MATZ Debate

[chevvron]

Security should not be at the expense of air safety.
The R112 ATZ procedures have been poorly planned.

MOLI: The next remark is tongue in cheek.
Maybe it's because RAF controllers from oop norf don't know the difference beween an ATZ and a MATZ.

[Timothy]

The attitude of RAF controllers to MATZ is an interesting topic.

Clearly, outside the ATZ, they are unrestricted Class G to civilians but controlled airspace to military aircraft (a daft rule) but equally, if you accept a service from an Approach Control you are accepting an obligation to follow their instructions, so presumably that gives MATZ controllers the right to issue clearances in a MATZ?

Probably not an Atlas topic, but still interesting.

If the fly-in takes place at Panshanger, and Atlas controllers attend, as it seems they might well, it could be a topic for discussion before they disappear back to their MATZes.

[Irv Lee]

it could be a topic for discussion before they disappear back to their MATZes.

blimey, have there been too many volunteers and you need to cut numbers?

[Moli]

Timothy

"In airspace outside the ATZ, observation of MATZ procedures is not compulsory for civil pilots"

That is a quote direct from our Manual of Military Air Traffic Management I am not sure whether you were referring to recieving a service from approach as an inbound (or departure) track in which case you would expect traffic to comply with any instruction (for sequencing) unless unable to for safety reasons?

Moli

[johnm]

Airmanship is as much about good manners as it is about skill and rules. A MATZ may not have any standing as far as a civilian pilot is concerned but blundering through one without so much as an "excuse me please!" is just rude. I invariably contact military controllers if I intend to cross a MATZ, though usually I'm above them. When I do there is invariably a perfectly polite and co-operative dialogue and we're both happy.

Edited to add:

Of course if they'd get rid of that QFE nonsense it would be even easier

[Timothy]

Moli,

No. I was referring to the fact that many/most/all MATZ controllers treat their MATZ like class D airspace into which it is necessary to get a clearance to enter and inside which assigned levels must be flown, even for civilian aircraft. The implication is that they have not read MMATM or that they hope that civilian pilots won't understand the true situation (a belief daily reinforced.)

My comment about Approach was really just to draw an analogy, that if you decide to call a MATZ controller then you are placing yourself, voluntarily, in his/her hands and have a duty (with a little d) to follow their instructions.

The corollary of that is that if you want to be treated as the law dictates, you are best not to call,but to swan through, ignoring that there is a MATZ. That would be stupid, of course, but is a consequence of the law being silly and of controllers misinterpreting it.

Edited to add that I agree with JohnM

[chevvron]

I think the problem of ATZ transit within R112 is because whoever wrote the rules for Atlas Control didn't take ATZs into account, especially the fact that the ATSU concerned might not be ATC. Atlas controllers are therefore 'in the dark' and need specific guiidance as to what does or does not constitute 'clearance' through an ATZ where obviously ATC can 'delegate' the airspace temporarily to Atlas but FIS or A/G can't.

[Talkdownman]

Irv, would you fail a nav test candidate if a MATZ was entered without 'penetration approval' ?

[James Chan]

Explicit request for access to airspace where participation is optional makes the request appear superflous?

My pilot friends get some form of ATSOCAS from the appropriate unit when operating near the MATZ.
If not explicitly told to remain clear they may enter the MATZ while keeping outside the ATZ.

[Irv Lee]

Irv, would you fail a nav test candidate if a MATZ was entered without 'penetration approval' ?

Well thanks for picking on me! I always want to include CAS as part of a full nav test, which leads to two interesting scenarios:
a) if I can't include a CAS crossing, I'll set the route across a MATZ and then specifically brief the candidate that on this particular test they are to treat the MATZ as no entry without a transit approval. Of course we also discuss the 'reality' of the legality of a MATZ (by discuss, I mean I weedle it out of them as it is a test) rather than give them a false impression of the actual legality, and discuss how sensible it is anyway to ask due to safety considerations. No-one has ever just said 's+d it they can't stop me' after such a briefing, they've all 'obeyed'. If they did ignore the brief and crossed on a test without approval, the tricky bit would be what to put on the notice of failure to stop an appeal - I'd go for 'safety' reasons, not specifically 'entered MATZ without approval'
b) If there is proper CAS on the route like a CTR, or even descending CTAs/TMA's I cannot let the guy actually 'bust' or I get into trouble, so in the brief I point this out, and we come to a definite agreement on a 'distance from the boundary' where I can assume the candidate is going to bust. If we don't have that agreement of a buffer, and I intervene before the boundary and 'fail', there can always be an appeal with 'but I was about to.... descend/turn/orbit', hence we pre-agree on the buffer - and of course discuss the size of the buffer in terms of 'distraction' for the controller if we make it too close.

On the latter one, there was one candidate where I really wanted to know if he was CAS aware (won't go into the history... ) - I gave him at a Bristol VRP as a turning point but it was just inside their airspace, and once he was on their frequency for a FIS (as it was) on that leg, I found an excuse to get him to swap headsets with a spare, and whilst he was unplugged I had a quick word with Bristol and explained I needed to know if he'd ask for entry to the turning point, so they gave me a clearance anyway without him knowing, and then we sat back for a few miles to see if he would specifically ask them for entry to get to the VRP. He did, fortunately, but I really needed to check in this case. Bristol were quite happy to play the game.

[Tim Dawson]

That is sneaky. I love it.

[I Bimblealot]

Slightly off topic, bus as MATZ penetration has been raised...

Has anyone else noticed that Boscombe Zone seem prone to "guide" you towards transiting the MATZ at a height (QFE) that is actually above it? I have tended to "negotiate" a lower height through the MATZ if MATZ penetration is what I actually want e.g. because of a lower(ing) cloudbase. Otherwise I just go over the top of the MATZ while listening out.

[Intercepted]

Tim,

You spend too much time on the forum when you should concentrate on getting that Android code ready for release

[Irv Lee]

Slightly off topic, bus as MATZ penetration has been raised...

Has anyone else noticed that Boscombe Zone seem prone to "guide" you towards transiting the MATZ at a height (QFE) that is actually above it? I have tended to "negotiate" a lower height through the MATZ if MATZ penetration is what I actually want e.g. because of a lower(ing) cloudbase. Otherwise I just go over the top of the MATZ while listening out.

I can't recall Boscombe giving me QFE transits at all.

[Timothy]

Slightly off topic, bus as MATZ penetration has been raised...

Has anyone else noticed that Boscombe Zone seem prone to "guide" you towards transiting the MATZ at a height (QFE) that is actually above it? I have tended to "negotiate" a lower height through the MATZ if MATZ penetration is what I actually want e.g. because of a lower(ing) cloudbase. Otherwise I just go over the top of the MATZ while listening out.

It is very common indeed to get a "clearance" to cross at 3000' QFE at all sorts of MATZ, my experience is mainly at the airfields up the spine to the East of Birmingham and Leeds.

This annoys me, as it is in effect a "remain outside", but I never get annoyed enough to do anything about it.