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

MATZ listening squawks

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

MATZ listening squawks

Old 16th Nov 2021, 14:18
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: variable
Posts: 9
MATZ listening squawks

In some congested areas of UK Class G airspace multiple MATZs add to navigational complexity and R/T workload. Perhaps a better system would be to allocate listening squawks and allow MATZ penetration without initiating contact with ATC.

An alternative (non-transponder) procedure might be to allow MATZ penetration without permission as long as you are listening out on the controlling frequency.

On a related topic, does Odiham need its MATZ stubs since most of its traffic is rotary?
Discorde is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2021, 15:27
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 617
Civil aircraft do not need permission to enter a MATZ.
Heston is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2021, 16:32
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,485
Civil aircraft do not need permission to enter a MATZ.
True, though it is strongly recommended….
Duchess_Driver is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2021, 16:41
  #4 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 13,438
Originally Posted by Discorde View Post
In some congested areas of UK Class G airspace multiple MATZs add to navigational complexity and R/T workload. Perhaps a better system would be to allocate listening squawks and allow MATZ penetration without initiating contact with ATC.

An alternative (non-transponder) procedure might be to allow MATZ penetration without permission as long as you are listening out on the controlling frequency.

On a related topic, does Odiham need its MATZ stubs since most of its traffic is rotary?
The instrument letdowns are protected by the MATZ stubs.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2021, 16:52
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 64
Posts: 858
I wonder if anyone has told the RAF?

I frequently took telephone calls from a nearby RAF station informing me that one of the based private aeroplanes had "infringed controlled airspace" when flying through a MATZ which they were perfectly entitled to do although as previously mentioned it is not wise.
DC10RealMan is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2021, 16:57
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 617
Originally Posted by Duchess_Driver View Post
True, though it is strongly recommended….
Radio communication and approval of your intentions, or a request for you to do something, like stay above a certain height for example, are strongly recommended, yes. But permission one way or the other does not come into it since it is not controlled airspace.
As for the suggestion of listening squawks - no thanks, since many aircraft do not carry transponders. Letting non transponder equipped aircraft just listen on frequency is a nonsense, since they are allowed in anyway.

Last edited by Heston; 16th Nov 2021 at 20:38.
Heston is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2021, 19:41
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: In Hope
Posts: 3
Listening Squawks can be usefull, but they seem to be increasingly used as an excuse to not provide a service to GA by Civilian ATC I wouldnt like to see the same thing happen with Military units who in my experience are very helpful and accommodating here in the UK
Spud Gun is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2021, 20:22
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: An Airport Near You
Posts: 654
On a related topic, does Odiham need its MATZ stubs since most of its traffic is rotary?​​​​​​
Rotary traffic still fly instrument approaches.
360BakTrak is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2021, 11:03
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: variable
Posts: 9
The MATZ system was set up in the mid-1960s when few aircraft were fitted with transponders and overall air traffic density was considerably less than today's. The intention was to offer a degree of additional protection to military traffic operating in the vicinity of bases but without adding the complexity of legal obligations.

The main differences now are that most aircraft are transponder-equipped, airspace restrictions are considerably more numerous and air traffic in certain regions (such as SE England) is greatly increased.

If a military aircraft was carrying out an instrument approach in IMC, what protection would it have if an intruder decided to transit the MATZ without negotiating penetration clearance? Suppose the intruder was not transmitting Mode C, thereby rendering TCAS (if fitted) ineffective, with no TAs or RAs. Perhaps the intruder's radar return (mode A or primary for non-transponding aircraft) would be picked up by the MATZ controller but what could he or she do apart from vectoring the aircraft carrying out the instrument approach around the intruder, which might mean breaking off the approach.

Perhaps there is a case for MATZs to become mandatory 'listening zones' (VHF or transponder) to allow transit without ATC exchange. Think how much quieter the R/T traffic would be.
Discorde is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2021, 11:10
  #10 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 13,438
Suppose the intruder was not transmitting Mode C, thereby rendering TCAS (if fitted) inactive.
It doesn’t. The TCAS would still show a return, but without a relative altitude.

However, that still causes an issue. Knowing that there is another aircraft laterally close by and potentially conflicting, but unable to know whether to look up, down, or wherever, is very bad for the blood pressure. I was in that very position less than 24 hours ago.

Mode C is a legal requirement for IFR flight but there is no way of knowing if a “Mode A only” aircraft is actually flying clear of cloud or not at that particular time because a pilot could ignore that requirement, or have a failed Mode C and be blissfully unaware, especially if not talking to an ATC unit.

Discorde, I see you have edited and corrected your post since I began my reply. 😎

ShyTorque is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2021, 11:15
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: variable
Posts: 9
@ ShyTorque

The TCAS would still show a return, but without a relative altitude.
Yes, I've modded the post to add TCAS details.
Discorde is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2021, 12:15
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 353
Originally Posted by Discorde View Post
The main differences now are that most aircraft are transponder-equipped
That may be the case for powered aircraft. The vast majority of gliders are not transponder-equipped, and in many cases lack sufficient power to run one.
pasta is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2021, 14:42
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 617
Discorde you're still talking about "clearance" and "controller". I repeat, these are inaccurate when applied to civil aircraft and MATZs.
Incidentally where additional protection for military traffic is needed it is put in place. Brize has Class D for example, and many moons ago Upper Heyford had a mandatory radio area.
Heston is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2021, 22:55
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 72
Posts: 1,602
many moons ago Upper Heyford had a mandatory radio area
Yes, run by the 'Mericans. Very amusing.
Them: Golf Zulu Zulu you're not painting'
Us (in a Jodel) 'Yes, that's 'cos we're made of wood!'
Sometime later, crossing the UHMRA, saw a F111 crossing just above and ahead. Quickly looked around and sure enough, there was the second one, just below and passing underneath. No, our 'friend' from across the Atlantic hadn't advised us of either...

TOO


TheOddOne is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2021, 00:51
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: NW England
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by Heston View Post
Discorde you're still talking about "clearance" and "controller". I repeat, these are inaccurate when applied to civil aircraft and MATZs.
Incidentally where additional protection for military traffic is needed it is put in place. Brize has Class D for example, and many moons ago Upper Heyford had a mandatory radio area.
Strictly true but a moot point. Who would dream of entering an active MATZ without requesting a penetration service? (CAP413)
Hadley Rille is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2021, 01:31
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 73
Posts: 9,136
Originally Posted by TheOddOne View Post
Yes, run by the 'Mericans. Very amusing.
Them: Golf Zulu Zulu you're not painting'
Us (in a Jodel) 'Yes, that's 'cos we're made of wood!'
Sometime later, crossing the UHMRA, saw a F111 crossing just above and ahead. Quickly looked around and sure enough, there was the second one, just below and passing underneath. No, our 'friend' from across the Atlantic hadn't advised us of either...

TOO
It was ony a 'Mandatory Radio Area'; who said anything about passing traffic information?
chevvron is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.