Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

MATZ penetration and communication with a military airfield

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

MATZ penetration and communication with a military airfield

Old 17th Oct 2017, 18:24
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 370
Received 11 Likes on 6 Posts
Ah, Mr Olieslagers – I’ve been expecting you…….

Any UK ATCO who does not exercise the privileges of their licence and provide standard separation (by implication, therefore, Control) between participating IFR traffic in Class G Airspace will not be in possession of their licence for long.

I’m sorry that you fail to comprehend the intricacies of the UK ATM system, but until you do – and/or perhaps hold a validated UK ATC Licence - perhaps you should refrain from publishing emotional and erroneous statements based on your personal agenda to change a national AT system to one that fits your over-simplified ideal.
Downwind.Maddl-Land is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2017, 20:32
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Downwind.Maddiland

I find your post, number 42 on this thread, rude and insulting and unbecoming for anyone pretending to be a citizen of the UK. Hopefully the mods are awake and will remove it, to the benefit of good manners.
mary meagher is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2017, 21:25
  #43 (permalink)  
GipsyMagpie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Jan Olieslagers
Excuse me but that is sheer total absolute complete nonsense.
Class G is per definition NOT CONTROLLED thus there is nothing to control let alone to over-control.
Neither can there be a controller, there merely can be a radio operator. Who may be in duty bound to offer information but not a syllable more.

It keeps on confusing and annoying me that the Brits so complicate matters that are essentially so simple.
Sorry, you are dead wrong. Google ATSOCAS. Class G is not controlled in the sense that aircraft are not under a radar control service but there are numerous services in UK airspace where the controller provides a lot more than information. It's just the pilot remains ultimately responsible.

And your earlier post saying there is no UK radar-backed FIS is wrong. That's a traffic or deconfliction service. Many units offer these under the LARS scheme.

I struggle to understand why anyone wouldn't want a set of free eyes keeping a watch over your shoulder. I get the freedom of flying around not speaking to anyone but aviation is a dangerous business. The big sky theory doesn't work and see-and-avoid is so full of holes - Google the research done in the USA.
 
Old 18th Oct 2017, 06:55
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ansião (PT)
Posts: 2,779
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
@Mary: thanks, but it must be said that my posting he is answering was not really courteous either. I must admit I was a bit, err, carried when writing that.

@DML: at least you agree the UK system is complicated, your pardon, intricate. Looking on from a distance I still find it needlessly complicated. Admittedly the matter of "IFR in class G" is a poser for any airspace regulator. The Germans tried to address it by setting up class F airspace which was activated when IFR activity was imminent, but that wasn't really satisfactory. They now have RMZ's for such fields, and sometimes a TMZ too, and that seems to work better. The one non-controlled IFR field in my country, EBKT, now has an RMZ too.

@GipsyMagpie: terms like "basic service" and "deconflicting service" are another UK oddity, only serving to further complicate matters and to confuse pilots. No other country has them, to my knowledge. Ever wondered why?

@ALL: let it again be clear that I am not against communicating one's whereabouts and intentions, at the contrary.

I continue to regret that the UK has set up a system much different from the rest of Europe, and, by the look of comments here, clings to it. Well, that's up to you - enjoy your little Splendid Isolation! It is certainly a contributing factor to my avoiding your airspace - perhaps a relief to many
Jan Olieslagers is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2017, 09:33
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why comment here then?

Dear Jan,
Originally Posted by Jan Olieslagers
I continue to regret that the UK has set up a system much different from the rest of Europe, and, by the look of comments here, clings to it. Well, that's up to you - enjoy your little Splendid Isolation! It is certainly a contributing factor to my avoiding your airspace - perhaps a relief to many
Now that you communicated this to the forum, why not show some consistency and avoid commenting on the UK-specific threads as well (MATZ)? Of course, that's just a friendly question - you are entitled to participate in all discussions just like you are entitled to turn up in UK Class G airspace unannounced. I just struggle to understand why avoid the latter as a principle, and yet do the former with so much emotion involved.

My £0.02 (not to be confused with Eurocents)



/h88
hegemon88 is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2017, 10:04
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 370
Received 11 Likes on 6 Posts
mary meagher: I’m genuinely sorry you feel like that, but I was responding in kind to Jan’s reply to my previous post, which he – graciously – admits at post 45 was a little OTT. Jan has a long history of commenting on UK Airspace matters and ATS provision on various forums and his, always welcome, input was predictable. I was therefore trying to ‘lighten the mood’ with the initial (admittedly, oblique) reference to the famous ‘line’ from the James Bond film; unfortunately, there isn’t a JB/Blofeld emoticon available to complete the reference effectively!

Jan Olieslagers: I’ll readily admit that the UK system is not perfect by any means (MATZs being a specific that is well past its sell-by date – they offer no effective protection to mil aircraft conducting IFR approaches and their main function appears to be as a symbol on a chart to notify the presence of a aerodrome that may be worth calling!) and I do sympathise with overseas crews that have to contend with ‘our way of doing things’; however, that doesn’t mean they are ‘wrong’ or otherwise unfit for purpose.

The UK has been providing ATSOCAS in various forms all my adult life (and that’s a long time now!) and the system is mature, flexible and seems to provide what the customer wants – most of the time - without the establishment of swathes of regulated airspace, as tried in Germany as you point out. You will be aware of the likely reaction of the UK GA fraternity to any moves along those lines!
Downwind.Maddl-Land is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2017, 18:04
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jan Olieslagers
@chevvron: I cannot imagine any other nation than the Brits recommending avoidance of (bits of) G airspace. It cannot get more ridiculous unless class H is introduced. Surely class G means "no guidance whatsoever, all are up to themselves and good luck to them"?
I can. Poles. And I haven't got a slightest problem with that. We all arrange our national airspace as we see fit.

As I now spend 50% of time in each country (UK and PL), and fly in both, every now and then I get a request from a FISO I talk to, to turn or change level for separation, in Class G airspace. Yes, someone could push back, saying "make me" , citing their rights and freedoms in uncontrolled airspace, but it's beneath me. All I do instead is have an occasional laugh - see my captions in http://youtu.be/wX_A5Wt1OiA when you get a chance. We're pilots, not barristers.

Airmanship - amazing how much change one word can make


/h88
hegemon88 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2017, 09:54
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ansião (PT)
Posts: 2,779
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
We all arrange our national airspace as we see fit.
This breathes for me a spirit of provincialism that I so loathe. (biting my keyboard to not begin about Brexit...) and indeed one of my reasons to be so concerned about a matter that, in the eyes of some, should not concern me at all.

One reason so many pilots never fly abroad is the difference in national procedures. IMHO we really should aim for the greatest possible standardisation over the biggest possible area, to keep things as safe and as simple as possible also for foreigners.

@DML: your intention to 'lighten the mood' is really appreciated - unfortunately it was entirely lost on me, who never go to the movies, don't even have a telly at home But I am no longer wondering about the emoticon

Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 19th Oct 2017 at 17:00.
Jan Olieslagers is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2017, 15:35
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,799
Received 90 Likes on 63 Posts
Originally Posted by Downwind.Maddl-Land

Jan Olieslagers: I’ll readily admit that the UK system is not perfect by any means (MATZs being a specific that is well past its sell-by date – they offer no effective protection to mil aircraft conducting IFR approaches and their main function appears to be as a symbol on a chart to notify the presence of a aerodrome that may be worth calling!) and I do sympathise with overseas crews that have to contend with ‘our way of doing things’; however, that doesn’t mean they are ‘wrong’ or otherwise unfit for purpose.

The UK has been providing ATSOCAS in various forms all my adult life (and that’s a long time now!) and the system is mature, flexible and seems to provide what the customer wants – most of the time - without the establishment of swathes of regulated airspace, as tried in Germany as you point out. You will be aware of the likely reaction of the UK GA fraternity to any moves along those lines!
I know I've said it before but I think all ATC (not AFIS) airfields with approved iaps both military and civil, with or without radar, should be given a 5nm radius ATZ rather than the 'Meagher'(sic) 2 or 2.5nm ones which do absolutely nothing to 'protect' iaps. You could then dispense with the stupid 'MATZ' system (yeah I know the military will probably still insist on having a stub at one or both ends of the 'instrument' runway) as instructions from ATC in an ATZ are always mandatory to all traffic even though they may be Class G airspace and you will thus avoid establishing 'swathes of regulated airspace'; I for one definitely wouldn't want MATZ to become Class D or E airspace.

Don't forget,when MATZ were first invented in the late '50s (partly due to 'pressure' from the USAF who weren't used to operating iaps in 'open' FIR airspace) , there was an immense amount of military flying in the country when compared to nowadays so it wasn't unreasonable to make them mandatory only for military aircraft; nowadays the situation has changed and the number of civil flights has increased so that the 'balance' is totally different from what it was over 50 years ago.
chevvron is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2017, 16:55
  #50 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: London
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BTW, I am wondering, if calling for a crossing is not mandatory...
In the FRTOL practical exam, in the UK at least, you are crossing an imaginary MATZ. If you're not calling - it's an automatic fail. Obviously they're trying to see if you know what to say in this kind of an event, but since it's not compulsory to call, I wonder if not calling really deserves a fail.
Adam S is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2017, 17:01
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jan Olieslagers
I continue to regret that the UK has set up a system much different from the rest of Europe, and, by the look of comments here, clings to it. Well, that's up to you - enjoy your little Splendid Isolation! It is certainly a contributing factor to my avoiding your airspace - perhaps a relief to many
C'mon Jan, admit it. What keeps you out of UK airspace is a stretch of water and your lack of trust in Austrian engineering.
patowalker is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2017, 17:04
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Adam S
BTW, I am wondering, if calling for a crossing is not mandatory...
In the FRTOL practical exam, in the UK at least, you are crossing an imaginary MATZ. If you're not calling - it's an automatic fail. Obviously they're trying to see if you know what to say in this kind of an event, but since it's not compulsory to call, I wonder if not calling really deserves a fail.
Well let's say we stick religiously to the approved and legal way of doing things in the FRTOL exam. That way you wouldn't have to call for MATZ penetration. Great!
But what happens if you get a bit of phraseology wrong somewhere? Oops, you've failed.
Be careful what you wish for.
Heston is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2017, 17:10
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ansião (PT)
Posts: 2,779
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
@PatoWalker: Broad grin, old friend. Yes the water is certainly there, and it is topped by a lack of available altitude to glide clear if and when things go pear-shaped. OTOH my confidence in the niner-twelver has never lacked, and has never been disappointed. But it is neither blind nor absolute.

Yes, my professional experience has taught me to strongly believe in Mr. you-know-whom, one of our most reliable collaborators even if not figuring on the paylist. Things will go wrong at a time and/or place they shouldn't but then really shouldn't.

Then again we all know "no risc no fun" but to each their own limits. To terminate a brilliant life like mine foddering shrimps or Norman soles doesn't bear thinking of, neither should I risk further poisoning the North Sea with the various additives of mogas 95E10 and Aerosport 80 oil. But to take all those risks only to land into a bunch of fools who probably even fly on the wrong side of airways is really too much but then really too much. Busting an MATZ to come eye to eye with a forlorn Sopwith triplane overhead might make up for some of it all but even in this extremely exotic airspace the chances seem limited.

PS @chevvron: thanks for explaining some of the backgrounds, that might help me get to a milder tone. Still I note even @DML concedes MATZ's are - what was it? - well behind their "sell-by" date.

Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 20th Oct 2017 at 08:33.
Jan Olieslagers is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2017, 18:50
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts


You've got it all wrong again. In the Dover Straits it is Dover sole.
patowalker is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2017, 19:55
  #55 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,561
Received 402 Likes on 210 Posts
Having flown military aircraft for a couple of decades and civilian ones for longer, my personal answer (as a civilian) to dealing with MATZs is to treat them as advisory airspace. I call on the appropriate frequency and follow ATC "control". It really isn't difficult. I never plan to fly through them unless it's unavoidable. Semantic discussion about what the airspace should be like to suit individual tastes are pointless.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2017, 08:27
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Old Pilot or Bold Pilot....

Jan Olie, very sensible to treat the ENGLISH channel with caution....do they call it by a different name in the Low Countries?

I have flown across it a few times in my Supercub GOFER, but always at the greatest height permissible....better chance of gliding to a beach from 8,000 rather than the 2,000 that the chaps sitting in an office would suggest!

And as I asked them nicely, they always said yes! so worth asking, IMHO.

Reverting to the original subject of this thread, thought all you pedantic pilots might enjoy another story, when my glider was officially cleared to land at RAF Fairford....

I was planning a 300 k triangle from High Wycombe. And so do communicate with any enroute military controllers, finding them always helpful.

Abeam Brize Norton, tracking toward Bristol, getting low. Getting uncomfortably low, still on the frequency to Brize, and with this simply enormous empty airfield not far ahead, I mentioned my problem to Brize. Who actually suggested I land at Fairford....and told me to radio them directly but I said unable, too busy.

So from then on Brize spoke to Fairford who said no problem. Given permission, I landed on the main runway. Coming to meet me, an American jeep with a full patrol, ready for any emergency.

They were soon persuaded I was not a security threat, the base commander turned up as well,and we arranged for my friends from the gliding club to bring a trailer onto the military field. A milkshake and a burger for lunch, hospitality American style at an RAF airfield!

"Good thing you didn't land on the grass," the officer told me, ...seems it was full of wooden stakes marking places for the visitors expected on the weekend, for the Air Tattoo!
mary meagher is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 20:42
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,799
Received 90 Likes on 63 Posts
From what you've written Mary, I suspect I encountered you at Halton once. You landed, I ran out to grab your wing but you couldn't talk as you had to answer a 'call of nature.
'
chevvron is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2017, 08:23
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chevron, that must have been early in my cross country experience! I learned later to plan ahead....

Girls, don't bother with any fancy arrangements that they try to sell you. Just sit on a couple of large bath towels, and have a change of costume available on board!
mary meagher is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2017, 19:49
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ansião (PT)
Posts: 2,779
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
do they call it by a different name in the Low Countries?
The general term is "het Kanaal" which is quite misleading, as Kanaal litterally translates into Canal, not into Channel. At the bottom of etymology all are equivalent, I reckon.

If you are linguistically inclined I could offer some nice lectures regarding Olieslagers as a name, too... but we had better stay on topic.
Jan Olieslagers is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2017, 22:49
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,799
Received 90 Likes on 63 Posts
Originally Posted by Downwind.Maddl-Land
Ah, Mr Olieslagers – I’ve been expecting you…….

Any UK ATCO who does not exercise the privileges of their licence and provide standard separation (by implication, therefore, Control) between participating IFR traffic in Class G Airspace will not be in possession of their licence for long.

I’m sorry that you fail to comprehend the intricacies of the UK ATM system, but until you do – and/or perhaps hold a validated UK ATC Licence - perhaps you should refrain from publishing emotional and erroneous statements based on your personal agenda to change a national AT system to one that fits your over-simplified ideal.
There's a person who posts on another popular forum who has remarkably similar views to Mr Olieslagers; I wonder if they're the same person?
chevvron is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.