal safety requirements could be satisfied from just SSR alone, especially not in the open FIR with an FJ operating in IMC conditions but descending rapidly into VMC.
I recall D Flying issuing draconian restrictions on operating with reduced crew levels outside danger areas, as an example, simply due to the reduced lookout ability associated with high cockpit workload. He insisted that such activities take place in an appropriate bit of restricted airspace, as I recall.
VP
As a non-radio flyer on occasions this bothers me somewhat, as I tend to fly over the top of them, at a decent separation distance, from time to time. Carrying a radio is simply impossible for physical reasons, but I have always assumed that provided I kept to the open FIR and maintained a good lookout I could happily operate in reasonable safety.
I have a fair amount of military flying experience, so understand both sides of this issue, but had not come across the concept of extended vertical airspace above a MATZ being assumed by FJs.
In fact, as the former OiC of a couple of ranges and associated air danger areas I had always assumed that the only safe operational procedure was to carry out any activity where "see and avoid" could not be strictly adhered to under some other means of alternative safety control, usually a functioning primary radar as a bare minimum. I cannot believe that the normal safety requirements could be satisfied from just SSR alone, especially not in the open FIR with an FJ operating in IMC conditions but descending rapidly into VMC.
I recall D Flying issuing draconian restrictions on operating with reduced crew levels outside danger areas, as an example, simply due to the reduced lookout ability associated with high cockpit workload. He insisted that such activities take place in an appropriate bit of restricted airspace, as I recall.
VP
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fournicator,
Who's side are you on anyway? I'll soar my glider in whats left of the non controlled airspace in this country, MATZ or no MATZ. Military aircraft should be able to use all those bells and whistles to avoid the other users of the sky and give us free passage. After all, we can't control the weather.
Who's side are you on anyway? I'll soar my glider in whats left of the non controlled airspace in this country, MATZ or no MATZ. Military aircraft should be able to use all those bells and whistles to avoid the other users of the sky and give us free passage. After all, we can't control the weather.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rustle
but where else can there be a situation in the UK where VFR is in CAS, "skimming the cloudbase" and not talking to ATC? 
The more I think of it the more I am convinced that the CAA have made a mess of the whole airspace issue.
Another example is the ability to fly "VFR" in class G at and below 3000ft or less with 1500m visibility. The CAA permits this to happen despite the ICAO requirement to only permit this when either all the traffic operates at a reduced speed or the posibility fo encountering other traffic is low;
Explain then how 1500m works in a MATZ where much of the traffic can be high speed and by definition the probability of encountering other aircraft is actually quite high................or under the LTMA?
Too many grey areas.
Regards,
DFC
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not suggesting either of those things Graham. Suggesting if you operate near a MATZ, and especially if you're are inside it or operating near cloudbase, then it would be eminently sensible to contact the controlling authority, for your own safety as well as that of others. I'm still unsure overall about Mode S, but if the cost can be kept down to a reasonable level I think anything that increases safety for us all can only be a good thing.
I am proud of my gliding credentials; I also strive to be a responsible airspace user, unlike some cowboy glider pilots I've known, who seem to think all other forms of aviation should get out of their way. Not for one moment tarring all glider pilots with that brush though.
I am proud of my gliding credentials; I also strive to be a responsible airspace user, unlike some cowboy glider pilots I've known, who seem to think all other forms of aviation should get out of their way. Not for one moment tarring all glider pilots with that brush though.
What about those of us with flying machines with no means of fitting a radio or carrying a transponder?
How far away from a MATZ should we stay?
I always try to get at least 500ft vertical, more often 1000ft, before going over the top of a MATZ.
What rules do you think those of us who can't fit radio or transponders should follow?
(I always thought that provided I stick to what's in the ANO I was OK.......)
VP
How far away from a MATZ should we stay?
I always try to get at least 500ft vertical, more often 1000ft, before going over the top of a MATZ.
What rules do you think those of us who can't fit radio or transponders should follow?
(I always thought that provided I stick to what's in the ANO I was OK.......)
VP
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wouldn't want to go for a hard and fast set of rules, it's all "airmanship dictates" type stuff - dependant on prevailing weather conditions and the like. Certainly wouldn't hang around near cloudbase though, but I'm sure you've already guessed that from this thread!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fournicator
Wouldn't want to go for a hard and fast set of rules, it's all "airmanship dictates" type stuff - dependant on prevailing weather conditions and the like.
That's OK, then.
JD
Wouldn't want to go for a hard and fast set of rules, it's all "airmanship dictates" type stuff - dependant on prevailing weather conditions and the like. Certainly wouldn't hang around near cloudbase though, but I'm sure you've already guessed that from this thread!
If I fly at, say 4,000ft and maintain a good lookout (my chosen flying machine has absolutely unrivalled visibility, with no instruments to distract my attention), then why might I be displaying less than perfect airmanship, in your view as a FJ driver?
In my book I would be behaving very responsibly indeed. I would be remaining 1000ft vertically clear of the MATZ and the cloudbase. I would still be in good visual contact with the ground and would be maintaining a very good lookout. Why should I be threatened by an FJ descending blind though cloud above my head when I'm in the open FIR? Just who is displaying the better airmanship of the two of us in these conditions?
VP
Guest
Posts: n/a
VP:
Behaving in the manner you've just described is indeed very appropriate. By remaining a healthy distance clear of cloud vertically you will ensure enough time for see-and-avoid to work.
Indeed, in certain cases, if you were unable to route around the MATZ (although that would be the best option for what I'm about to describe) you would arguably be better placed to infringe the MATZ (as is your legal right) in order to retain sufficient vertical separation from cloud.
I just wish everyone behaved like you!
Behaving in the manner you've just described is indeed very appropriate. By remaining a healthy distance clear of cloud vertically you will ensure enough time for see-and-avoid to work.
Indeed, in certain cases, if you were unable to route around the MATZ (although that would be the best option for what I'm about to describe) you would arguably be better placed to infringe the MATZ (as is your legal right) in order to retain sufficient vertical separation from cloud.
I just wish everyone behaved like you!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by London Mil
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.
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)
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.
The French may have a better sytem, I don't know.
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)
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.
My distain of the military? I've meet some really nice RAF types on a personal level. At a management level I do have a level of distain - it is driven by seeing these issues ignored on the basis that its OK now is n't it, we've always done this, how can there be a problem? In fact exactly the issue that Forni raised at the beginning - we're doing something that means the rules of the air are set aside so everyone else must try and compensate - without knowing how, when or when.
I have been part of at least 3 'exchange visits'. The best bit was when the local station PR crew assured us that we were now a low flying 'avoid' and life would be simple thence forward. As they were getting into their cars at our strip 4 Hawks flew up the runway at about 500 feet. It seemed cruel for us to say anything!
The essential difference is risk perception. The majority of military thinking accepts that aircraft will crash, people will be hurt. You only have to look at the loss rates for military aircraft when 70% of a fleet is consumed by in-service accidents (cann't find the link but you'll know where to look DARPA?) - imagine ACME Airlines saying we're careful and responsible operators - we still have a couple of the original aircraft that have not crashed...
Hence I guess your comments that avoiding accidents is a silly idea. Obviously being a couple of thousand feet up increases an individual's risk - that is why we have the whole elaborate set of rules which most of us have to obey. Why the CAA know better than most of the the rest of the planet is a very good question, maybe it has a little to do with the number of ex-service types within the organisation?
However if one group of operators are then going to do things their own but different way, without any real pre-emptive risk assessment, then everybody's risk is increased. If we all operated within a single system to common rules then the majority of these issues would go away. That would mean that the military would have to have known traffic environments where they could carry out exercises where the rules of the air don't apply.
There would be winners and losers and I suspect it is the fear of many in the military that they would lose out that drives much of the resistance to looking critically at the way things have always been done and applying some risk management. Would the military be able to 'close Scotland' ? Probably not. Would there be more CAS? Probably. Would separation have to be greater? Cann't see why. Would there be less chance for military / GA collision? Yes. Would the military be able to do most things in most places? Almost certainly not.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In amongst the ribbing and joshing, there have been some good points in this discussion: various thoughtful (but regrettably incompatible) viewpoints, with room for justice on all sides. Plenty of extra things to bear in mind while threading your way around busy airspace!
What bothers me, though - from this and another recent thread on MATZ penetrations - is that theory and practice seem at such variance, in an activity that often stresses formality and in which there are so many near-ab-initio pilots who rely on the theory for their procedures. The book says that we should call, request and await 'permission' for a MATZ penetration (whatever the underlying legal position); practice, according to the other thread, is to call stating that you're about to transit the MATZ. The book says that outside the MATZ is clear airspace; here, it's apparent that military traffic regards that above the MATZ as theirs, too. The book counsels caution near published instrument approaches (which might be extended to MATZ stub lines) ... but from this discussion it seems that military jets may arrive from any direction.
Not all pilots read these priviledged discussions, but all are supposed to have passed their air law exams and read CAP413. Not all pilots regularly encounter all airspace scenarios, which is why they're required to have a comprensive knowledge of the theory.
Good airmanship is to assume that other aviators are at least likely to be acting in accordance with what they were taught. If that ain't good enough, then maybe someone should tell the authors...
Windrusher
What bothers me, though - from this and another recent thread on MATZ penetrations - is that theory and practice seem at such variance, in an activity that often stresses formality and in which there are so many near-ab-initio pilots who rely on the theory for their procedures. The book says that we should call, request and await 'permission' for a MATZ penetration (whatever the underlying legal position); practice, according to the other thread, is to call stating that you're about to transit the MATZ. The book says that outside the MATZ is clear airspace; here, it's apparent that military traffic regards that above the MATZ as theirs, too. The book counsels caution near published instrument approaches (which might be extended to MATZ stub lines) ... but from this discussion it seems that military jets may arrive from any direction.
Not all pilots read these priviledged discussions, but all are supposed to have passed their air law exams and read CAP413. Not all pilots regularly encounter all airspace scenarios, which is why they're required to have a comprensive knowledge of the theory.
Good airmanship is to assume that other aviators are at least likely to be acting in accordance with what they were taught. If that ain't good enough, then maybe someone should tell the authors...
Windrusher
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another example is the ability to fly "VFR" in class G at and below 3000ft or less with 1500m visibility. The CAA permits this to happen despite the ICAO requirement to only permit this when either all the traffic operates at a reduced speed or the posibility fo encountering other traffic is low;
With your sound knowledge of the books, you will know that the C in ICAO stands for CIVIL. ok:
You will also know that military (i.e. STATE aircraft) are exempted from ICAO 'rules' and recommendations.
Furthermore, UK military, and foreign air arms (under specific conditions), are also exempt from the UK Air Navigation Order (specifically the Rules of the Air).
Hence they are free to abide by their own rules and ignore anything you, I, or the CAA would wish to impose on them. Provided they obey their own military orders of course.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,613
Received 477 Likes
on
251 Posts
"here, it's apparent that military traffic regards that above the MATZ as theirs, too."
Rubbish! I don't agree one iota that military pilots see the airspace above a MATZ as "belonging to them".
They most often operate through it under ATC radar - a 1 in 1 is actually a radar guided procedure.
Military pilots certainly realise the risks of operating in Class G, at least I did from a very early age, because such airmanship was constantly drummed into me by the RAF system. Now, as a member of a civvy flying club, I could not say that the same level of awareness prevails there.
Rubbish! I don't agree one iota that military pilots see the airspace above a MATZ as "belonging to them".
They most often operate through it under ATC radar - a 1 in 1 is actually a radar guided procedure.
Military pilots certainly realise the risks of operating in Class G, at least I did from a very early age, because such airmanship was constantly drummed into me by the RAF system. Now, as a member of a civvy flying club, I could not say that the same level of awareness prevails there.
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
"here, it's apparent that military traffic regards that above the MATZ as theirs, too."
Rubbish! I don't agree one iota that military pilots see the airspace above a MATZ as "belonging to them".
They most often operate through it under ATC radar - a 1 in 1 is actually a radar guided procedure.
Military pilots certainly realise the risks of operating in Class G, at least I did from a very early age, because such airmanship was constantly drummed into me by the RAF system. Now, as a member of a civvy flying club, I could not say that the same level of awareness prevails there.
Rubbish! I don't agree one iota that military pilots see the airspace above a MATZ as "belonging to them".
They most often operate through it under ATC radar - a 1 in 1 is actually a radar guided procedure.
Military pilots certainly realise the risks of operating in Class G, at least I did from a very early age, because such airmanship was constantly drummed into me by the RAF system. Now, as a member of a civvy flying club, I could not say that the same level of awareness prevails there.
However, also having done a lot of civil flying, whilst talking to military controllers there's perhaps a different perception. I've often had uk-mil controllers treat me (on a VFR flight outside, but relatively close to controlled airspace / MATZ) treat me as if I was under a much higher degree of control than is technically appropriate. On a few occasions, in open FIR but close to a MATZ I've been treated as if I was radar controlled.
My solution - if it gets me where I want to go, I go with the flow (whilst of course maintaining the same standards of lookout that I've done anyhow). If it doesn't (or I was just performing GH) I politely point out that I'm not in their airspace and under flight information only. Generally one of two things happens, either
(a) they realise the error, and leave me alone, or
(b) they tell me about the conflicting military traffic I didn't know about and we sort it out from there.
G