Was that you, again?
 

Was that you practising forced landings inside the Marham MATZ last weekend? Looked like a C150/172. No worries, just wondered.:)

and your point is?

A civillian pilot of a non Mil registered a/c does not require any permission at any time to enter a MATZ unless the MATZ is part of a class A, B or D controlled airspace.

The Marham MATZ most certainly does not fall into that category, and since, for the most part, they cease flying at around 1700 on a Friday until 0800 on Monday, for tea, medals and generally being jolly fine fellows, aside from the possibility of glider flying who are only entitled to the ATZ, there's no relevance to your post.

Niknak
 

Your reply prompted me to look at my books and charts to refresh my memory,you'll get old one day.;)
The proviso as you say is that all MATZ contain an ATZ where you must not fly below 2000' without permission.
Anyway I always call a MATZ if I'm anywhere at all near them!

On the charts,the MATZ is shown with a C in front ie,CMATZ,why is that?

Lister:)

PS- I expect you are tucked up in bed now!

Thats a combined MATZ where more than one MATZ overlap.... Take a look around the Boscombe Down area on the Charts which is also a CMATZ..

Two MATZ combined - Boscombe Down & Middle Wallop - and 3 stubs!

Mad Girl
 

Thank you ,our local is Lakenheath/Mildenhall.
I remember going through there and being told that "there are two F16's at 2500' and two at 3000' and their position, plus a heavy below you"
And there they were,never saw the heavy but the others seemed quite close and it felt great to be part of the action.
Lister

Sorry for the thread creep

I had a US C130 fly under me just outside the Lakenheath MATZ last year - I was around 2000. Certainly woke me up - Norwich was giving me a FIS, they didn't know he was there :cool:

And Honington when (rarely) NOTAMd.

Norwich often are a bit slow on the uptake: Last autumn while I was doing my biennial review with a certain local ex Harrier CFI we had an exceedingly close encounter with RAF high energy metal who arced over us before diving back down to the nap of the earth.

He was certainly close enough for us not to need to look for his wing man.

A good minute later Norwich told of 'a lot of high energy traffic about'

This was in the middle of a NATO exercise and though we were well aware of the NOTAM and were well clear, this 'high energy stuff' often comes steaming in from the Wash playground at high speed and stupid altitudes before reaching the NOTAMd areas.

Cusco

Cusco,
I reckon we use the same CFI,I was doing my bi-ennial ( in a Stearman,to narrow it down) with an ex Harrier pilot and we had a close encounter with a very fast low flying military over the Norfolk Broads.
The CFI said,"Where's the other one?"
We never saw it.
Incidentally this CFI taught me to fly at OB.
Lister

That may be so but it is pretty poor airmanship to do so, and can cause significant aggravation and unneccessary risk. Entering the inner ATZ uncleared would certainly result in fallout. MATZs exist for very good reasons and most military controllers will bend over backwards to accommodate a civvy MATZ crossing if they have the courtesy to talk on the radio. Loitering around within a MATZ doing GH, PFLs etc uncleared is not particularly bright.

To turn it around, it would be legal for 4 C-17s to continuously fly a 3nm circle around your home GA aifield's ATZ all day between 250 and 2000ft while an 8 ship formation of Chinooks hovered in the overhead at 2050ft. Legal - yes. Good airmanship, courteous, safe etc - no.

Fg Officer - point taken and it's a good one, I shall go and wear sackcloth and sit on barbed wire for the rest of the day..:ouch:


Cusco,

thanks for that, perhaps one day you'd like to come along and enlighten us with your qualifications, skill and experience, and demonstrate to us how a radar service should be provided.:rolleyes:

That's the fella: you actually rang him last week while I was in his office post IMC reval..............

He's looked after all my needs for the last 15 years.

Damn fine chap, what?

Cusco.:O

Oh Nik Nak: don't take it to heart: this is PPRuNe after all:

I'm only reporting what actually happened......

11th September 2007 15.40Z if you're feeling paranoid.......

Cusco;);)

It didnt take long for the pissing contest to start......

I must remind myself yet again that military aviators are always right and us civvy chaps are just useless:ugh:

I must also forget that several military aircraft flew straight through a NOTAMed aerobatic competition a few months ago... Maybe they were having a less than perfect day?

Dear oh dear, Chuffer. Got out on the wrong side of the bed today? You have misinterpreted me - there's no p1ssing contest here, merely what was intended to be some common sense input. Do you actually disagree with my point or are you just seeking a bit of conflict.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is sensible. Everyone has 'less than perfect days' and makes mistakes, civvy or mil. If some military pilots negligently busted a notam, rest assured that on landing they probably had a severe bollocking of the sort that can have a serious detrimental impact on their careers. It's not always back to the mess for tea, medals and a laugh at those frightful civvies - sometimes it's an RAF Police investigation with an interview under caution, etc, etc.

I stand by my assertion that entering a MATZ uncleared, whilst legal is poor airmanship, and that would apply to me when I'm flying privately on my PPL as much as anyone else. I don't want to get rear-ended by a fast jet, and neither does the fast jet mate want to spear into a light aircraft. A bit of common sense and communication can reduce that risk.

Oh no - not this again ... pleeeease ...


JD
:bored:

Not enough sleep for some people methinks...

DPT

I shall go flying this weekend ... I shall fly through my local MATZ ... I shan't call them ... they won't be there ... just like Marham MATZ last weekend, I'd wager ... :ugh:


JD
:bored:

... and I might even do a PFL or two, just for the hell of it ...

Can I come with you.......pleeeeease?

I thought it was good old fashioned airmanship to tell people you are there, but what would I know?

We'll see .....


JD
;)

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.