MATZ crossings at weekends

[aquascape]

On a Sunday I want to fly from East Midlands to Seething airfield in east Anglia.
On a direct course this would cross through Cottesmore and Marham MATZ.
I have no problems with MATZ crossings but believe both of these are closed at weekends, i know i can enter a MATZ when closed (as long as i keep clear of the ATZ) but never really like to.

I also like to try and stay in radio contact with someone at all times but its a bit scarce for airfields etc in norfolk

What would anyone recommend?

[Vote NO]

London FIS, 124.750 :ok: I think

[dolphinops]

Can't speak for MRH but COT are quite often active out of hours/weekends.
Check NOTAMS and certainly give Cottesmore Zone a call. 130.2
Will look/listen out for you. Have a good trip.:ok:

Regards.

The Dolphin :ok:

[chevvron]

A MATZ is only active when the airfield it surrounds is open for operational flying (ie not when there's only station recreational flying) but there will ALWAYS be an ATZ embedded in a MATZ and you MUST avoid that unless ATC are in attendance and clear you to penetrate.

[Jayfoe]

Hi Aquascape,

Best bet would be to speak to Waddington Zone. The nice chaps and chapesses there should work you all the way until the Fenland area where they will get you to free-call Lakenheath Zone who may or may not work you all the way into Seething.

Waddo Zone should know the status of the MATZs on your route and will sort you out accordingly. (Thats the weekend shift stitched with another track :O:O:O)

Jayfoe

PS Dolphinops you appear to be under the misapprehension that Cottesmore ATC is a proper ATC unit that occasionally does some work. Whereas in reality they are a bunch of workshy.....:O:O:O:O:O (active out of hours/weekends, I haven't laughed so much in years):O:O:O:O:O

[SID East]

Aquascape

Whilst the MATZs of the aerodromes you mentioned are not routinely open at weekends, this is not always the case. A check call on the relevant Zone frequency is always advisable as the airfields concerned could in fact be open. In this case a MATZ crossing should be available.

Note Marham has extensive gliding and light aircraft activity at weekends without ATC cover. The Fenland Gliding Club and Marham Aero Club operate on the Marham Zone frequency 124x150, as does traffic at some nearby airfields. As previously stated, you should remain outside the ATZ in any case. Normally gliders at Marham are winch launched to around 2000 ft.

:ok:

[fireflybob]

London FIS, 124.750 I think

Not checked recently but I believe this is for West of A1 - for east it's 124.600 MHz

[Flybywyre]

i know i can enter a MATZ when closed (as long as i keep clear of the ATZ) but never really like to.
You can enter a MATZ when it is open. No clearance is required either open or closed.
If you just want to be in radio contact with someone then the FIR on 124.60 and when you get within range you should be able to get a service from Norwich on 119.350

[dolphinops]

Flybywyre. You are of course correct. BUT to enter an active MATZ without contacting the operator is not really good advice I would suggest. A bit of unbooked DACT is always good for the soul. :ok:


Jayfoe. Feel free to work my traffic anytime. I can go home earlier.
No bite, just regards to a fellow operator in this area. You know what its like here...:}

[aquascape]

Wouldn't i be a bit too far south to be covered by Waddington?

[LXGB]

Before passing Marham make a quick call on their zone frequency 124.150 to check for gliders or other stuff going on.
Then call Norwich Radar on 119.350, they'll give you a service all the way to Seething.

[whowhenwhy]

My, my Jayfoe, get out of your desk on the wrong side did we? You're right about COT of course, everyone knows that, but I'm sure that Dolphin would prefer some solidarity (brother) on a public forum! You know, make him feel better about only working 2 pairs of Harriers twice a day...:E Anyway, Castle Donnington should be able to give you a service eastbound until you're at a point where Norwich will work you. Unless something has changed, Lakenheath won't be interested unless you're going to affect their MATZ. As others have posted though, if you're happy flying VFR without talking to an ATS provider, you should call on the Zone/App frequency for the MATZ and if no-one answers just make blind calls as you pass through. Marham weekend flyers will certainly be interested in hearing from you! Safe flying:ok:

[Vote NO]

This guy wants to stay in radio contact with someone at all times.... I also like to try and stay in radio contact with someone at all times but its a bit scarce for airfields etc in norfolk

What would anyone recommend?

Like I said London FIS :ok:. Pretty basic stuff :) If any airfields enroute are open FIS will know and advise/transfer you.

[Jayfoe]

WWW,

Much as I bow to your obvious seniority ex-SFO the idea of Castle Donny working traffic outside of their empire is quite, quite absurb :E. Seeing as how the Mighty Waddo Zone take over the whole of Eastern England at the weekend (or so it seems) they would have had no problem in working him to just past the Marham overhead for a freecall to the lovely chaps at Norwich who are the finest civilian ATC unit in the country:):)

So Aquascape how did you get to Seething, did you work the premiere ATC unit in the Area?

Jay

[dolphinops]

No he didn't. We weren't open!!!!! :p

[Jayfoe]

Ah, Dolphinops, so your magnificent unit wasn't open then?

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury here ends the evidence of the Prosecution. ;):p:D;):p:D

WWW this reminds me of a certain thread hi-jack from many, many years ago. I shall hunt it down!

[dolphinops]

How easy was that!! :E

[Jayfoe]

I hope you enjoyed your fishing trip Dolphin :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Can we not put our petty differences aside and focus on the true problem here.............









Cranwell :E:E:E:E:E:E:E

[dolphinops]

Lmao !!!!!:d

[whowhenwhy]

Splitters!:E

"Oh no, I couldn't possibly work outside 20miles from my overhead for one of my own ac!" Even COT put that lot to shame!

Jay, yes well hi-jacked. It's about time that we did!

[Talkdownman]

MATZs. Unregulated as far as civil aircraft are concerned. Not worth the half-mils they are printed on. If Military aerodromes really do want to operate in a known traffic environment then they should secure some 5nm radius Rule 45 airspace around them. Until then they will have to put up with the consequences of an unknown traffic environment outside their ATZs. I am staggered that nats have the temerity to publish MATZs in a civil AIP. Utter nonsense. Should be either be regulated or not.

[whowhenwhy]

Well said, Class D all round and stop pratting about with Stubs that people can fly underneath and get in the way. Would also put off those eejuts who think that it's good airmanship to get free ILS practise by flying down your ILS to 2.0005 miles and then breaking off skirting the ATZ on their GPS. Legal, but really not very clever.

[chevvron]

Doesn't need to be class D. Just a 5nm ATZ for ALL airfields (civil or military) which have an iap approved by CAA or MOD.

[Talkdownman]

A Class G / Rule 45 / 5nm radius ATZ should suffice. Then we will ALL know where we are. Dependency on airmanship is no substitute.

[dolphinops]

A couple of questions. How long have the "Frying Pan" shapes been around in this format? What speeds of arriving/departing traffic were they designed around?

[Jumbo Driver]

A couple of questions. How long have the "Frying Pan" shapes been around in this format?

My recollection is that MATZs were introduced in the civil world in the late 1960s - but I can't evidence that at the moment ...


JD
:)

[dolphinops]

Thanks for your reply JD.

What I am leading up to is a belief that MATZ as they stand are a waste of space. They are supposed to protect arriving/departing traffic.
To my mind they are more like magnets for overflying spotters.
Why plot a route through someones overhead at 2-2500' on a cloudy day when the bases are trying to launch/recover in DS conditions.
Or worse 1500' on a sunny day getting in the way of circuit traffic.

It's all a bit illogical and occasionally dangerous.

The majority of transits I speak to are very professional and very understanding and adjust or reroute.
A significant number of others are of the "I don't care I'm coming through" and sod your patterns/emergency aircraft inbound. Quote " To reroute would cost me money" That was versus a Mayday. Shocking. :eek:

Over to you lot. Tin hat on.:p

[Jumbo Driver]

I understand what you are saying dolphinops and, to some degree, I have to agree with you.

The trouble is that, to the military user, MATZs are compulsory and some of those users (particularly the more arrogant fast jet types who have sounded out on this forum on previous threads) tend to think they own that airspace and they can do what they like in it and any civvie pilot who is there should be prepared to give them priority because it is "their" airspace and they are "important".

Against that, there are at least two types of civvie pilot - those who tend to feel intimidated by the situation (as they believe the outline above) and who meekly try to get "clearance" through the MATZ, rather in the mindset of "second-class citizens" - and then there are those who understand the true situation which is that it is still Class G airspace, nobody "owns" it and they are free to call or not for penetration "approval" as they wish and then to expect an appropriate service.

The problem you highlight stems from the fact that there are at least these three different points of view from the users of the MATZ airspace and thus users are singing from a variety of different song-sheets, with widely differing expectations from the same airspace.

A military user of a MATZ has to have "clearance", like an ATZ. As a civilian user, you do not get "clearance" through a MATZ - there is either an "approval" or "unable to approve", and you are still free to continue without "approval", provided you do not bust the ATZ. It is of course undoubtedly sensible to try to seek co-ordination with other users of this MATZ airspace but, unless or until there is the necessary common understanding, it is bound to be at best less than perfect and at worst it risks being (as you say) illogical and dangerous.


JD
:)

[dolphinops]

JD
I agree with you. I should make it clear that ownership isn't an issue with me.
Although it certainly can be with others.
It's the safety of ALL that are operating in the area that concerns me.
I wonder how the Health & Safety bods would look at this situation.
Two sets of rules?? :ugh: Just don't make sense.