ap -and what, pray tell, does para 1(b) have to do with a government aerodrome?

Exactly. Herein lies the confusion and the need for reminder.

IAW para 1(a) a military ATZ is active at the notified times (almost always H24) whether or not the ATSU is manned. This means it differs from 1(b) and 1(c) which is why para 1(a) is there in the first place.

I learned to fly at a normal civil airfield but I learned this doing Air Law. When I moved to a club at a military airfield I discovered not everyone had done the same. It's not something we at the club or RAF have made up...

Tim

ATZ or MATZ?

MATZs go up to 3000ft AAL.

MATZ are class G airspace which the MIL have no control over and through contacts have rigged it so they think are controlled airspace.

The more people ask for a transit get refused and give them the hey ho going on route the sooner that pish gets put to bed. Get the QFE off them to keep yourself legal and ignore the over controlling.

I will grant you some units are the top dogs not requiring such tatics but your like's of lossie don't even entertain them.

You want to try Wallingford Intergalactic Spaceport! Bumbling along on a simple VFR navex which entered their MATZ, but remained clear of their ATZ, I was given 'instructions' which would probably have made LHR's controllers blush.

I then asked for the London QNH, because our destination (White Waltham) was below the London TMA. "YOU SHOULD BE FLYING ON THE QFE!!" came the 'reply'.....:\ Which was a bit of a surprise - all I'd wanted was some basic aeronautical information and I certainly hadn't said that I intended to change the altimeter setting inside their precious MATZ.

But the top prize for military overcontrol went to Carterton Field several years ago - I'd advised them that I would be passing through the overhead at FL50 climbing FL100 (for high-rot spinning). The top of the Class D CTR is 3500ft amsl, but they tried to control my activity at least 2000 ft above them. So they got mad_jock's "Hey-ho, squawking 7000, QSY en-route" treatment....:hmm: I also considered turning off Mode C at the zone boundary, but thought that a bit too childish even for me!

They're much better these days though.

A MATZ has no legal status for civil aircraft. Whilst it is clearly good airmanship to contact the controlling ATC unit and to obtain/fly on the same setting as military aircraft using the same airspace, there is no legal requirement to do so. "In the airspace outside the Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ), observation of MATZ procedures is not compulsory for civil pilots." [AIP ENR 2-2].

For this reason, and notwithstanding CAP 413, I will never 'request' a MATZ penetration. I will call the relevant ATC unit, obtain the QFE and 'inform' them of my intentions - these may, of course, change depending on any traffic information that they might provide.

qfe is asked for to avoid the ATZ if flying overhead

One is quite capable of adding aerodrome elevation to QNH to transit on QNH ! I always plan my flights via QNH, probably because I learned in America where if the airport elevation is 6500' it is a little tricky to wind to the QFE. Besides flying a circuit at 7500 is exactly the same as at 1000'....

And so is this one as well

But one can't be bothered dealing with the powers that be arguing the toss about no qfe being mentioned on the tape when its availabe.

Back to the original question from tmmorris, surely if there was circuit traffic on the frequency at the time, it would have been sensible to simply mention to the "intruder" that the ATZ was active, then she would have been able to arrange her flight without infringing the ATZ.

As jollyrog has already pointed out, to hear such a transmission yet not respond with the obvious relevant safety information, is surely neither helpful nor, in reality, good airmanship?

With regard to the hours of Service of a particular military ATZ, I think you will find the table at UK AIP ENR 2.2 pages 2-2-2-1 to 2-2-2-5 promulgates precisely this information in column 3.


JD
:)

By the same token, to enter a military ATZ, notified as H24, without having received permission is neither good airmanship nor, in reality, legal. Or is it no longer reasonable to expect a pilot to abide by the Rules of the Air?

Yes, I agree totally - I wasn't taking sides ...

JD
:)

Jumbo Driver, many thanks for that - I'd forgotten that table!

Quite why the MilAIP is no longer available on line is a mystery though. Most people would reasonably expect to look for aerodrome details under...'aerodromes'.

As it happens, she did get a reply from an aircraft in the circuit. I forbore to mention this because of course direct air-to-air communication is frowned upon, and I certainly wasn't going to use the handheld transceiver to set myself up as an a/g station.

And no, the original comment had nothing to do with MATZs (on which I tend to agree with the comments made, especially as I was ticked off for setting QNH on departure the other day rather than QFE...)

Tim

"of course direct air-to-air communication is frowned upon,"
Is it? I would never do it on an active manned ground station frequency, and never chat, but when using an airfield frequency, knowing there is no active manned ground, I would respond to any other aircraft.
eg ATC notammed closed for period, but taking off with out-of-hours indemnity, and passing military traffic tries to contact ATC. Respond that they are closed until xx.xx after no response to several calls.

That's perhaps the most important bit. MATZ "clearances" aren't mandatory but I would view them as good airmanship, certainly round here where the local MATZ is often full of rotary traffic on UHF which controllers will make a positive effort to move away from any civvy traffic transiting. For the record Shawbury have never turned me down and have always been accommodating - even with student RT. They do have an obsession with not converting QNH to QFE but one can always renegotiate...

They've also been quite sensible in the past - a friend on a CPL training trip got "controlled" in IMC, with a firm suggestion to help his student avoid the Tornado Diamond 9 coming the other way.....!

That's rather the point - for a civil pilot, a MATZ Penetration Service can only ever issue an "approval" - the controlling ATSU has no authority to issue a "clearance" to a civil pilot. It follows therefore that entry to the non-ATZ part of a MATZ cannot be denied to a civil aircraft, unlike military aircraft to whom MATZ instructions are mandatory.

Rather a dog's breakfast ...

For civil pilots, UK AIP ENR 2.2 pages 2-2-3-1 to 2-2-3-3 contain all the details.

In particular, altimeter settings normally used within a MATZ are described in para 2.6 on page ENR 2-2-3-2.


JD
:)