Come on guys we all know that the military think they own most of the airspace in the UK......Take a look at the TRA's over the north sea, they book them on a daily basis often causing UK civil enroute traffic to have to fly extra track miles to avoid but how often do we see them actually using the area,s they have booked!!!
How often do they activate D701 causing oceanic traffic to reroute and then often never actually use the area!!.......try getting the powers to be to create a new airway to protect civil traffic from the fast jet boys and all they do is throw their toys out of the cot...!!!

I trust JD is saying that tongue in cheek, at least I hope so otherwise one of these days he'll get the opportunity to argue his case with either the UK Airprox Board or St Peter! The airfield may appear deserted at 1100 on a Sunday morning but for all you know may go live at 1105 to launch some jets. Never mind, eh! Everything will probably be OK!:ok:

Oh dear .....

Yes ... some people take themselves so seriously ...

JD
:bored:

I am sorry but the 'oh dear' is aimed at those who take such a poor attitude towards safety of the aircraft. Messing about in a MATZ, regardless of your thoughts on them, without making contact with the ATSU, is reckless to say the least!

Oh autothrottle, I'm afraid you are the one missing the point - sorry if my humour was too subtle for you - you can't speak to a MATZ ATSU if the MATZ is closed - they aren't there!!!

This subject always brings out the high-and-mighty (usually military) pontificators - it has been thrashed to death so many times on these threads. :ugh:

Just read your AIP at (ENR 2-2-3) - and make your choice ...


JD
:bored:

Not sure I totally agree, fisbangwallop. You need to remember that the activities taking place in the TRAs often involve large and rapid changes in height or azumith, and can take place over large areas. Just because you don't spot anything happening doesn't mean it isn't there. And having listened to a recent presentation by a Not-Entirely-Western Airways spokesperson, sometimes it comes across like the regional airlines think they own the airspace too.

Anyway, this is getting away from the point. To add my tuppence worth, I would just point out that just because you can do something, doesn't mean it is to be done! I agree that legally it is permisable to fly a civilian aircraft in a MATZ, in the same way that it is legal to fly at 2000' at ten miles on the extended centreline of, say, DTVA. It doesn't make it sensible to do so! I think it's probably the attitude which is most worrying - it seems that some posters on here have an almost provocative attitude to a notion which is deisgned with safety in mind, not to divy up the airspace as part of a greater p1ssing contest.

Chuffer, again I disagree. My personal experience suggests that a great many FJ aircrew are also holders of civilian licences in one form or another, and well understand the conflict inherent in airspace allocation in such a crowded island. The simple fact is that those of us who fly fast jets - which is almost exclusively undertaken in Class G airspace - understand the limitations and hazards of our job far better than civilians can. Nobody wants to clap hands with another aircraft. When FJ aircrew say it's not a good idea to fly in a MATZ then you can bet it's not just to inflate their egos.

Anyway, it's late and I only swung by to look for some info about re-validating my PPL. Just had to add my thoughts on this!

Blunty

Jumbo

I quote from your own reference (my emboldening):

"3 Availability of the MATZ Penetration Service
3.1 A MATZ Penetration Service will be available during the published hours of watch of the respective ATS Units. However, as
many units are often open for flying outside normal operating hours, pilots should call for the penetration service irrespective of the
hours of watch published. If, outside normal operating hours, no reply is received after two consecutive calls, pilots are advised to
proceed with caution. Information on the operation of aerodromes outside their normal operating hours may be obtained by telephone
from the appropriate Military Air Traffic Control Centre:
(a) North of 5430N - Telephone: Scottish ACC (Mil) 01292 - 479800, Ext 6703/4.
(b) South of 5430N - Telephone: London ACC (Mil) 01895 - 426150."

Edited to add: I completely agree with Blunt's comments - mil FJ operators generally want Class G airspace just as much as GA, and bickering such as this does no-one except the airspace-grabbers in commercial aviation!

I am well aware of that KP - and thanks for quoting my quote back to me.

I knew the MATZ in question was not active.

Most MATZs seldom are at weekends.


JD
:)

Tell you what, we won't tank through your MATZ if you chaps don't tank through our air chart marked aerodrome control zones. Sittles and Roddige (next door to the National Memorial Arboretum) spring to mind.

'bout time they made MATZs class D in my opinion......I rarely fly in them as I would rather go over the top. I do occasionally clip the stub at my home airfield on take off (Actually I just remembered I don't, the stub starts at 1000' AGL :O) but I have been lined up for take off when a super puma has gone over the end of the departure end of the runway at 30' and 100 kts......but hey ho, live and let live....They always provide me with a LARS when I ask for it, so I'll let them have a bit of Class G in return ;)

I can't agree with that englishal - I seem to remember that it was part of the initial deal when they were given MATZs in the first place that they would provide radar cover within and around the zones, as quid pro quo for our Class G.

You may rarely fly in them but, for heaven's sake, we're giving away far too much Class G airspace at the moment already - we certainly shouldn't consider offering any more.


JD
:)

Going back to the original post, we haven't heard from Speedbird; not sure of the point of the question! Was it the fact that it was over Marham or the standard of the PFLs?

It's Marham, it's the weekend, they're all living it up in Swaffham and Downham Market! We don't know whether the aircraft didn't make a call and when answer came there none, the pilot did some PFLs.

Cheers

Whirls

Just a thought, englishal ...

If it is EGHS you are talking about, the stub actually starts at 891' aal EGHS, because the stub base is 1000' on QFE at EGDY, which is 109' lower than EGHS.

JD
;)

GBZ,
Could you please explain the dimensions of the "aerodrome control zones" at Roddige and Sittles and on which chart they are marked? Thanks.

ShyTorque:

I too thought about mentioning that, but thought I would be being too much of a pedant, no offence! While neither has a "Control Zone" as such, both are marked on mil low flying charts as avoids. Which raises another good point - there are far more bits of airspace which the miltary have to avoid than in the civilian world. Your average GA spamcan could quite legally go through the overhead of both those airfields at 500ft, whereas the military in their good grace and generosity have agreed to avoid both. :O Mistakes may regrettably happen, and I'm sure GBZ has the apologies of the operators concerned, but an attempt has at least been made.