Minimum Vector Altitude charts

[breakfastburrito]

Perhaps our ATC friends could point me in the direction of published MVA charts, or baring that some point of contact to access them.
Thanks in advance.

[Blockla]

Unless you get a screen dump of our radar, I suggest they are very hard to find...

[Arm out the window]

Some of the military letdown plates used to have RTCC (Radar Terrain Clearance Charts) published, don't know if they would be available from the Airservices publications people.
They were handy for keeping an eye on how you were going during protracted vectors.

[aussie027]

These charts are rarely published if at all in Oz or USA AFAIK and so are not avail to pilots.
The min alt figures are usually only available on the ATC scopes.

[Delay Approved]

The RTCC is published by RAAF AIS in TERMA however this document only covers military/joint user aerodromes and I am pretty sure is only available to military pilots.

[Rev Green]

Hello,

Following on from this old thread:

Could an Approach Controller please supply a Min Vectoring Altitude chart for YMML? If this is not possible could you please state what the M.V.A. is for the following:

I am interested in the M.V.A. for RW34 approaches, more specifically ex WENDY STAR and RW16 approaches ex LIZZI STAR. This assists with night visual approach planning versus flying the VOR 34 (and being fully configured at TONAR at night) or TWIN NDB 16 (when the 16 ILS is NOTAMed out) and dragging it in from BOL at night.

Many thanks!

[QSK?]

MVA charts (civil radar airports) are produced by Airservices and not available for public distribution; the reasons for their unavailability to the public I am not sure of, however I don't think it is a deliberate policy rather one of "why do pilots need to know this information?"

I must admit I get a bit nervous when in IMC and the controller is vectoring me at altitudes below MSA as I am now totally dependent on the controller's professional expertise with no ability to double check his/her actions. I would be far happier if I had the knowledge of the relevant MVA to monitor what the controller was doing to me, ensuring I still had the ability to exercise "ultimate responsibility" for the control of my aircraft. Maybe if the controller prefaced descent or vectoring instructions to aircraft in IMC, and likely to be operating below the published MSA, with a phrase something like "ABC turn right heading 350 descend to 2300, MVA 2000", this would give me the necessary information and also increase my comfort level.

The question that is always in the back of my mind relates to what process does Airservices currently employ to ensure RTCCs are updated regularly to account for the changing obstacle environment e.g. new towers etc? Is there a process or are these charts developed when the radar service is installed and then forgotten about after that?

Can anyone enlighten me?

[Cravenmorehead]

I really think you have to trust the controllers, much the way passengers trust you every time they they travel in the back of a commercial aircraft. If you are really worried go to the ATC centre at Brisbane or Melbourne and ask to have a look. Years ago when Cairns first got it's radar I went and had a look, and recently out of interest I went and had a gander at Brissy. These boys and girls have all sorts of back ups and quality control, plus a world class government funded training and checking environment.
The equipment I fly now has EGPWS so in Australian airspace a mistake-CFIT- would be unlikely

[C-change]

You wont get civil RTCC's but Military ones are available to MIL aircrew. But that can be a touchy subject at times as they can't use them whilst flying anyway (not legally).

There are a few reasons why they are not generally available;
1. As MVA is generally lower than MSA/LSALT you must be radar identified before being assigned MVA. You can't access my radar display that the RTCC is based on.
2. By not publishing the charts, it stops pilots conducting any home made dodgy GPS let downs etc using MVA, whilst not radar identifed.

The boffins who do all the plates regularly check them out. I don't know what the time frame is between checks. Two years ago we had to stop using them for while, whilst an audit was done on mobile phones towers. Obviously things like that must be approved beforehand but a few of our MVA's were increased as a result of the audit. MVA used to be calculated as any object or terrain, plus 300', then add the standard 1000' to come up with MVA for that sector. I think the buffer above terrain, towers etc was increased to 500' to allow for any un-authorised or sudden constructions of phone towers that might have slipped through the gap.

That's a pain where I work, as we now have MVA's that are higher than MSA or the starting height of some approaches. Sort of defeats the purpose of MVA but what can you do.

Someone mentioned advising the MVA when issued descent. I do this when I actually issue the MVA. I'll say "descend to 3800, radar lowest safe". I get criticised by the checkers but its a warm and fuzzy thing. I can understand how being in IMC and getting a level that is a lot lower than the MSA on the plate your looking at, can make you nervous.

Hope this helps a bit.

[topdrop]

I get criticised by the checkers but its a warm and fuzzy thing
and it's only right that they criticise you :D When a different controller doesn't add the superfluous words, the pilot is often going to query whether it's radar lowest safe or not :ugh::ugh::ugh: I worked radar approach for 15 years and would have been queried on the level less than twice a year, only because all the other controllers were operating as per the books.

[Rev Green]

Hi,

Thanks for the replies. The reason for the request is not to have a chart to double check the MVAs, I trust Aussie controllers coupled with some situational awareness and EGPWS/Terrain display on EHSI, it's all good. It's more about night visual approach planning. Eg YMML 34, night VMC, last assigned MVA was 2000ft then visual approach on the PAPIs. When you do your 3 times tables that's pretty tight. I thought an MVA lower than 2000ft could be issued in that case so you get established in your circling area prior to reaching the MVA.

I recall (from a few years ago) that YPAD has a MVA of 1000ft overwater for RWY 05.

Could a YMML ATCO state the lowest MVA for RWY 34 and 16 please?

Thanks again.

[C-change]

Topdrop,

Thanks for adding something relevant to this thread champ. Good job. :ok:

Can I take it that during your 15 yrs, you and all the other staff were perfect all the time ?

If a couple of extra words is all I get picked up for in a check, then I can live with it.

[topdrop]

Can I take it that during your 15 yrs, you and all the other staff were perfect all the time ? Didn't claim to be perfect, but did try to improve where faults were pointed out.
If a couple of extra words is all I get picked up for in a check, then I can live with itYour extra couple of words results in extra workload for controllers using correct phraseology, when pilots query whether the level given is rlsalt or not.

[DeltaT]

Just ask on the Radio what the MVA for the area is next time you are there?

[C-change]

Your extra couple of words results in extra workload for controllers using correct phraseology, when pilots query whether the level given is rlsalt or not.

Rubbish, I've used correct RT, I've just added 3 words to save extra RT. I'll provide some more info. The area of the RTCC where I say this, the MVA is 1600' with a 10Nm MSA of 3700'. If I vector someone into that step, I'll add in the extra three words, as its a big difference from MSA to MVA. Remembering that pilots do not have access to the RTCC info.

eg
"ABC descend to 1600ft"
"App, ABC just confirm thats 1600', the 10Nm MSA is 3700"
"ABC affirm 1600', radar lowest safe"

or, "ABC descend to 1600', radar lowest safe"
"1600' ABC".

[downwind]

The ATC ASA radar minimums change when a obstruction is erected/constructed, so only ASA and the controller have knowledge of this and the changing MVA's.

But in some other countries with not so realiable atc, state organisations produce their own MVA charts :ie the Jeppesen 10-1R series of charts (radar min alts). which portrait the lowest safety ATC radar descent heights, which can sometimes be lower than the MSA; (use this as a example)

http://www.fly-sea.com/charts/LDSP.pdf As illustrated in this example

compare 10-1R and 10-3D ie; the MSA SPL ie chart MVA 3000 10-1R waypoint TUNAL 54 DME SPL VOR, if only going by the STAR chart we limit our descent to 3700' within 25 dme SPL

*but* as you can gauge from the 10-1R chart, tracking over waypoint TUNAL 54 DME SPL VOR, we could technically be issued with a descent to 3000' from ATC, instead of maintaining the higher GRID MORA which could in fact be higher than the MSA, since we are at 54 dme SPL vor, which is further out than the 25nm MSA. (if you get my technical explanation)!!!:O

I am 99% sure ASA will not release these MVA's to a pilot from a legal point of view, same as when ASA stopped issuing MVA descents into OCTA quite some years ago ie 2004 when you used to be able to get OCTA MVA descents coming in Bankstown.

[Delay Approved]

I recall (from a few years ago) that YPAD has a MVA of 1000ft overwater for RWY 05

I think the minimum possible MVA is 1500ft, even over water. This is made up of a 500ft obstacle allowance and 1000ft separation standard.

You would think that there wouldn't be too many obstacles over the water, but I remember once seeing a floating gas rig being towed from Darwin harbor out to sea and it must have been at least 300ft high!

[Jenna Talia]

"ABC descend to 1600', radar lowest safe"
"1600' ABC"

Well, I for one appreciate being told this and thankfully it is said to me more often than not.:ok:

[Jack Ranga]

C-Change, please remove all common sense from your transmissions and actions. You are now part of the lowest common denominator regime. It's rife in some parts of the 'firm'

(C-Change will understand my sarcasm, for the rest of you that post was sarcastic :ok:)

[QSK?]

As one who does not have the comfort of an EGPWS when in IMC, I like the way your thinking and talking C-Change.

At least with your approach I have the comfort of knowing that you are aware that you are descending me below MSA and I am also now aware of what the radar LSALT is for the area. Perfect!

[Pera]

Atc are only ever going to assign safe altitudes unless they make a mistake. Routinely adding the words 'radar lowest safe' is not going to make it safe if the level assigned is below lowest safe.

[topdrop]

I've used correct RTIncorrect, your extra 3 words are nowhere to be found in AIP phraseology.
the MVA is 1600' with a 10Nm MSA of 3700'. If I vector someone into that step, I'll add in the extra three words, as its a big difference from MSA to MVAWhere I once worked there was a sector MSA of 6500 and RLSALT of about 2300, yet I can't recall once being queried whether or not it was radar lowest safe.

Remembering that pilots do not have access to the RTCC info or other info we have - do you add "radar separation" when descending an aircraft through the level of an adjacent aircraft.

Pilots are aware that when identified, we can assign levels below lsalt, MSA etc. Your use of "ABC descend to 1600', radar lowest safe" unnecessarily creates confusion for some pilots when that pilot is next given similar descent by a controller using correct phraseology.

[Jack Ranga]

Pilots are aware that when identified, we can assign levels below lsalt, MSA etc.


I'll bet you $100 to your favourite charity that the majority of them don't.

[Gundog01]

Not sure if this is s Military vs Civvie pissing contest but having regularly operated in various Mil control zones virtually all APP/DEP controllers add Radar Lowest Safe" when vectoring you to MVA.

I am all for standard RT but I personally don't mind knowing that I'm operating at MVA.

Either way I still trust you ATC (JBAC for the Mil guys) types....

GD01

[topdrop]

AIP GEN 3.3-16 para 4.6 specifies when descent can be made below lsalt when in IMC and I would have thought that this would be part of instrument training.
Based on the fact that I have only had about 2 queries a year on an assigned level that was below MSA, I will assume that the rest are aware of the para.
Surely, a pilot who is in IMC and is assigned a level below MSA or lsalt and is not aware that ATC can assign those levels would query the level - at least I hope they would.
The queries I have had on radar lsalt levels have all been from the one operator who has come from Darwin. I wouldn't dare comment on Mil ATC.