MATZ Penetrations - A Plea!

[Fournicator]

I'm aware that the issue of MATZ penetrations has been discussed to death on these hallowed pages, but I'd like to take a few minutes of anyone who's vaguely interested's time.

I have the great privilege to fly vaguely pointy aeroplanes for a living, as well as enjoying both PPL flying and gliding in my spare time (yes, I am an amazingly one-dimensional person). While "work" flying the other day, I observed a glider operating near to cloudbase inside our MATZ. At the time, our primary Radar was on maintenance, so only squawking aircraft could be seen by Air Traffic. This glider was operating unbeknownest to Air Traffic, which is indeed his legal right, and I accept that even if he had informed the controllers of his position they would not have been able to see him. However, had this happened, they could have at least vectored other traffic around his position.

On a Radar PFL recovery to the airfield, the inbound aircraft will be descending at something in the order of 4000fpm, relatively close to the overhead. Assuming (somewhat generously) that the glider was 100ft clear of cloudbase, then this gives the military aviator one and a half seconds to realise he's cleared cloud, transfer onto visual clues, spot the glider, and take avoiding action. A collision would have dire consequences for both aircraft, and the military operator at least has the luxury of explosive furniture if that happens.

Of course, when operating at or near cloudbase anywhere outside controlled airspace there is always a possibility that another aircraft will pop out and ruin your day; we rely on the big sky theory to help us out of trouble on such occasions. The big sky theory starts to break down when many aircraft are concentrated into a relatively small piece of airspace such as a MATZ.

I'm aware all too well that most glider pilots don't possess RT licenses, and the reasons why - the practical test being orientated solely towards powered aviation, making it a somewhat daunting prospect for many glider pilots. For fear of the Big Bother (aka the CAA) knocking on my door, I can't possibly advocate glider pilots taking informal instruction in dealing with Air Traffic agencies, and using the kit their aircraft is equipped with in order to actually help in flying safely. No, I couldn't possibly say that.....

OK, I've ranted long enough, sure those of you taking the time to read this are somewhat bored by now. My moral? If you're transitting a MATZ - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE at least call the controller to make them aware of your presence to they can warn other traffic and vector their aircraft around you, thereby ensuring we all continue to live nice long, fulfilling lives.

[PPRuNeUser0172]

What a stunning lack of airmanship by said glider pilot, the sooner they are made to carry transponders the better.

Why would anyone do that? Only two reasons I can think of arrogance and ignorance, both wholly inappropriate traits for any aviator.

Everyone has a right to share the skies however, some people quite simply take the p!ss

[Mike Cross]

At the time, our primary Radar was on maintenance, so only squawking aircraft could be seen by Air Traffic.

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

There are two ways to look at this scenario.

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

[Fournicator]

Mike:

I take your point, but a MATZ shouldn't really be an unknown environment. Military aircraft do need to operate above cloud, and will attempt to get VMC below in the safest manner possible. Even with only secondary radar working for us, we can get seperation on most other airspace users. With better airmanship from non squawking parties, we can get separation on all of them.

As a glider pilot myself, I know all too well that the best looking cumulus are always in the shark-infested custard airspace, and I have no objection to a MATZ being penetrated by civil aircraft, but a brief call to ATC can help increase safety for all parties.

As has been mentioned above, these kind of incidents do little to help gliding's case in the big mode S debate!

[Saab Dastard]

Y'know, what I would like to see is large areas of UK airspace with big dashes around them, like the "Areas of Intense Aerial Activity", labelled "Intense GA activity" aka SpamCans Only.

Entrance to said areas by any commercial / military traffic strictly prohibited unless cleared by a participating a/g radio unit.



Actually, I think we should also ban private cars from motorways and urban areas, as they get in the way of the smooth flow of commercial traffic.

[Mike Cross]

Whether or not you think a MATZ shouldn't really be an unknown environment is immaterial is it not?

Plummetting through cloud at 4000fpm in Class G with no radar cover might be considered by some to be slightly foolish.

[aluminium persuader]

Fournicator -

Just a tech point, but even if the glider is talking to ATC if we can't see him we can't vector you around him. Best we can do is give you traffic info along the lines of "glider, last reported x miles north of abc, y000'". Also, unless you're on a RAS you won't get separation at all from anyone.

It is a thorny issue, though, and one which requires consideration & good airmanship from both sides.

ap

[Talkdownman]

The busiest gliding site in the country is in a MATZ. That particular military base doesn't seem to have a problem. There's no getting away from it - a MATZ is an unknown environment where 'seperation' (sic) cannot ever be guaranteed whatever the standard of 'airmanship'. Perhaps the 'vaguely pointy aeroplane' base should apply for CAS then their pilots might 'get separation on all of them'. One glider doesn't make a summer.

[London Mil]

This is not about MATZ/CAS etc, this is about airmanship. Examples of poor airmanship I have seen:

Operating autonomously at 100 ft above the top level of a CTR within the area commonly used for IFR holds.

Flying over the top of a notified gliding site at max cable alt +100ft.

Using a landmark on the edge of CAS as a turning point.

Formating on another aircraft without prior coordination.

etc etc

In all these cases a bit of mutual respect and a quick chat on the radio would have sufficed. Personally, I choose not to do GH over the top of an active airfield/gliding site etc. Maybe it is just self-preservation.

[Fournicator]

Mike:
Let me spell this out for you - it was not NO radar cover, but secondary radar only. Even primary radar often has problems picking up slow moving contacts like gliders. I could also argue that glider pilots who cloud fly with no radar service at all are pretty damn foolish, but that too has been discussed ad nauseum here already.

Aluminium Persuader:
Yes, true, I couldn't technically be vectored around them, but if that traffic information was passed I would almost certainly reposition myself to approach from a different angle. Apologies for my poor air-traffic-speak! As I suspecy you're are, aircraft on a RPFL generally only take a RIS.

Talkdownman:
I am well aware that separation can never be guaranteed, and I don't believe MATZs should be transformed into yet another area of CAS. However, a little bit of thought from everyone can help increase EVERYONE's safety.

Saab:
Having done much of my flying in the aluminium coridoor of death north of London but south of Luton and Stanstead, with the TMA above and about 5 major GA airfields in the area, I am only too aware of what could possibly be marked as GA AIAA's! We're in danger of me starting my classic rant on how lousy many puddlejumpers lookout is, so I'd best go take my pills now.....

[WorkingHard]

I have to agree with what Fournicator and others say about good airmanship. It is folly to say the least to do what the glider pilot was doing, albeit quite legal. Perhaps Fournicator would advise what course of action to take when an RAF training aircraft drops from the cloudbase about 200 metres in our 12 o'clock inverted and no warning from the RAF radar unit that is giving us a RIS. When questioning the ATC, information was given that the said aircraft was not "painting" on radar and we should squawk standby and continue with on-route frequency. Not just my estimates as we were 4 up and 2 were instructors. So the question is what do we do about poor airmanship from our military colleagus as well as civilian ones?

[Mike Cross]

No need to spell it out, I know what SSR is and it provides no radar cover against non-transponding targets.

On a Radar PFL recovery to the airfield

You must accept that you cannot maintain separation in an evironment where the use of transponders is not mandatory with SSR only. If you can't maintain separation perhaps it would be sensible to defer the exercise until you can. It is after all a practice.

I'm not attacking you here, just asking you to look at the issue objectively.

Mike

[Fournicator]

WH:
As with any walk of life, there are plonkers (can't use the words I'd like to use on here!) in my profession too; I can only apologise for their actions. I wonder whether the unit providing you with a service were working SSR only, in which case they would have advised you of this when they started the service. Even so, if going IMC the aircraft in question should have had a serviceable transponder.
At least if he was inverted he might have had a better chance of seeing you as he descended.............
While I have seen bad airmanship displayed by aircrew across the spectrum, it is unfortunately true that the most common instances I see are from puddlejumper PPL types. Please don't think for one moment I'm tarring you with that brush, just as I would hope you don't group me with the guys that gave you a scare.

Mike:
Sorry, no offence meant, just seemed before that you didn't grasp secondary radar. While I appreciate it doesn't give a full picture of the airspace, the majority of airspace users are transponder equipped. Aviation is by its nature a risky business, so while I agree that descending without a primary radar picture is distinctly non-ideal, I would still argue that within the confines of a published MATZ it acceptable to cloudbreak.
A slower descent profile would probably be just as risky, if not worse, with the descending aeroplane forced to stay longer in the layer of scud around cloudbase, making it travel through a wider horizontal area.

It is an imperfect world we live in, but I stand by my opinion that the glider pilot in question (again, not tarring all with the same brush here) should most definately have made ATC aware of his presence before entering the MATZ of one of the busiest military airfields in the UK.

[drauk]

Using a landmark on the edge of CAS as a turning point.

So how wide a margin should a pilot use in your opinion? Serious question. I've never seen a recommended distance, height or whatever. I suppose the reason is that surely you're either inside CAS or you're not? If you're not too sure where the boundary is then you'd be wise to leave a wider margin, but otherwise isn't the boundary just that - a boundary?

[GK430]

Good point drauk. If you're xxx feet above or below a notified CTR/CTA/CAS, you haven't infringed. Seen to infringe with Mode C by xxx feet, you'll get the wake up call.
Reminds me of descending to cross MID at 2,400ft when the tops were at about 2,520 feet and everyone else was down there. Never get into such restrictive scenarios if i can possibly avoid.

Best one I ever saw was a an Aerobat spinning on top of DTY from about 4,500 into clag.............

[englishal]

Operating autonomously at 100 ft above the top level of a CTR within the area commonly used for IFR holds.

Flying over the top of a notified gliding site at max cable alt +100ft.

Using a landmark on the edge of CAS as a turning point.

Formating on another aircraft without prior coordination.

The only one in that list that I would consider "bad airmanship" is the last one.

CAS is designed to protect IFR traffic, otherwise there would be no point in it. VRPs happen to be on the edge of CAS and are often used as turning points.

If the glider cable alt if XXX then surely XXX+100 keeps you clear of it.....but gliding sites are another story.

Our airfield is on the edge of a MATZ and although I sqwark mode C I don't always talk to them....I do sympathize with Fornicator, and myself I wouldn't fly through the extended centreline of their runway anywhere near IMC without a radar service........though I think a MATZ is a waste of time, as are AIAAs (I regularly fly through AIAA's maintaining only a listening watch)......Mind you the other day when I went to take off, at the end of the runway, a super puma zoomed across the upwind end at about 50'

[Flybywyre]

Englishal beat me to it ...............
FBW

[gasax]

This seems to be the classic - 'we're the military and we can do what we want' you'd all better be good boys and help us when we ignore the rules which you have to abide by.

Strangely enough the VFR rules were put together with the idea of making civil flying safer. That the military do not have to abide by them does tend to make the whole thing a bit of a nonsense.

Yes I'm sure it would be nice for everyone concerned with MATZ to have a known traffic environment, but that is not what the rules say and thus does not necessarily make it poor airmanship. Flying at high speed in broken IMC - that is poor airmanship.

At its heart this is all about the military having a mindset that they can do things which on any risk assessment basis would fail.

360 knots at lowish levels in broken IMC and no radar - is this smart?

The majority of traffic is transponder equipped - absolutely not, the vast majority of UK registered aircraft do not have transponders. Those who talk to MATZ might have transponders if only because they are trainers but remember over half the UK fleet are microlights and pretty much a quarter PFA types most of which would toil to power or house a transponder.

Any rational assessment of military flying shows it to be risky in itself - i.e. to the pilots and aircrew. They however choose that course, to the rest of us the risks have never really been assessed. The military splat light aircraft on a frequency of about 1 every 3 to 6 years. As and when they hit something with many more people on it military flying in the UK will change to be the same as that in the majority of Europe - controlled and compliant with the rules.

In the meantime I look out of the big windows talk to whomever I can but it would be nice if they didn't use the local strips as turning points....

[SAR Bloke]

Strangely enough the VFR rules were put together with the idea of making civil flying safer. That the military do not have to abide by them does tend to make the whole thing a bit of a nonsense.

What do you mean by that?

that is not what the rules say and thus does not necessarily make it poor airmanship.

Following the rules to the letter does not mean you have good airmanship. Flying on the extended centreline of a major airfield is poor airmanship no matter what the rules say (Just as an example - I am not suggesting that is the case in this incident).

it's uncontrolled airspace

Hence the problem. To Military traffic instructions are mandatory. i.e. it is controlled airspace, but not for everybody.

[London Mil]

Yet again this degenerates into an "us and them". Maybe we should be adult enough to realise we all all "us".

Pratting around where there is a heightened probability that there may be someone else without attempting to increase your 'visibility' is not clever. Both the mil and civil side need to understand this.