MATZ crossings at weekends
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United States of Bradford
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United States of Bradford
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Over to you lot. Tin hat on.
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.
Over to you lot. Tin hat on.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United States of Bradford
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
Just don't make sense.
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??
Just don't make sense.
