MATZ penetration and communication with a military airfield
 

Hello everyone.

As a PPL I am ashamed to say I have never contacted a military airfield.
For my next flight I decided to contact Wattisham and try to obtain a clearance to turn at their overhead.
I know that they can be very useful, and that obtaining a clearance for a MATZ penetration is a regular thing, but is a clearance to enter their ATZ even obtainable? Should I ask for something other than a 'MATZ penetration' when I give them a call to clarify that I want to turn overhead?
Are there militry airfields that would not let you go through their zone?

Hope that's clear.
Thank you

Strictly speaking a matz isn't controlled airspace, so they cant give you a clearance. The terminology is usually "matz penetration approved".
The atz inside is a different matter. Lakenheath for example almost always say "matz penetration approved, remain clear of the atz". Being American this can sometimes be ay-tee-zee rather than zed.
They might not be too keen on you turning in the overhead, even if youre above the atz. Do you really need to do that?

I have turned overheard several East Anglian military airfields, but I think always between 2000' and 3000', ie within the MATZ but not the ATZ. (Over 3000' I don't necessarily talk to them at all.) Most on approving the MATZ penetration will tell you to remain outside the ATZ or ask you whether you need a clearance for the ATZ as well, point being that they're simply reminding you that a MATZ penetration approval is not an automatic ATZ clearance as well.

What Heston said.

Unless i'm being incredibly antisocial (Barging through the pan handle in conflict with ILS traffic) I don't normally bother.

Full marks for asking but I'm disappointed that wherever you did your PPL course that a MATZ penetration was not included as part of the training unless maybe the location was a long way from a MATZ?

Whether you're aiming to turn overhead isn't that relevant - just ask for a MATZ penetration and give details of your intended routing. Be advised that military airfields are QFE oriented so you'll usually be asked to adjust to fly at a height on their QFE. If the airfield is a significant elevation above sea level this might put you into cloud so something to take into account if you're aiming to maintain VFR.

If you don't get a reply to 2/3 calls then you can assume the MATZ is not active so you can penetrate but as has been said above remain clear of the ATZ since although the main military activity may be closed some airfields have local military flying/gliding clubs which may be active.

UK Matz may not be active over the weekends, and sometimes during the week.


I flew over Shawbury one Thursday afternoon, and could not get a reply from several calls on their frequency. I continued through their Matz and gave a call on 121.5 for a radio check, they confirmed my radio was Ok. Maybe if they are short-staffed, they close for lunch. I think they also close at 16:00 hrs at the end of their duty.
.

There is no reason why you should not ask for a transit through the overhead (or a turn in the overhead.... same thing).
If they cannot accommodate they will let you know.

There's often far less potential conflict in the overhead of an aerodrome than when you're a few miles from the overhead when you are more likely to encounter departing or arriving traffic. Of course it all depends like some airfields have beacons for holding on the airfield itself or local traffic might be practising forced landings from the overhead.

But as 3wheels above says there is no reason why you can't ask for transit overhead.

The other suggestion is always have a plan B if they ask you to go round. Where I operate from if you say go from Nottingham to Skegness direct that will take you right over Cranwell and Coningsby. In the week Cranwell will always ask if you can climb to 3,500 feet - if you can't they will ask you to go round. So if it's a gin clear day I overfly at 3,500 feet or above (and get a Basic off Waddington). If the cloud base is lower then I plan to go round via Grantham and Boston which is not much further and quite scenic.

Happy Landings!

military airfield clearance?
 

A few (?) years ago, I was flying cross country in a single seat Pegasus glider.
Departed Wycombe, overhead Aylesbury, turning in the town thermal at about 3,000'. And decided to overfly active United States military airfield at Upper Heyford, to carry on over Banbury, and possibly go on to Wellesbourne.

The courteous thing to do was to communicate with the military airfield.
So I turned on the radio in the glider, and the conversation took place as follows:

Me. Upper Heyford, this is Glider 987

Heyford: Glider 987, squawk ABXZXYZ ! (or whatever)

987: Unable, negative transponder. (I had a PPL IR, so could talk their language!)

Heyford: Glider 987, what is your intention?

987: Intending to overfly Heyford en route to Banbury

Heyford: 987 What is your location and altitude?

987: Overhead Aylesbury, approximately 3,000'

Heyford: And your present heading?

987: I'm going around in circles!

at this point Heyford gave up while anyone on frequency was highly amused...

Eventually they asked me to notify when intending to overfly Heyford.
I promised to do so, and carried on over Aylesbury to 5,000'. Then approaching the Heyford Zone, the following exchange....

987: Heyford, 987 indending to transit overhead.

Heyford: Maintain 3,000 feet.

987: I'll try!

They just didn't get it, did they?

Well you were in the UHMRA - the Upper Heyford Mandatory Radio Area as it was at that time so turning on the radio and communicating with them sounds like a very sensible thing to do.

Thanks for the great answers everyone!

Beware 'turning overhead' when there's no reply on the MATZ frequency eg weekends (when the MATZ doesn't exist anyway) as many RAF airfields have winch launched gliding clubs and often their cable launch authority extends above the ATZ eg Odiham. The cable launch hazard height ie distance above A/D elevation not altitude amsl is marked on all good quality half and quarter mils.

I would have thought Heyford should have been aware of the capabilites of gliders with Bicester, Weston on the Green and Enstone on their doorstep.

Don't be afraid, these guys might be happy to see something else. In most cases it is easy to get permission to penetrate MATZ or even get cleared for The Core. There was a time I was frequently asking for GCA practice at MATZ and from memory I would guesstimate about two third of the GCA training requests were granted - a very fond gesture I am still quite grateful for.

What’s a core and gca? Please

[QUOTE=Council Van;9926031
The OP says he is ashamed he has never flown through a MATZ. We had a lad join us on the the above operation who as a newly qualified Commercial Pilot when asked to plan a route planned to fly around MATZ's. We quickly pointed out the error of his ways.[/QUOTE]

MATZ are Class G airspace and it you wish, you can legally ignore them (but not the embedded ATZ) however it would be unwise to do so and unfair to other airspace users.

Being in the vicinity of several MATZ and CMATZ in Lincs I usually finish up flying through one or more, they are hard to avoid TBH. Waddington LARS are always uber helpful, Scampton arent interested (they are really a sub set of Waddo anyway, if you want to transit 313 speak to Waddo), Coningsby are always OK, they may give you vectors to avoid loitering Typhoons, its just Cranwell where you get the odd 'Avoid blah'. Which I always find amusing as most Cranwell traffic is doing circuits at places other than Cranwell.

As Chevron says you are not legally bound to contact any MATZ area as long as you don't penetrate their ATZ but with the amount of Mil traffic around these parts you would be a complete idiot not to do so. IMO obviously but then for the sake of twenty seconds on the wireless why not just play it safe?

@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"?

The Core = ATZ
GCA = Ground Controlled Approach

Jan, no one is recommending avoidance of class G. All MATZ and CMATZ are class G but what's the hardship in calling a busy mil base and saying 'Hey Im Here' ? How long does that take? Does that not make sense? Would you turn into a one way street in your car without looking both ways? Or cross the road at a Pelican (or whatever they are called in your country) crossing and not look both ways? Or just walk blindly on knowing the light is on green therefore it's safe to cross?

Flying to me is about mitigating risk and it seems bonkers to me not to press the transmit button and say a few words.

If airspace is too busy to be left to class G procedures than it must be changed to something "up", be it E or D or C or whatever. But yes, there's a cost to that.

BTW if you Brits had decent (i.e. radar-based) FIS than you could report your position and intentions on their frequency, to the benefit of all. Because of course I agree it is a small effort to communicate one's whereabouts and intentions. At least if carrying a radio - not required in class G unless a RMZ has been set up.

And by the way, @chevvron did recommend staying clear of MATZ while stating they are class G. Or did I, stupid continental, miss some subtlety of the English language?

I don't think he stated they are class F unless I've missed something. Jan, you are a respected poster and no one is calling you a stupid continental, after all we are all Europeans regardless of politics, it's a geographical fact! :)

I fly near the busy Humberside airport wich only has an ATZ. In fact I believe far more movements than Doncaster which has a great wedge of class D. No need to call them, can fly blindly through their instrument approach, fly around their ATZ etc etc. Is it wise to do so? I would have thought airmanship would say otherwise.

Yes of course it is good airmanship to aviate, navigate, communicate. But can authorities - whose responibility is to organise safety and stability - leave room for stupidity/lack of responsability of the masses, then count on good airmanship to avoid accidents? I always understood UK airspace is a mess but wondered why - I am beginning to understand that sheer thrift on the government side is a major contributing factor.

Well yes you have a point! A couple of years ago I was working Humberside when a load of microlighters who had been to a fly in at North Coates jammed the frequemcy with general chit chat when the controller was trying to vector a commercial flight from Amsterdam onto the ILS. He had to ask them quite forcefully to shut up and another GA pilot remarked that he had never heard such a disgraceful racket.

It's generally OK here but as you say there are always idiots. I don't think that legislation would make any difference.

ENR 2.2 of the AIP may provide some useful information.

[QUOTE=thing;9926127]I don't think he stated they are class F unless I've missed something. Jan, you are a respected poster and no one is calling you a stupid continental, after all we are all Europeans regardless of politics, it's a geographical fact! :)
Class F airspace no longer exists in the UK. Likewise the UK CAA does not designate any Class B airspace in the UK, so we only have Classes A (TMAs and airways below FL195) C (Airspace at and above FL195), D (most CTRs and some CTAs below FL195), E (some CTRs below FL195), G (all other airspace)

....which under the section 'Other Regulated Airspace' says:

Quote:

---

observation of MATZ procedures is not compulsory for civil pilots

---

...which begs the question 'why are military procedures in the civil AIP?' MATZ procedures are not compulsory for civil pilots so how can MATZs be categorised as 'regulated airspace'?

OK. lets get down to basics here. My biggest worry as a GA recreational pilot is arriving in the same bit of airspace at the same time as another flying machine!
Therefore, regardless of the whys and wherefores of air law etc. Why not call up the relevant frequency for the area that you are in or approaching. its common sense and polite! also and most importantly, it improves safety for everyone!
Rant over. By the way, this is a great bottle of wine!

So that CAA investigators can turn round and say 'it's in the AIP' and thereby place the blame on the pilot for an incident in the vicinity of a MATZ or inside a MATZ.

... which would confirm my impression that UK aviation authorities are mean/thrifty.

Yes agreed. But there are vast swathes of UK airspace where it is not obvious which is the relevant frequency because areas overlap or are not well defined.

With respect to MATZ I have to disagree. The frequencies are listed in the AIP (and other up to date in flight guides etc) and also on the half mill map. In the case of CMATZ you call the controlling authority - an example is Scampton where one would call Waddington.

Noting correct frequencies should be part of flight planning.

I don't think it has been mentioned yet but a little bit of local knowledge helps and communicating with ATC, even if it is just to say "hello I am here..." makes everyones life that much easier AND safer.

ATC will accommodate your request if it is safe to so. Those that think it is fun to fly over an active military airfield at 3001ft on their QFE without so much as a "Hi" need to consider what actually flies in and out of that field. I wouldn't recommend doing this at the likes of Valley or Leeming where you are likely to encounter a Hawk conducting a PFL from above you, in the radar-blind overhead; that is just asking for trouble.

Don't be scared to talk to ATC, you might be pleasantly surprised/ shocked just how much is going on around you that is putting your little pink skin in harm's way:-)

Meanwhile, in another thread somewhere:

“’Ere, these Military Types fly over the ATZ and through the approach to my aerodrome without a bye or leave, real inconsiderate like….”

And consider the implications of crossing, unannounced, the final approach track – outside the ATZ - to a military aerodrome, where (for instance) a Tornado pilot, on his IRT, may be conducting a ‘swept’ PAR, under IFR, at about 165kts, nose high, with the infamous ironmongery around the windshield area....

Just pointing out that there’s 2 sides to every story.

Out of interest and though I don't fly anymore, I ALWAYS used to make all the calls ie request transit, entry and departure plus any position calls I thought relevant/necessary when the MATZ was not active. I am aware that the MATZ freq may are "monitored" by other RAF controllers who, from time to time, will answer and the MATZ at an operational airfield may be reactivated at short notice, however unlikely that may seem. On top of that it helps to give others better situational awareness. As others have said, nothing to be afraid of, go for it.

If you, as a GA aircraft are talking to the Matz controller it will be on VHF. However I think the Military aircraft will be on UHF, so you won't know where they are.
.

scifi: It's the controllers' responsibility to advise you of relevant traffic, notwithstanding 'frequency separation'; that's what he's there for. Even under Basic Service:
Notwithstanding the very clear definition above (my italics) as to to who is responsible for what, the controllers' wretched 'duty of care' caveat also plays a part and leads to accusations of controllers 'over-controlling' in Class G airspace. You're damned if you do and very damned if you don't.

Mil controllers have an unenviable task of providing IFR ATC services to high workload aircraft (frequently single-crewed) in completely unregulated airspace where their high performance requires the use of a high airspace volume; providing 5NM and 3000ft separation under Deconfliction Service against unknown traffic in the Vale of York/Lincolnshire AIAA is no easy matter.

So don't be 'that guy' snurgling along, 'VFR' at 800ft, clear of cloud and in sight etc, under - but across - a MATZ panhandle "because I can" - just call; there's no charge!

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.

Most people don't find it confusing! If you know the system flying in the UK is quite straightforward.

When in Rome, do as the Romans.

The call to a MATZ is to tell them you are crossing it and do they have any conflicting traffic. Not to request their permission. Only a military pilot has to follow orders. Of course you have to avoid the ATZ like any airfield. So it is a polite call to tell them you are unless unhealthy to do so.