MATZ overfly. RT etc?
 

I would appreciate the comments of some of you experienced flyers with relation to this scenario, since I have heard conflicting opinions on the best way to proceed. If it has been done before please refer me to the appropriate thread.


Scenario: I am flying on a track which will take me directly over a MATZ. I am at an altitude which puts me 3100 ft above the airfiled and I am receiving (for example) Traffic Service from another civilian ATC and squawking. My track would not warrant that I call up the MATZ for onward air traffic service.

So, should I:

a) Ignore (from an RT point of view) the MATZ since I am 100 ft above it and am not required to contact them according to the rules?

b) Request temporary change of frequency to the MATZ to let the MATZ know I am flying over, and then immediately return to my Traffic Service?

c) Request frequency change to that of the MATZ and request MATZ Overfly and receive traffic service from the MATZ for the 10 mile leg.

d) Divert and avoid the MATZ altogether just to avoid the complication.

The follow on question is then - would the answers be any different if I were higher, say for example 600ft above or if I wasn't directly over the ATZ within the MATZ but nearer the periphery?

I think I know what the rules say I am allowed to do, but it would seem a bit "in their face" to fly over without letting them know and I want to be as safe and conventional as possible.

All answers will be gratefully received as long as it doesn't get like the ongoing 'Standard Closing Angle' thread in the Instructors section, which is doing my head in!!!

If you're so astonishingly lucky as to be in receipt of a traffic service ...

If the military airfield beneath you can provide you with a more appropriate traffic service then the people you're already talking to might suggest you change to them.

You'll probably be wearing the squawk of the people you're talking to, so if the military airfield care about you they can tell who you're talking to and get on the landline. I've had this happen to me - I've had a call saying "xxx request that you ..." until a fast grey pointy thing had landed.

You can ask the people you're talking to "should I call xxx and tell them I'm overflying".

Then there's local knowledge ... some military airfields are well known for being perfectly happy to offer a traffic service for miles around, others are well known for impenetrable American accents that you really would prefer not to have to cope with

You are outside the MATZ.
You are not intending to penetrate the MATZ.
You are not required to contact the Military ATSU.
You do not need to let them know that you are outside their MATZ boundaries.
MATZ Penetration Service does not necessarily include Traffic Service.
You are already in receipt of a useful Traffic service.

There is no complication.

Thanks so far.

Talkdownman - you are basically saying that option a) is correct i.e. the rules are the rules. I have heard people say it is courtesy or safer to let them know and to request MATZ overfly. I have always felt uneasy with this since the word 'request' doesn't apply when I have right of way anyway.

I think it can depend on the MATZ in question. Personally I'd be minded to give an RT call, advising the MATZ that I am transiting overhead at **** ft on whatever heading etc... You don't have to do it but I think it's good manners. Gives them the opportunity to advise you anything relevant whilst you are overhead.
That way good relations are maintained and then when you request to transit through a MATZ you are more likely to be favourably received.

You should get some varied answers to this question as some people on the private forum seem to be MATZ-haters! It is absolutely true that you are under no obligation to contact the ATSU as you are outside the MATZ and the ATZ.

However, if passing through the overhead only 100ft above the MATZ ceiling I would almost always make contact. You are likely to get a good service from them, and both parties will be more aware of each other's movements. I think it's good airmanship. Additionally, if you had an engine failure, whose airspace are you going to be descending into and who do you think you might want to talk to?

Don't be afraid of talking to military air trafic. They are normally extremely helpful and accommodating. Also don't feel 'uneasy' about 'request'. You don't have to request anything if you don't want MATZ penetration - you can merely inform them of your intentions. (You may want to request a service though).

So if I do call them up to inform them, would I temporarily leave my initial frequency, speak to the Matz and then immediately return to the original, or would I change to the MATZ and request service from them for the next stage of the flight, until changing to the next logical service provider further down track?

NB If you do call them give them plenty of time if you don't get an immediate reply - the controller is probably talking to military traffic on UHF which you can't hear so will not always be able to reply straight away.

If you are getting a traffic service from a civil controller then you will probably have a squawk. The MATZ controller can see your squawk and will know from the number which controller you are talking to and also your height.
I suggest this is sufficient, he knows how to contact you and the civilian controller can warn you of any military or other traffic. So no need for you to change frequency, not that it would do any harm but its not needed.

If like me you do not have a transponder then I would call the military just so that I can tell them my transit height as they cannot read this from the mode C.

ZA

For the avoidance of doubt I have never and never intend to transit a MATZ without talking to the controller, however my understanding is that MATZ penetration does not require clearance, as long as there is no ATZ penetration.

Have I got it wrong, or has it changed?

If it is the case then the 100' above the MATZ is not as relevant.

BabyBear: I would always call up a MATZ for transit - my question was regarding overfly.

The responses so far reflect exactly what I have been told by other pilots and various instructors also i.e some say no need, some say it is advisable/good airmanship. What I need to do now is to make my own mind up regarding what I will do next time and stick to it, so that I do not dither when the time comes.

It is very useful to hear the rationales (is that a word?) for both sides.

Of course in practice I would go higher than 100ft above if possible in order to avoid inadvertent descent into the MATZ without having requested penetration.

Likewise, ozbeck, I would always make contact if in the vicinity and advocate good airmanship in having significant margin of error as you suggest, however the point I am questioning is whether there is a requirement to get clearance to penetrate a MATZ? I agree it would be poor airmanship not to request penetration, however it does change the legalities somewhat, especially if there was inadvertent descent.

As you say, the requirements, as posted by Talkdownman, are not necessarily the options all will be comfortable with.

Ozbeck, truth is, the agency inside the MATZ cannot issue you with a "clearance to overfly" because they don't control the airspace you intend to fly through.

However, you may inform them of your intentions to overfly, if you so wish.

As you say, you are above the MATZ so you don't need to call them up..

However in my opinion, I would consider it good 'airmanship' to call any ATSU you are passing near or over even if not obliged to. As Gertrude the Wombat said he was near a MATZ and not in contact but probably would have made things easier for all concerned if he had been (not having a pop, just using it as an example)

I would and do always call an airfield Im over flying and as for any conflicting traffic info.

There is no legal requirement to call them even if you fly straight through the MATZ, as long as you stay clear of the ATZ.

Whether this is a good idea, though, is another matter..... :uhoh:

Where is this? In my experience in your scenario the civilian ATC would dump you and tell you to freecall "whoeveritismatz" unless they have an agreement with.

Anyway assuming they don't, if in receipt of a traffic service I'd just carry on with my routing, as you'd be squwarking, and no doubt the mil could see you anyway.

However if NOT in receipt of a traffic service, I'd call the matz radar controller and ask for a traffic service. When he asks your routing just tell him / her you'd be routing via their overhead but remaining clear of the MATZ.

It's good airmanship in the scenario you describe to call up the MATZ and tell them where you are.

They may give you a squawk and a Basic or even a Traffic service if they're busy:

In my neck of the woods I always speak to the cousins as their CMATZ gets busy with all manner of tin during the week.

Even though the CMATZ recently reduced in size, operating as I do from very close to the MATZ I wouldn't dream of not speakng to them.

The attitude 'I don't have to speak to the MATZ if I'm near or passing through, so I won't' is unhelpful and potentially dangerous.

Cusco.

MATZ
 

I once called up Brize requesting a transit and got the odd reply of a clearance (with altitude) and 'remain clear of CAS' Couldn't get a call back to clarify and climbed over the top.
Rang the controller next day and he commended what I had done but to keep trying to call them as he could have advised another a/c to go over the top on a reciprocal heading.
If you have box 2 you can always tell atc you are giving the matz a quick call and will be straight back.

MM

Although Brize does not have a MATZ, it has a Class D CTR, some years ago I once called up advising that I would be routing overhead from south to north climbing from FL40 to FL100, remaining clear of CAS.

I was 'ordered', not requested, by some shrill female to fly 'not above' FL60 for some obscure reason. Which I declined. "I tried to be helpful, but I need to climb to FL100 for high-rotational spinning and it takes quite a while. So thanks, squawking 7000 and changing back to Quiet. Good day."

Not a bad plan to advise the aerodrome that you're overflying the MATZ - but if they try to vector you around the universe, don't be afraid of politely declining the offer.

The consensus is clearly to call up the MATZ and notify them of ones intentions (despite the fact there is no obligation) and this is how I will handle it in future.

I suppose it is a good example of where airmanship goes beyond the actual rules.

Many thanks for the replies and the different angles.