MATZ penetration and communication with a military airfield

[Adam S]

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

[Heston]

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?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

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.

[x933]

What Heston said.

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

[fireflybob]

As a PPL I am ashamed to say I have never contacted a military airfield.

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.

[scifi]

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.
.

[3wheels]

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?

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.

[fireflybob]

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!

[mary meagher]

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?

[dsc810]

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.

[Adam S]

Thanks for the great answers everyone!

[chevvron]

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.

[chevvron]

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.

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.

[ChickenHouse]

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

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.

[md 600 driver]

What’s a core and gca? Please

[chevvron]

[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.

[thing]

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?

[Jan Olieslagers]

@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"?

[ChickenHouse]

What’s a core and gca? Please

The Core = ATZ
GCA = Ground Controlled Approach

[thing]

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"? 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.

[Jan Olieslagers]

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? you can legally ignore them (but not the embedded ATZ) however it would be unwise to do so

[thing]

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.

[Jan Olieslagers]

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.

[thing]

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.

[Sky blue and black]

ENR 2.2 of the AIP may provide some useful information.

[chevvron]

[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)

[Talkdownman]

ENR 2.2 of the AIP may provide some useful information.
....which under the section 'Other Regulated Airspace' says:

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'?

[Meldrew]

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!

[chevvron]

...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'?

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.

[Jan Olieslagers]

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

[Heston]

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!

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.

[fireflybob]

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.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

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:-)

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

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.

[golfbananajam]

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.

[scifi]

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.
.

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

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:

2.3.1 Basic Service provides advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights. This may include weather information, changes of serviceability of facilities, conditions at aerodromes, general airspace activity information, and any other information likely to affect safety. The avoidance of other traffic is solely the pilot's responsibility.

2.3.3 Pilots should not expect any form of traffic information from a controller/FISO and the pilot remains responsible for collision avoidance at all times. However, where a controller/FISO has information that indicates that there is aerial activity in a particular location that may affect a flight, they should provide traffic information in general terms to assist with the pilot's situational awareness. This will not normally be updated by the controller/FISO unless the situation has changed markedly, or the pilot requests an update. (My bold)

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!

[Jan Olieslagers]

controllers 'over-controlling' in Class G airspaceExcuse 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.

[fireflybob]

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.

[horizon flyer]

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.

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Ah, Mr Olieslagers – I’ve been expecting you…….:E

Any UK ATCO who does not exercise the privileges of their licence and provide standard separation (by implication, therefore, Control) between participating IFR traffic in Class G Airspace will not be in possession of their licence for long.

I’m sorry that you fail to comprehend the intricacies of the UK ATM system, but until you do – and/or perhaps hold a validated UK ATC Licence - perhaps you should refrain from publishing emotional and erroneous statements based on your personal agenda to change a national AT system to one that fits your over-simplified ideal.

[mary meagher]

Downwind.Maddiland

I find your post, number 42 on this thread, rude and insulting and unbecoming for anyone pretending to be a citizen of the UK. Hopefully the mods are awake and will remove it, to the benefit of good manners.

[GipsyMagpie]

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.
Sorry, you are dead wrong. Google ATSOCAS. Class G is not controlled in the sense that aircraft are not under a radar control service but there are numerous services in UK airspace where the controller provides a lot more than information. It's just the pilot remains ultimately responsible.

And your earlier post saying there is no UK radar-backed FIS is wrong. That's a traffic or deconfliction service. Many units offer these under the LARS scheme.

I struggle to understand why anyone wouldn't want a set of free eyes keeping a watch over your shoulder. I get the freedom of flying around not speaking to anyone but aviation is a dangerous business. The big sky theory doesn't work and see-and-avoid is so full of holes - Google the research done in the USA.

[Jan Olieslagers]

@Mary: thanks, but it must be said that my posting he is answering was not really courteous either. I must admit I was a bit, err, carried when writing that.

@DML: at least you agree the UK system is complicated, your pardon, intricate. Looking on from a distance I still find it needlessly complicated. Admittedly the matter of "IFR in class G" is a poser for any airspace regulator. The Germans tried to address it by setting up class F airspace which was activated when IFR activity was imminent, but that wasn't really satisfactory. They now have RMZ's for such fields, and sometimes a TMZ too, and that seems to work better. The one non-controlled IFR field in my country, EBKT, now has an RMZ too.

@GipsyMagpie: terms like "basic service" and "deconflicting service" are another UK oddity, only serving to further complicate matters and to confuse pilots. No other country has them, to my knowledge. Ever wondered why?

@ALL: let it again be clear that I am not against communicating one's whereabouts and intentions, at the contrary.

I continue to regret that the UK has set up a system much different from the rest of Europe, and, by the look of comments here, clings to it. Well, that's up to you - enjoy your little Splendid Isolation! It is certainly a contributing factor to my avoiding your airspace - perhaps a relief to many :)

[hegemon88]

Dear Jan,

I continue to regret that the UK has set up a system much different from the rest of Europe, and, by the look of comments here, clings to it. Well, that's up to you - enjoy your little Splendid Isolation! It is certainly a contributing factor to my avoiding your airspace - perhaps a relief to many :)
Now that you communicated this to the forum, why not show some consistency and avoid commenting on the UK-specific threads as well (MATZ)? Of course, that's just a friendly question - you are entitled to participate in all discussions just like you are entitled to turn up in UK Class G airspace unannounced. I just struggle to understand why avoid the latter as a principle, and yet do the former with so much emotion involved.

My £0.02 (not to be confused with Eurocents)



/h88

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

mary meagher: I’m genuinely sorry you feel like that, but I was responding in kind to Jan’s reply to my previous post, which he – graciously – admits at post 45 was a little OTT. Jan has a long history of commenting on UK Airspace matters and ATS provision on various forums and his, always welcome, input was predictable. I was therefore trying to ‘lighten the mood’ with the initial (admittedly, oblique) reference to the famous ‘line’ from the James Bond film; unfortunately, there isn’t a JB/Blofeld emoticon available to complete the reference effectively!

Jan Olieslagers: I’ll readily admit that the UK system is not perfect by any means (MATZs being a specific that is well past its sell-by date – they offer no effective protection to mil aircraft conducting IFR approaches and their main function appears to be as a symbol on a chart to notify the presence of a aerodrome that may be worth calling!) and I do sympathise with overseas crews that have to contend with ‘our way of doing things’; however, that doesn’t mean they are ‘wrong’ or otherwise unfit for purpose.

The UK has been providing ATSOCAS in various forms all my adult life (and that’s a long time now!) and the system is mature, flexible and seems to provide what the customer wants – most of the time - without the establishment of swathes of regulated airspace, as tried in Germany as you point out. You will be aware of the likely reaction of the UK GA fraternity to any moves along those lines!

[hegemon88]

@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"?
I can. Poles. And I haven't got a slightest problem with that. We all arrange our national airspace as we see fit.

As I now spend 50% of time in each country (UK and PL), and fly in both, every now and then I get a request from a FISO I talk to, to turn or change level for separation, in Class G airspace. Yes, someone could push back, saying "make me" :cool:, citing their rights and freedoms in uncontrolled airspace, but it's beneath me. All I do instead is have an occasional laugh - see my captions in http://youtu.be/wX_A5Wt1OiA when you get a chance. We're pilots, not barristers.

Airmanship - amazing how much change one word can make :}


/h88

[Jan Olieslagers]

We all arrange our national airspace as we see fit.This breathes for me a spirit of provincialism that I so loathe. (biting my keyboard to not begin about Brexit...) and indeed one of my reasons to be so concerned about a matter that, in the eyes of some, should not concern me at all.

One reason so many pilots never fly abroad is the difference in national procedures. IMHO we really should aim for the greatest possible standardisation over the biggest possible area, to keep things as safe and as simple as possible also for foreigners.

@DML: your intention to 'lighten the mood' is really appreciated - unfortunately it was entirely lost on me, who never go to the movies, don't even have a telly at home :) But I am no longer wondering about the emoticon ;)

[chevvron]

Jan Olieslagers: I’ll readily admit that the UK system is not perfect by any means (MATZs being a specific that is well past its sell-by date – they offer no effective protection to mil aircraft conducting IFR approaches and their main function appears to be as a symbol on a chart to notify the presence of a aerodrome that may be worth calling!) and I do sympathise with overseas crews that have to contend with ‘our way of doing things’; however, that doesn’t mean they are ‘wrong’ or otherwise unfit for purpose.

The UK has been providing ATSOCAS in various forms all my adult life (and that’s a long time now!) and the system is mature, flexible and seems to provide what the customer wants – most of the time - without the establishment of swathes of regulated airspace, as tried in Germany as you point out. You will be aware of the likely reaction of the UK GA fraternity to any moves along those lines!

I know I've said it before but I think all ATC (not AFIS) airfields with approved iaps both military and civil, with or without radar, should be given a 5nm radius ATZ rather than the 'Meagher'(sic) 2 or 2.5nm ones which do absolutely nothing to 'protect' iaps. You could then dispense with the stupid 'MATZ' system (yeah I know the military will probably still insist on having a stub at one or both ends of the 'instrument' runway) as instructions from ATC in an ATZ are always mandatory to all traffic even though they may be Class G airspace and you will thus avoid establishing 'swathes of regulated airspace'; I for one definitely wouldn't want MATZ to become Class D or E airspace.

Don't forget,when MATZ were first invented in the late '50s (partly due to 'pressure' from the USAF who weren't used to operating iaps in 'open' FIR airspace) , there was an immense amount of military flying in the country when compared to nowadays so it wasn't unreasonable to make them mandatory only for military aircraft; nowadays the situation has changed and the number of civil flights has increased so that the 'balance' is totally different from what it was over 50 years ago.

[Adam S]

BTW, I am wondering, if calling for a crossing is not mandatory...
In the FRTOL practical exam, in the UK at least, you are crossing an imaginary MATZ. If you're not calling - it's an automatic fail. Obviously they're trying to see if you know what to say in this kind of an event, but since it's not compulsory to call, I wonder if not calling really deserves a fail.

[patowalker]

I continue to regret that the UK has set up a system much different from the rest of Europe, and, by the look of comments here, clings to it. Well, that's up to you - enjoy your little Splendid Isolation! It is certainly a contributing factor to my avoiding your airspace - perhaps a relief to many :)

C'mon Jan, admit it. What keeps you out of UK airspace is a stretch of water and your lack of trust in Austrian engineering. :)

[Heston]

BTW, I am wondering, if calling for a crossing is not mandatory...
In the FRTOL practical exam, in the UK at least, you are crossing an imaginary MATZ. If you're not calling - it's an automatic fail. Obviously they're trying to see if you know what to say in this kind of an event, but since it's not compulsory to call, I wonder if not calling really deserves a fail.

Well let's say we stick religiously to the approved and legal way of doing things in the FRTOL exam. That way you wouldn't have to call for MATZ penetration. Great!
But what happens if you get a bit of phraseology wrong somewhere? Oops, you've failed.
Be careful what you wish for.

[Jan Olieslagers]

@PatoWalker: Broad grin, old friend. Yes the water is certainly there, and it is topped by a lack of available altitude to glide clear if and when things go pear-shaped. OTOH my confidence in the niner-twelver has never lacked, and has never been disappointed. But it is neither blind nor absolute.

Yes, my professional experience has taught me to strongly believe in Mr. you-know-whom, one of our most reliable collaborators even if not figuring on the paylist. Things will go wrong at a time and/or place they shouldn't but then really shouldn't.

Then again we all know "no risc no fun" but to each their own limits. To terminate a brilliant life like mine foddering shrimps or Norman soles doesn't bear thinking of, neither should I risk further poisoning the North Sea with the various additives of mogas 95E10 and Aerosport 80 oil. But to take all those risks only to land into a bunch of fools who probably even fly on the wrong side of airways is really too much but then really too much. Busting an MATZ to come eye to eye with a forlorn Sopwith triplane overhead might make up for some of it all but even in this extremely exotic airspace the chances seem limited.

PS @chevvron: thanks for explaining some of the backgrounds, that might help me get to a milder tone. Still I note even @DML concedes MATZ's are - what was it? - well behind their "sell-by" date.

[patowalker]

:O :O :O

You've got it all wrong again. In the Dover Straits it is Dover sole.

[ShyTorque]

Having flown military aircraft for a couple of decades and civilian ones for longer, my personal answer (as a civilian) to dealing with MATZs is to treat them as advisory airspace. I call on the appropriate frequency and follow ATC "control". It really isn't difficult. I never plan to fly through them unless it's unavoidable. Semantic discussion about what the airspace should be like to suit individual tastes are pointless.

[mary meagher]

Jan Olie, very sensible to treat the ENGLISH channel with caution....do they call it by a different name in the Low Countries?

I have flown across it a few times in my Supercub GOFER, but always at the greatest height permissible....better chance of gliding to a beach from 8,000 rather than the 2,000 that the chaps sitting in an office would suggest!

And as I asked them nicely, they always said yes! so worth asking, IMHO.

Reverting to the original subject of this thread, thought all you pedantic pilots might enjoy another story, when my glider was officially cleared to land at RAF Fairford....

I was planning a 300 k triangle from High Wycombe. And so do communicate with any enroute military controllers, finding them always helpful.

Abeam Brize Norton, tracking toward Bristol, getting low. Getting uncomfortably low, still on the frequency to Brize, and with this simply enormous empty airfield not far ahead, I mentioned my problem to Brize. Who actually suggested I land at Fairford....and told me to radio them directly but I said unable, too busy.

So from then on Brize spoke to Fairford who said no problem. Given permission, I landed on the main runway. Coming to meet me, an American jeep with a full patrol, ready for any emergency.

They were soon persuaded I was not a security threat, the base commander turned up as well,and we arranged for my friends from the gliding club to bring a trailer onto the military field. A milkshake and a burger for lunch, hospitality American style at an RAF airfield!

"Good thing you didn't land on the grass," the officer told me, ...seems it was full of wooden stakes marking places for the visitors expected on the weekend, for the Air Tattoo!

[chevvron]

From what you've written Mary, I suspect I encountered you at Halton once. You landed, I ran out to grab your wing but you couldn't talk as you had to answer a 'call of nature.
'

[mary meagher]

Chevron, that must have been early in my cross country experience! I learned later to plan ahead....

Girls, don't bother with any fancy arrangements that they try to sell you. Just sit on a couple of large bath towels, and have a change of costume available on board!

[Jan Olieslagers]

do they call it by a different name in the Low Countries?

The general term is "het Kanaal" which is quite misleading, as Kanaal litterally translates into Canal, not into Channel. At the bottom of etymology all are equivalent, I reckon.

If you are linguistically inclined I could offer some nice lectures regarding Olieslagers as a name, too... but we had better stay on topic.

[chevvron]

Ah, Mr Olieslagers – I’ve been expecting you…….:E

Any UK ATCO who does not exercise the privileges of their licence and provide standard separation (by implication, therefore, Control) between participating IFR traffic in Class G Airspace will not be in possession of their licence for long.

I’m sorry that you fail to comprehend the intricacies of the UK ATM system, but until you do – and/or perhaps hold a validated UK ATC Licence - perhaps you should refrain from publishing emotional and erroneous statements based on your personal agenda to change a national AT system to one that fits your over-simplified ideal.

There's a person who posts on another popular forum who has remarkably similar views to Mr Olieslagers; I wonder if they're the same person?

[Jan Olieslagers]

There is one other UK forum - or, more precisely, a forum run by Brits people though it aims/claims to be pan-European - where I used to post, under the same nickname. I cannot remember this matter was discussed there recently; but if it was, I have almost certainly added similar comments there.

PS should anybody wonder, this nickname is chosen in reverence to an early Belgian ace aviator; and also in self-mockery, because the real Jan was a first-class daredevil and myself am rather at the other end of the scale...

[patowalker]

The Antwerp Devil. Do you also ride a motorcycle?

[Flyingmac]

I have many fond memories of travelling through Belgium. I even stopped once. For fuel.

[gasax]

Well now you've all had some fun bashing 'Johnny Foreigner', anyone want to stand up and justify the existence of MATZ? The Basic 'Service' where you might or might not get a traffic warning? The Traffic service where if it is busy you will not get a service? How about the conduct of commercial air traffic IFR in Class G without radar cover?

There are a lot of things which when viewed from a distance make little sense.

[fireflybob]

It all boils down to money. Some of us are old enough to recall 30 odd years ago or more where the UK had military master diversion airfields which were open H24, fully manned and equipped with surveillance and talk down radar and also the ability to lay a foam carpet within 30 minutes if you needed to do a wheels up landing.

Now because of a paucity of such stations which are open H24 (peacetime Air Force now where the enemy doesn't attack at the weekends, bank holidays or outside office hours) there are times when vast swathes of the FIR is devoid of any radar service.

I'm sure the relevant authorities would say H24 radar service would be available if we paid for it but how much would they want to charge airspace users?

How about the conduct of commercial air traffic IFR in Class G without radar cover?


I realise this is easy to say but those operators have a choice whether or not they operate into airfields and on routes outside controlled airspace and/or radar cover. Do we as GA pilots want more controlled airspace? (I fully appreciate that for commercial reasons those operators choose to operate in Class G!)

[scifi]

Hi All, yes GB cannot accommodate any invading armies outside 'office hours'.


However one bit of creeping bureaucracy has gone unmentioned, Hawarden now has a Radio Mandatory Zone RMZ. If all the Matz areas eventually follow suit, that could change the situation.
.

[chevvron]

Hi All, yes GB cannot accommodate any invading armies outside 'office hours'.


However one bit of creeping bureaucracy has gone unmentioned, Hawarden now has a Radio Mandatory Zone RMZ. If all the Matz areas eventually follow suit, that could change the situation.
.

Does anyone apart from me remember UHMRA?

[chevvron]

I realise this is easy to say but those operators have a choice whether or not they operate into airfields and on routes outside controlled airspace and/or radar cover. Do we as GA pilots want more controlled airspace? (I fully appreciate that for commercial reasons those operators choose to operate in Class G!)

Maybe everyone would prefer a 'blanket' of Class E in the more congested parts of the country; I'm sure the IFR public transport operators would.

[ShyTorque]

Speaking as one who doesn't really have a choice about the lack of radar cover to get the job done, despite being often required to fly IFR in class G airspace, I'd certainly rather have the facility than not. Unfortunately, there is now a big gap right in the middle of UK which didn't exist until the last few years.

I see no need for Class E, just a better LARS coverage to fill the gaps.

[Talkdownman]

Does anyone apart from me remember UHMRA?What, the one on 128.55 Mc/s?....Nah....

[gasax]

So no takers in justifying MATZ?


The Upper Heyford thing was at least an attempt to give some rationale to things - however skewed!

And operators can chose to operate IFR in Class G with no radar? Why would any responsible regulator allow that - paying customers without the basic protection which they passengers largely all expect?

At the end of the day if regional airports want commercial traffic there has to be a minimum level of service - that is mandatory on the ground - but staggeringly not in the air........

[Talkdownman]

So no takers in justifying MATZ?
ISTR that establishment of MATZs was the result of a 'career development' project by a Flight Lieutenant some five decades ago. From my experience of providing approach radar service for a MoD-Air MATZ the dimensions certainly did not afford 'protection' for much of its traffic. To civil operators MATZs are neither one thing nor the other, and, as such, are simply a nuisance to all. If the Military wants to operate in a known traffic environment it will require appropriate regulated airspace designed to accommodate the instrument traffic patterns of individual bases. The standard MATZ dimensions do not do this. One size does not fit all, and its rules do not apply to all airspace users. Consequently the depiction of MATZs on civil charts is no more than worthless clutter. The UK's busiest gliding centre operates within a MATZ. The military have sectorised that area an 'avoid' area, and it is marked as such in station ops docs, which begs the question why encompass it with the MATZ 'rubber stamp' in the first place.

The MATZ Penetration Service is neither one thing nor the other. Airmanship is no substitute for effective regulation with clear and robust procedures. Until that happens MATZs will remain an unknown traffic environment which Military ATSUs will have to tolerate.

[NorthSouth]

It all boils down to money. Some of us are old enough to recall 30 odd years ago or more where the UK had military master diversion airfields which were open H24, fully manned and equipped with surveillance and talk down radar and also the ability to lay a foam carpet within 30 minutes if you needed to do a wheels up landing.

Now because of a paucity of such stations which are open H24 (peacetime Air Force now where the enemy doesn't attack at the weekends, bank holidays or outside office hours) there are times when vast swathes of the FIR is devoid of any radar service.

I'm sure the relevant authorities would say H24 radar service would be available if we paid for it but how much would they want to charge airspace users?So, work this one out. Leuchars is now the only H24 military LARS unit in the country. It has no based military aircraft (apart from a UAS) and the only reason it is retained as a LARS unit is because Leuchars is a designated diversion for QRA Typhoons. But neither Lossiemouth nor Coningsby (where the Typhoons come from) is H24, and Typhoons can also use Newcastle and Edinburgh (both H24 and only minutes Typhoon time away from Leuchars) for diversions. So yes, we pay for it, and there are ATCOs sitting there all night every night for sod all.

[ShyTorque]

And operators can chose to operate IFR in Class G with no radar? Why would any responsible regulator allow that - paying customers without the basic protection which they passengers largely all expect?

Gasax, is this news to you?

[TheOddOne]

Does anyone apart from me remember UHMRA?

Picture the scene...

Jodel flying North from Denham. 1 x 720 channel radio, nothing else.

'Upper Heyford G-XXXX'

'G-XXXX Upper Heyford unintelligible southern drawl'

'Upper Heyford G-XXXX say again'

G-XXXX you're not painting'

U-H G-XX that's 'cos we're made of wood'.

About as useful as a chocolate teapot. Shortly after this exchange, we saw a F111 pass beneath us. We looked in the direction it had come from and sure enough, there was the second one, just above us.

We determined that the Russians would invade on a weekend in August, in wooden aeroplanes.

Last time I flew over Upper Heyford, it was covered in cars. Sic Transit...

Oh, and another thing. We used to get an excellent service from Luton Approach on 129.55, when the controllers were employed by Luton.
'G-XX turn left for identification'
'G-XX you are identified. Radar information service'.
Luton's radar was presumably good enough to get a return from the engine. After that, responsibility for Luton's approach was transferred to NATS and we lost the service.

TOO

[gasax]

Gasax, is this news to you?

No I just thought of it! :)

In the event that there ever is a collision between involving CAT in Class G we all know where the finger will point at least initially - when in actual fact it is the blind spot the regulator has and the cost saving approach from CAT operators....

[ShyTorque]

No I just thought of it! :)

In the event that there ever is a collision between involving CAT in Class G we all know where the finger will point at least initially - when in actual fact it is the blind spot the regulator has and the cost saving approach from CAT operators....

Until 'airways' go from farmers' fields and large back gardens, there isn't much hope of the finger pointing anywhere other than at the pilots. Some of us don't have the luxury of always operating to and from airfields.

[RabC]

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.

might have been before UHRMZ was implemented; I recall when it came in, and I'm sure Mary had already been flying x/c from Booker for a while back in those days.

I recall regular comms with UH controllers after the RMZ was implemented, when I was flying gliders x/c from Dunstable, where we made contact somewhere around the obvious VFR feature of Calvert Junction - then a live a brick works with smoking chimney next to a railway junction - and (nearly) every time, the American controller was still unaware of where this feature lay in relation to their airspace! You'd think that they would soon learn the obvious landmarks around the edge of their RMZ wouldn't you?! Possibly they were never posted to UH for long enough..!

[BEagle]

'G-XXXX Upper Heyford unintelligible southern drawl'

One had to feel sorry for the Spams when it came to Welsh names though. There was that famous broadcast on L/L Common which went something like:

"All stations, this is Birch 17, enterin' low level 2 miles westa' Ladrin...Lanidrod...Larindrod... Ah', the hell with it - 6 miles northa' Boolth Wells!"

[Deltasierra010]

Maybe 30 years ago when Heyford was very active I was heading for Finmere clear of the MATZ when another pilot came over the glider radio " what's this airfield below me with all those big nissen huts" his mate informed him!!!.
I looked down to my right to see a C5 on long finals about 1000 ft below, busy skies in those days.

[chevvron]

Bit like the USMC pilot of an FAA Sea Harrier who'd lost his radio off the south coast; saw a large 'harbour' and assuming it was Plymouth Sound, headed north east for Yeovilton. Came overhead this large airfield at FL160 and it had 2 parallel runways and 747s parked on it; realised it wasn't Yeovilton.
Guess where it was.

[POBJOY]

TO start with they are a dying breed rather than an expanding force, so not really a problem there. However what is becoming an increasing element is the reduced hours of operation of the service on offer.
As alluded before a MATZ is not controlled airspace and therefore not mandatory; however a call to the freq is sensible even if only to alert someone of your intentions. If they do not respond at least other aircraft on freq will hear and therefore be aware. In my neck of the woods the local MATZ service now notams its opening hours in the summer; however this hardly makes the operation easier to operate with as they also 'open up' at other times when suits. I always treat a MATZ as live and call, but then give my intentions rather than ask for permission (which I do not need). If there is no reply on the MATZ freq I then call twr and see if any one is at home. We all tend to know what goes on in our local area, but there is a responsibility of those who 'oversee airspace' to staff it as it should be and not put more 'issues' in the system.

[POBJOY]

CHEV Surely he did not think Drakes Island was the IOW !!!

[NorthSouth]

Some of us are old enough to recall 30 odd years ago or more where the UK had military master diversion airfields which were open H24, fully manned and equipped with surveillance and talk down radar and also the ability to lay a foam carpet within 30 minutes if you needed to do a wheels up landing.

Now because of a paucity of such stations which are open H24 (peacetime Air Force now where the enemy doesn't attack at the weekends, bank holidays or outside office hours) there are times when vast swathes of the FIR is devoid of any radar service.There's now only one military airfield that provides an H24 LARS service, and the reason why remains a mystery. It has four based aircraft - Tutors, that never fly beyond the airfield's opening hours of 9 to 5; the airfield for which they are the diversionary airfield is only open weekdays 0800-1800 plus as required for QRA; and 90% of the LARS traffic is light civil aircraft on a Basic Service.

Why they can't have one person on standby to go in and provide a radar service in the event of Lossiemouth going below minima while a QRA flight is out beats me. And we're all paying for this bizarre pantomime of full ATC teams sitting around all night drinking tea waiting for an event that may never happen.

[airpolice]

There's now only one military airfield that provides an H24 LARS service, and the reason why remains a mystery. It has four based aircraft - Tutors, that never fly beyond the airfield's opening hours of 9 to 5; the airfield for which they are the diversionary airfield is only open weekdays 0800-1800 plus as required for QRA; and 90% of the LARS traffic is light civil aircraft on a Basic Service.

Why they can't have one person on standby to go in and provide a radar service in the event of Lossiemouth going below minima while a QRA flight is out beats me. And we're all paying for this bizarre pantomime of full ATC teams sitting around all night drinking tea waiting for an event that may never happen.

There are more aircraft based there, than you seem to know about.

[NorthSouth]

There are more aircraft based there, than you seem to know about.True. In addition to the Tutors there are four light civil aircraft. None of them fly at night either. Justification for a permanent H24 full radar service?

Just the other day two Lossie Typhoons did a weather divert at night. Where did they go? Liverpool. Because Leuchars minima for runway 08 are significantly worse than Lossiemouth's for runways 05 or 10 - and significantly worse than pretty much anywhere with an ILS.

[chevvron]

True. In addition to the Tutors there are four light civil aircraft. None of them fly at night either. Justification for a permanent H24 full radar service?

Just the other day two Lossie Typhoons did a weather divert at night. Where did they go? Liverpool. Because Leuchars minima for runway 08 are significantly worse than Lossiemouth's for runways 05 or 10 - and significantly worse than pretty much anywhere with an ILS.

Used to have arrestor barriers at Edinburgh for Leuchars divs.

[NorthSouth]

Used to have arrestor barriers at Edinburgh for Leuchars divs.Indeed. And Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Prestwick are in regular use as Lossie Typhoon diverts.

[this is my username]

@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 problem is that if everyone ignores the MATZ and this becomes an issue for the military then there is an easy solution - just replace the MATZ with controlled airspace. I don't think we'd want that to happen.

[FREDAcheck]

There are slight restrictions on Class G (including a MATZ) being uncontrolled.

If you are in communication with a controller (including for a Basic Service) then controllers can issue instructions. From CAP 493 (Manual of Air Traffic Services):

Instructions issued by controllers to pilots operating outside controlled airspace are not mandatory; however, the services rely upon pilot compliance with the specified terms and conditions so as to promote a safer operating environment for all airspace users.

Although IFR/VFR flight within Class F/G airspace outside the ATZ is permitted without an ATC clearance, controllers will act on the basis that pilots will comply fully with their instructions in order to promote a safer operating environment for all airspace users.

As I understand it, a controller can give instructions and expect a pilot to comply unless the pilot says otherwise. That is, the instruction isn't mandatory but you should say if you're not going to comply.

Libertarian enthusiasts might think that is a good reason not to talk to anyone, but I'm quite prepared to follow instructions for safety or say if I'm not going to.

[chevvron]

CHEV Surely he did not think Drakes Island was the IOW !!!
Dunno about that, but he did a 180 and headed south west, saw a smaller multi runway airfield with military aircraft parked and made a dive for it. We had just had SSR fed to the radar display in the tower and our tower controller nearly had a heart attack when he saw the height readout unwinding at an incredible rate; I rushed upstairs in time to see a Sea Harrier on base leg; tower controller alerted the fire service in case it had other problems and we got a vehicle with a 'Follow Me' sign standing by.
They wouldn't let him fly it back to Yeovilton either; sent in a 2 -seater with a pilot to take it back and he went home in the back seat.

[POBJOY]

Chev Where did he end up !!!, Seems it all worked out ok anyway, and nothing bent. Usually not a lot of fuel for fooling around in a S Har so right decision for someone not familiar with UK, and no radio.

[nkt2000]

I have been through Leuchars matz a few times, including on my flight test and I have always been given a “clearance” through their overhead. Bit of a nuisance if you are heading to Fyfe as it makes it a bit of a dogleg from the Broughty Castle VRP. I would reiterate the advice given above to listen out for a “height”. Nearly caught me out the first time but Leuchars is almost at sea level anyway so not much difference. Other MATZ are available with different Amsl.

[chevvron]

Chev Where did he end up !!!, Seems it all worked out ok anyway, and nothing bent. Usually not a lot of fuel for fooling around in a S Har so right decision for someone not familiar with UK, and no radio.

The Sea Harrier with the USMC pilot landed non radio at Farnborough having descended through the LTMA and through one of the busiest Heathrow SIDs. Fortunately he put the 'radio fail' squawk on so the controllers at TC were able to keep their traffic away as his intentions were unknown to them.(they kept phoning us and asking what it was though!)
By the time the other pilot arrived to fly it out, the radio had made a miraculous recovery.