Ah, Mr Olieslagers – I’ve been expecting you…….:E

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.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.

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.

@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 :)

Why comment here then?
 

Dear Jan,
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

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!

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" :cool:, 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

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 ;)

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

@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.

:O :O :O

You've got it all wrong again. In the Dover Straits it is Dover sole.

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.

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!

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.
'

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!

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.

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?

There is one other UK forum - or, more precisely, a forum run by Brits people though it aims/claims to be pan-European - where I used to post, under the same nickname. I cannot remember this matter was discussed there recently; but if it was, I have almost certainly added similar comments there.

PS should anybody wonder, this nickname is chosen in reverence to an early Belgian ace aviator; and also in self-mockery, because the real Jan was a first-class daredevil and myself am rather at the other end of the scale...

The Antwerp Devil. Do you also ride a motorcycle?

I have many fond memories of travelling through Belgium. I even stopped once. For fuel.

Well now you've all had some fun bashing 'Johnny Foreigner', anyone want to stand up and justify the existence of MATZ? The Basic 'Service' where you might or might not get a traffic warning? The Traffic service where if it is busy you will not get a service? How about the conduct of commercial air traffic IFR in Class G without radar cover?

There are a lot of things which when viewed from a distance make little sense.

It all boils down to money. Some of us are old enough to recall 30 odd years ago or more where the UK had military master diversion airfields which were open H24, fully manned and equipped with surveillance and talk down radar and also the ability to lay a foam carpet within 30 minutes if you needed to do a wheels up landing.

Now because of a paucity of such stations which are open H24 (peacetime Air Force now where the enemy doesn't attack at the weekends, bank holidays or outside office hours) there are times when vast swathes of the FIR is devoid of any radar service.

I'm sure the relevant authorities would say H24 radar service would be available if we paid for it but how much would they want to charge airspace users?

I realise this is easy to say but those operators have a choice whether or not they operate into airfields and on routes outside controlled airspace and/or radar cover. Do we as GA pilots want more controlled airspace? (I fully appreciate that for commercial reasons those operators choose to operate in Class G!)

Hi All, yes GB cannot accommodate any invading armies outside 'office hours'.


However one bit of creeping bureaucracy has gone unmentioned, Hawarden now has a Radio Mandatory Zone RMZ. If all the Matz areas eventually follow suit, that could change the situation.
.

Does anyone apart from me remember UHMRA?

Maybe everyone would prefer a 'blanket' of Class E in the more congested parts of the country; I'm sure the IFR public transport operators would.

Speaking as one who doesn't really have a choice about the lack of radar cover to get the job done, despite being often required to fly IFR in class G airspace, I'd certainly rather have the facility than not. Unfortunately, there is now a big gap right in the middle of UK which didn't exist until the last few years.

I see no need for Class E, just a better LARS coverage to fill the gaps.

What, the one on 128.55 Mc/s?....Nah....

So no takers in justifying MATZ?


The Upper Heyford thing was at least an attempt to give some rationale to things - however skewed!

And operators can chose to operate IFR in Class G with no radar? Why would any responsible regulator allow that - paying customers without the basic protection which they passengers largely all expect?

At the end of the day if regional airports want commercial traffic there has to be a minimum level of service - that is mandatory on the ground - but staggeringly not in the air........

ISTR that establishment of MATZs was the result of a 'career development' project by a Flight Lieutenant some five decades ago. From my experience of providing approach radar service for a MoD-Air MATZ the dimensions certainly did not afford 'protection' for much of its traffic. To civil operators MATZs are neither one thing nor the other, and, as such, are simply a nuisance to all. If the Military wants to operate in a known traffic environment it will require appropriate regulated airspace designed to accommodate the instrument traffic patterns of individual bases. The standard MATZ dimensions do not do this. One size does not fit all, and its rules do not apply to all airspace users. Consequently the depiction of MATZs on civil charts is no more than worthless clutter. The UK's busiest gliding centre operates within a MATZ. The military have sectorised that area an 'avoid' area, and it is marked as such in station ops docs, which begs the question why encompass it with the MATZ 'rubber stamp' in the first place.

The MATZ Penetration Service is neither one thing nor the other. Airmanship is no substitute for effective regulation with clear and robust procedures. Until that happens MATZs will remain an unknown traffic environment which Military ATSUs will have to tolerate.

So, work this one out. Leuchars is now the only H24 military LARS unit in the country. It has no based military aircraft (apart from a UAS) and the only reason it is retained as a LARS unit is because Leuchars is a designated diversion for QRA Typhoons. But neither Lossiemouth nor Coningsby (where the Typhoons come from) is H24, and Typhoons can also use Newcastle and Edinburgh (both H24 and only minutes Typhoon time away from Leuchars) for diversions. So yes, we pay for it, and there are ATCOs sitting there all night every night for sod all.

Gasax, is this news to you?

Picture the scene...

Jodel flying North from Denham. 1 x 720 channel radio, nothing else.

'Upper Heyford G-XXXX'

'G-XXXX Upper Heyford unintelligible southern drawl'

'Upper Heyford G-XXXX say again'

G-XXXX you're not painting'

U-H G-XX that's 'cos we're made of wood'.

About as useful as a chocolate teapot. Shortly after this exchange, we saw a F111 pass beneath us. We looked in the direction it had come from and sure enough, there was the second one, just above us.

We determined that the Russians would invade on a weekend in August, in wooden aeroplanes.

Last time I flew over Upper Heyford, it was covered in cars. Sic Transit...

Oh, and another thing. We used to get an excellent service from Luton Approach on 129.55, when the controllers were employed by Luton.
'G-XX turn left for identification'
'G-XX you are identified. Radar information service'.
Luton's radar was presumably good enough to get a return from the engine. After that, responsibility for Luton's approach was transferred to NATS and we lost the service.

TOO

No I just thought of it! :)

In the event that there ever is a collision between involving CAT in Class G we all know where the finger will point at least initially - when in actual fact it is the blind spot the regulator has and the cost saving approach from CAT operators....

Until 'airways' go from farmers' fields and large back gardens, there isn't much hope of the finger pointing anywhere other than at the pilots. Some of us don't have the luxury of always operating to and from airfields.

might have been before UHRMZ was implemented; I recall when it came in, and I'm sure Mary had already been flying x/c from Booker for a while back in those days.

I recall regular comms with UH controllers after the RMZ was implemented, when I was flying gliders x/c from Dunstable, where we made contact somewhere around the obvious VFR feature of Calvert Junction - then a live a brick works with smoking chimney next to a railway junction - and (nearly) every time, the American controller was still unaware of where this feature lay in relation to their airspace! You'd think that they would soon learn the obvious landmarks around the edge of their RMZ wouldn't you?! Possibly they were never posted to UH for long enough..!

One had to feel sorry for the Spams when it came to Welsh names though. There was that famous broadcast on L/L Common which went something like:

"All stations, this is Birch 17, enterin' low level 2 miles westa' Ladrin...Lanidrod...Larindrod... Ah', the hell with it - 6 miles northa' Boolth Wells!"

Maybe 30 years ago when Heyford was very active I was heading for Finmere clear of the MATZ when another pilot came over the glider radio " what's this airfield below me with all those big nissen huts" his mate informed him!!!.
I looked down to my right to see a C5 on long finals about 1000 ft below, busy skies in those days.