Near CFIT at Medford, Oregon

[aterpster]

Surprised this one hasn't been brought up:

Incident: Skywest CRJ9 at Medford on Dec 24th 2017, GPWS alert on approach (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4b3d8f81&opt=0)

[Airbubba]

Another EGPWS save :eek::

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N162PQ/history/20171225/0020Z/KSLC/KMFR

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kmfr/KMFR-App-Dep-Dec-25-2017-0200Z.mp3

That clearance to cross CEGAN at or above 7800 feet is a nearly fatal gotcha. :=

[Oakape]

Why would ATC even say that? Talk about a setup. Even so, cleared for the approach & the approach says not below 10,000 at CEGAN.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Last time I looked, the US AIP/AIM specified three specific instances of how descent clearances are to be interpreted.

What ATC (apparently) did was in conformity with the AIP/AIM and presumably any manual of ATC instructions.

These three specific forms/interpretations of descent clearances are notified to ICAO as differences to Annex X/Vol.II and PANS/RAC Doc.4444.

As a pilot with non-US operator, I always made certain my fellow crew members or trainees always knew and understood such clearances.

Pilots are expected to conform to any LSA on a procedure. This is a pilot responsibility, not ATC, unless you are on radar vector, then still be very careful about ATC descent instruction in any area where terrain might be an issue.

[vapilot2004]

ATC garden paths aside, the MSA should have been covered in the crew's approach briefing. Any deviation outside the of the corridor should have raised the red flag prior to altitude selection. Luckily, the CFIT squawk woke everybody up and they reacted accordingly.

[aterpster]

Here is the approach procedure and the MVA chart. When cleared for the approach the flight was in a 7,800' MVA sector. But, as they progressed on the DME arc to the intermediate fix BRKET, they entered an 8,700' MVA sector. That violates any ATC standard or policy of which I am aware. Further, the approach doesn't exist below 10,000' along the DME arc used.

[ironbutt57]

ATC garden paths aside, the MSA should have been covered in the crew's approach briefing. Any deviation outside the of the corridor should have raised the red flag prior to altitude selection. Luckily, the CFIT squawk woke everybody up and they reacted accordingly.


the DME arc is outside the entire MSA "pie"

[Fly26]

Well that's flipping stupid. There's no need to mention 7800', it clearly shows 10000' for terrain on the arc. Easily avoidable with better communication.

[aterpster]

And, not the least: training.

[fleigle]

Kind of like the recent SFO incidents IMHO, crew not actually having their heads in the situation.
Also, evening approach, dark, how many legs had they flown that day?, how many different destinations?, how many times have they actually been there?.
I was chatting with one of their pilots in Denver last year and he showed me a sampling of their various destinations one a daily basis, they go to a lot!.
Lucky !

[aterpster]

I'm surprised that KMFR isn't a FAR 121.445 special quals airport. Yet, KSFO is.

[pilotguy1222]

Wow. Just wow. That would have been the rare radio call where the crew ask ATC if THEY have a phone number.
Yes, I agree that the crew should have caught that, but those clearance words should not come out of an ATC radio ever again.

[RAT 5]

aterpster: please help, I might be being thick. I agree with the MORA altitudes but I don't see 10,000' you mentioned. Is it coincidence that 8700' can easily be transposed into 7800'? Easier to mis-read than mis-speak, perhaps, unless the speaker is thinking about the 7800' for some reason, and mouth doesn't co-ordinate with the correct part of the brain; i.e. it is thinking about 7800' and should be saying 8700', but the mouth connects to the wrong segment of grey matter.
Wive's & girlfriend's names get mixed up with each other, on occasions, but there is no EGPWS to save the day. ;)

[misd-agin]

CEGAN is roughly 41 nm from the runway. Why would you be 6500'(?) AGL (7,800') 41 nm from the runway, especially in hills/mountainous terrain?

[aterpster]

RAT 5

Those are minimum vectoring altitudes (MVAs) not MORAs. The 10,000 is shown on the approach chart.

[Vessbot]

Well that's flipping stupid. There's no need to mention 7800', it clearly shows 10000' for terrain on the arc. Easily avoidable with better communication.

The problem lied not with the communication, but rather its content.

[KelvinD]

I wonder: at what altitude above ground does the GPWS issue a warning? Looking at the approach plate, there seems to be nothing above 4,000 to 5,000ft along that arc. So, if the aircraft was at 7,800ft, why the alert?
Also, the pie chart shows 10,700ft if approaching from the East, which this flight presumably was.
Puzzling!
By the way, the approach plate shows the arc with a note "NoPT". What does that mean?

[autoflight]

Unbelievable that ATC should give such a call, and even more unbelievable that a crew should follow it.

Such a crew, despite their apparent view that they are God's gift to aviation, appear to be an unacceptable liability. And what about an airline that allows such arrogance?

[Jim59]

By the way, the approach plate shows the arc with a note "NoPT". What does that mean?
No Procedure Turn.

[KelvinD]

Thanks Jim.

[aterpster]

KelvinD

The turn anticipation to turn inbound from the DME arc is directly over Mt. Ashland, which is 7,731' msl, with an antenna on top.

[misd-agin]

It could also have occurred if they were direct CEGAN at 10,000’, or higher, and descended to 7,800’ based on the curious ATC communication. 9,495’ peak north of CEGAN would have triggered the EGPWS.

[galaxy flyer]

aterpster,

While .65 (4-8-3, IIRC) only says the altitude given on the the approach clearance shall safely allow the aircraft to transition to the published segment; are controllers trained to reference the fix altitude. In this case the aircraft was above 7,800’ (reported level at 12,000’ on check in) and 7,800’ was the MVA between the aircraft and the IAF, so arguably the controller seems to have met his standard. HOWEVER, the initial segment (the arc) doesn’t have a required climb gradient meaning there’s no standard for climbing on an approach segment prior to the MAP.

[trough]

Do ATC controllers have approach plates on their screens or they just have MVA sector patchwork mapped out? It is hard for me to imagine a controller switching between a bunch of plates talking to different aircraft on different arrivals or approaches. Makes me wonder if the 10,000 figure is readily available to the controller or we expect controllers to have the combined brain capacity of all of the multi-crew flights they control.

[KelvinD]

aterpster: Thanks for that. Wouldn't that suggest the arc should be a mile or two further out?

[aterpster]

It is very difficult to design approaches over this terrain. That's why there are no straight-in minimums on either this approach or the LOC DME (back course)-B. In fact the arc is in closer on the back course approach.

Flying the VOR DME-C as published removes any threat from Mt. Ashland.

[aterpster]

trough

They are supposed to have the paper charts at their position and are supposed to be familiar with each IAP.

[aterpster]

If the controller clears someone below the arc altitude, but at MVA or above, the DME arc has to be on the video map and the controller has to monitor the flght's navigation. I doubt either requirement was met.

Plus, the latter portion of the arc has an MVA of 8,700. That was as bad as EVA at Mt. Wilson in December of last year.

[galaxy flyer]

Suspiciously like the Alaska Central B1900 cargo accident.

Federal Aviation Administration Order 7110.65, and his approach clearance to "maintain at or above 2,000 feet" msl until established on a published segment of the approach was ambiguous. The controller's approach clearance should have instructed the pilot to "proceed direct to ZEDAG, enter the TAA at or above 5,400 feet, cleared RNAV runway 19 approach." Instead, he instructed the pilot without specifying the segment of the approach that should be flown at 2,000 feet. Further, the controller did not notice the pilot's incorrect readback of the clearance in which he indicated that he intended to "maintain 2,000 feet" until established on the approach. Further, he did not appropriately monitor the flight's progress and intervene when the airplane descended to 2,000 feet msl. As a result, the airplane was permitted to descend below the minimum instrument altitudes applicable to the route of flight and enter the holding pattern well below the published minimum holding altitude.

[n5296s]

> If the controller clears someone below the arc altitude, but at MVA or above, the DME arc has to be on the video map and the controller has to monitor the flght's navigation. I doubt either requirement was met.

My personal experience of flying approaches controlled by Oakland Center has not been terribly positive, so this wouldn't come as a surprise. I've had several clearances that have been corrected when I've queried them, or that were just flat out unflyable. It's hard to avoid the impression that ZOA give the approach positions to the most junior or otherwise challenged members of staff.

Norcal on the other hand is a delight to fly with, but then approaches are their job.

[West Coast]

No paper charts Aterpster, EFB instead.

[aterpster]

The chart is in the link in the original post.

Also, FAA charts can be downloaded from the FAA:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/dtpp/

[West Coast]

Aterpster

Your quote...
They are supposed to have the paper charts at their position and are supposed to be familiar with each IAP.

A paper chart wasn’t being referenced in the cockpit by that crew, an EFB containing the chart was. Minor point, but one that needed to be corrected.

[wiedehopf]

@westcoast

and you need to be corrected for misunderstanding aterpster.

he was talking about the controller.

[West Coast]

Ok, fair enough. Rather doubt they’re using paper copies either, but we’ll move on.

[filejw]

Why would ATC even say that? Talk about a setup. Even so, cleared for the approach & the approach says not below 10,000 at CEGAN.

Well I have received a clearance like that before and as remember it was because ATC was protecting traffic below a specific fix. In this case maybe he is working traffic outbound from the airport.
Surely they must have better way to word the clearance as it was given here . That said anytime a flight is given a clearance to fly an approach via any type transition it should be flown exactly as published unless ATC specifically modifies that transition . Best to remember you are responsible for terrain clearance at all times .

[aterpster]

In the U.S. the controller is responsible for terrain clearance whenever he uses his minimum vectoring altitudes. The flight was in a 7,800' MVA sector when cleared to descend to 7,800, but an 8,700 MVA sector was ahead as they approached Mt. Ashland. That is an ATC error, and a very serious one at that. Had it been a light airplane, say a Piper Navajo with 10 souls aboard, but no TAWS, there would be a smoking hole on Mt. Ashland.

[RAT 5]

I'm not familiar with the area of US ATC in these scenarios, but it would seem this is not a new or temporary STAR. It's been there for decades and therefore ATC should be very familiar with it, used it and given clearances about in on numerous occasions, and be aware of the dangers. Are there mitigating circumstances for such an error? I've messed it, but was this under radar? In EU radar is responsible for terrain separation, as many vectors take you off the published STAR routing. However, there are areas, and I've experienced circumstances, where it pays to be very vigilant and ask to confirm if in doubt. Only once have I refused a descent clearance and it was corrected. It had similarities to this in that the descent altitude would have put me very low on profile, so there was no problem caused by maintaining higher altitude for a few more miles until i was comfortable.

[filejw]

aterpster

True but these folks had been cleared direct to the IAF and that Navajo would be fine if the pilot was proficient in reading approach plates.

[aterpster]

Aterpster

Your quote...


A paper chart wasn’t being referenced in the cockpit by that crew, an EFB containing the chart was. Minor point, but one that needed to be corrected.

I was speaking of the controller's duty position.

[aterpster]

aterpster

True but these folks had been cleared direct to the IAF and that Navajo would be fine if the pilot was proficient in reading approach plates.

Why couldn't the hypothetical Navajo pilot make the same decision to accept the clearance to 7,800? In such case, there would likely be no on-board TAWS to make the save.

[aterpster]

I'm not familiar with the area of US ATC in these scenarios, but it would seem this is not a new or temporary STAR. It's been there for decades and therefore ATC should be very familiar with it, used it and given clearances about in on numerous occasions, and be aware of the dangers. Are there mitigating circumstances for such an error? I've messed it, but was this under radar? In EU radar is responsible for terrain separation, as many vectors take you off the published STAR routing. However, there are areas, and I've experienced circumstances, where it pays to be very vigilant and ask to confirm if in doubt. Only once have I refused a descent clearance and it was corrected. It had similarities to this in that the descent altitude would have put me very low on profile, so there was no problem caused by maintaining higher altitude for a few more miles until i was comfortable.

Post #6 has the radar vectoring chart.

[SquintyMagoo]

Two questions. 1) This may be naive, but why do they even set up an approach that messes with Mount Ashland? Couldn't the approach be via the valley created by Bear and Emigrant Creeks?

2)Have any flights tried this approach since and how were they directed? A brief check of flightradar24 shows the twice-daily flights coming around and using RY 14.

[galaxy flyer]

The RNAV (RNP AR) 32 does just that but requires special crew and aircraft certification. The splays for conventional approaches may be too wide to work in the Emigrant valley. I’m sure the approach has been flown since with a changed clearance.

[filejw]

Why couldn't the hypothetical Navajo pilot make the same decision to accept the clearance to 7,800? In such case, there would likely be no on-board TAWS to make the save.
Hopefully not as I said before because he or she is proficient in reading approach plates and would not make the same mistake as the CRJ we are writing about. Not flying the arc at 10000 ft is a huge error especially in mountainous terrain.

[Annex14]

The clearance issued is contradictory in itself.
One can not clear a flight for a standard APP procedure and add some "home-braided" addition, obviously referring to an MVA unknown to the crew.
My understanding of using MVA´s is that they become connected to the information that this is a RADAR vector, indicating to the crew that the controller takes over most of their responsibility of Obstacle Clearance.
The final responsibility doubtless rests with the crew.
Therefore, ATC issued a p...poor clearance and the crew failed to catch that blunder.
If it wasn´t such a serious incident one could say just another example how important a good pre-flight briefing and cockpit communication is.

As a side note, I held for several years a license as APP controller.

[aterpster]

Here is another graphic, MVA chart on FAA chart plan view:

[RAT 5]

aterpster: A clear & straight forward chart with all the info you need. Looking at the contours and all the lump stuff underneath you, when I've been in such terrain, IMC, I was super aware, cautious, sensitive to everything. It was self-preservation. I'm not casting aspersions on the players here, but we hear of many occasions where it seems pilots are relinquishing responsibility for the safety of the flight, situational awareness and overall planning. I treat ATC like my wife. They give me instructions and if there is no reason not to go with flow then I'll comply, but there is always a consideration ' is it really what I want to do'.
An example of what I mean is a PF accepting an ATC short cut to finals, then getting hot/high and making a GA, then blaming ATC. It happens more often than you'd think, and certainly more than should happen if guys are doing their job properly.

[Annex14]

Fully agree, the chart reflects the complexity of the terrain underneath.
I am wondering why someone would choose for that demanding approach - e.g. the 6.91 ° slope, no slope guidance, only DME fixes - in a wind calm situation and having the choice of a solid ILS APP on the other side. The few more miles flying distance - if at all - to the IAF ILS 14 can´t be a good reason.

[RAT 5]

Annex 14: Shades of AA in Cali? A few minutes late or many years early.

[Annex14]

Yeah, correct, but there are so many cases that show the one or the other similarity. Seems like some bad habits are not to eliminate. By the way, that´s what drove me out of that otherwise interesting job of incident and accident investigation, many summer ago.

[Heathrow Harry]

It's not just the terrain - look at those obstructions in the valley close to the track.

[cappt]

I've flown into this airport numerous times and cannot recall getting that clearance, having said that I always requested the ILS because this approach is garbage, even in day VMC. The ILS with a circle to 32 can be done at lower mins then this VOR.
As mentioned previously the setup is strengthened by the common practice in the U.S. of getting vectors to final at altitudes lower then published on the charts.
If anything positive here it's the fact that after multiple human errors the technology worked and the crew reacted as trained, therefore no smoking hole.
Retraining for all involved.

[fdr]

I wonder: at what altitude above ground does the GPWS issue a warning? Looking at the approach plate, there seems to be nothing above 4,000 to 5,000ft along that arc. So, if the aircraft was at 7,800ft, why the alert?
Also, the pie chart shows 10,700ft if approaching from the East, which this flight presumably was.
Puzzling!
By the way, the approach plate shows the arc with a note "NoPT". What does that mean?

There is a spot height @7655' immediately to the north east of the right hand turn to finals. The aircraft had already descended to 7800' prior to reaching the lead in to the final radial. There was around 150' vertical separation, assuming standard pressure and standard temperature at that point, with rapidly rising terrain within a mile of their track. The EGPWS would have been going nuts, as would the GPWS system with a likely Mode II and a possible but not likely Mode IV modes. That terrain is steep, and would have been pretty challenging for the reactive system to give adequate warnings. EGPWS is a blessing, when it is available, not temp limited etc...

[aterpster]

Here is a 3D view of the terrain:

[aterpster]

cappt

What's worse in this incident is that they weren't even being provided with radar vectors. I am very familiar with KMFR and agree wholeheartedly that the approaches from the south are awful, except for the RNP AR approach.

But, it's all about "pushing tin" by ATC and meeting schedule by the crew. When the weather is good and the wind favors Runway 32 Frick and Frack will go for the so-called straight-in IAPs every time. Doing the ILS then flying a VFR pattern to Runway 32 upsets that "keep 'em moving" apple cart.

I spoke with a flight ops type from a major airline that uses Medford only as an alternate. They mandate the ILS 14 for both Runways 14 and 32. Although this carrier is RNP AR qualified they don't maintain RNP AR for alternate-only airports.

[abvfl350]

Wow, interesting. Many seem to want to put the pilot(s) at fault for descending below the Arc alt of 10,000'. They were cleared for a RW32 VOR/DME C Approach via the arc. MVA's do not enter the equation. It is quite clear via the approach chart there is no decent blo 10,000' until the intercept. That said, there is no way the controller should be mentioning anything about 7800'. That is very very poor and I would guess it is a local unit procedure that must be addressed and eliminated. I am a long long time controller of which the last 25 years have been in Approach. Fix it.

[Vessbot]

I routinely get cleared for altitudes lower than charted for the segment I'm on, on the approach.

While not on a vector, I always took it as the controller using the allowed envelope of a vector, given that I'm on radar, while navigating laterally using the radio nav aids.

This is in the U.S.

[RAT 5]

Clearance is not an order; IMHO. It's a "you can do it if you want to." Radar vectors are something else, and still need to be assessed by PIC.

[galaxy flyer]

Vessbot


If it’s a published segment and/or a significant deviation from the charted altitude, I’d question it. There’s not a lot of margin. I did some flyability checks and often procedural altitudes will be right at the minimum ROC.

[Bergerie1]

I never fully trusted radar vectors or ATC clearances when near any sort of high or even 'highish' terrain. Having had some 'interesting' clearances, some of which were downright dangerous in Africa and the Middle East, I always checked them against the relevent terrain charts and sector MSAs.

I have to say, I would have expected better in the US. But checking terrain and obstacles became an ingrained habit

[aterpster]

Vessbot


If it’s a published segment and/or a significant deviation from the charted altitude, I’d question it. There’s not a lot of margin. I did some flyability checks and often procedural altitudes will be right at the minimum ROC.

The controller didn't direct them to descend. He cleared them for the VOR/DME-C to cross CEGAN at, or above, 7,800. The crew should have "wrote off" that "at or above" either as quirky or accepted it to fly the DME arc as charted: 10,000 (or VNAV descending to 10,000.)

Having said that, the clearance was illegal and a setup for an unwary crew.

[aterpster]

I never fully trusted radar vectors or ATC clearances when near any sort of high or even 'highish' terrain. Having had some 'interesting' clearances, some of which were downright dangerous in Africa and the Middle East, I always checked them against the relevent terrain charts and sector MSAs.

I have to say, I would have expected better in the US. But checking terrain and obstacles became an ingrained habit
Lot's of new controller.

As to checking terrain, so far as I know, no U.S. airline provides topographical aeronautical charts (called sectional charts). And, sectionals would not be of much value unless they were on the MFD with ship's position.

[Bergerie1]

My airline produced special minimum safe altitude contours on all instrument approach charts and area charts where terrain was considered to be a problem. The area charts were overprinted with a VOR/DME 'target pattern' so you could follow where the controller was taking you.

They were not a perfect solution but, sure as hell they were better than no information at all for some of the places we flew to.

[RAT 5]

The controller didn't direct them to descend. He cleared them for the VOR/DME-C to cross CEGAN at, or above, 7,800. The crew should have "wrote off" that "at or above" either as quirky or accepted it to fly the DME arc as charted: 10,000 (or VNAV descending to 10,000.)
Having said that, the clearance was illegal and a setup for an unwary crew.


If a procedure has tracks, distances & altitudes, and you are cleared to fly a particular procedure, then why would a controller add anything else. Give the clearance and perhaps ask for a position report establishing on finals or FAF or 4nm, but surely anything else is unnecessary.
For the crew, if they had briefed the approach, then the 10,000 on the arc would have been part of that brief. To descend below that seems to have lost the plot.

[edmundronald]

RAT 5, If the approach had been due to eg. a diversion and thus not briefed, would the controller be expected to know that fact and take this into account?

Edmund

[RAT 5]

Not wanting to get into any heated discussions, but are you suggesting that approaches to diversion airfields are not briefed? Indeed, are any approaches not briefed? The time I might be extremely brief is on a severe clear day with the terrain & runway in sight and no apparent threats.
I have no idea why a controller would act differently for any flight.

[aterpster]

My airline produced special minimum safe altitude contours on all instrument approach charts and area charts where terrain was considered to be a problem. The area charts were overprinted with a VOR/DME 'target pattern' so you could follow where the controller was taking you.

They were not a perfect solution but, sure as hell they were better than no information at all for some of the places we flew to.

Here is the chart the crew was probably using. Lots of terrain info. No area chart for Medford, though.

[Bergerie1]

aterpster,

Thanks. More than enough information there I would have thought!

[PEI_3721]

Chart
Paper vs EFB ?
Accuracy (date) ?
Clarity / readability / interpretation ?

[galaxy flyer]

Probably iPad EFB. Very clear and readable, con be expanded to increase same. Considering the most recent iteration is 10 months old, I’d say they had the current one.

[aterpster]

It would look the same except with the EFB version you can zoom in.

A Part 121 operator wouldn't be carrying expired charts. In any case, this particular procedure hasn't been changed for years.

[RAT 5]

.....was on approach to Medford's runway 32 cleared for the VOR/DME C via the arc approach with the additional instruction "cross CEGAN at or above 7800 feet". The crew descended the aircraft to 7800 feet, received a GPWS warning while on the arc and climbed out to safety at 11,000 feet. A discussion ensued with ATC, the crew arguing they had been cleared down to 7800 feet, ATC stating that according to his approach plate the arc was to be flown at 10,000 feet and he had cleared them to cross CEGAN (at the beginning of the arc) at or above 7800 feet (editorial note: which includes crossing CEGAN at 10,000 feet as required by the approach procedure).


This is the opener from AvH. I am confused and dismayed by so many elements of this scenario.

1. The crew knew the ATC 'clearance' was not safe, but they followed it any way and then berated the controller when they nearly all died.
2. Where does ATC get 7800' from? The only place that is mentioned is the MVA for CEGAN. The sector MSA's are higher, the approach plates are higher, the start of the descent from BRKET is higher. If the a/c was not under radar vectors, but cleared for an NPA, then say nothing.
3. The report says it was making an approach to RW32. 4500' agl at 6nm would be testing for all but a turbo-prop. The approach path was steep the whole way down, therefore slow speed from a long way out. The last 6nm: Can a CRJ-900 do that easily? If they were intending to circle, and thus needed to slow down by BRKET to allow the descent, then need the time to fly the circle, surely it would be faster & safer to fly higher speed to the start point of the ILS RW14. The arc from CEGAN takes you away from the airfield. Was this the wiser approach to request/accept? Doubtful it saved any time, perhaps the opposite. The terminal is also nearer the threshold of RW32 than RW14, so they'd need to back track. Given the cloud base was 7000' they could expect to be IMC at CEGAN, which indeed they were as I assume they were IMC when the got the EGPWS even lower.

The holes were lining up from a long way out. ATC didn't help, but perhaps the crew would have selected this approach in a non-approach ATC environment. Hm?

[Capn Bloggs]

The last 6nm: Can a CRJ-900 do that easily?
I wouldn't have thought so. That's 750ft/nm, way outside any norms for an approach, to be stabilised at 500ft.

[RAT 5]

The chart, in the original AH article, seems to suggest the last bit is 6.9degrees. I think that a CRJ can do City Airport London; not sure what types; and that final path angle is Only 5.5 degrees.

[galaxy flyer]

It is then a visual maneuver, so they circle, do do delaying turns, whatever to give them enough to room to descend. It’s no worse than Aspen, Eagle or some of the other Colorado airports.

[RAT 5]

Hence my question about why would you when you can fly hi-speed to the start point of ILS RW14 and land towards the terminal. The arc procedure firstly takes you slightly away from the airfield, and then you have to slow down from 20nm out to be able to make the steep descent path all the way down, taking care not to hit the lumpy stuff.
If you are then saying it would be difficult, or need delaying manoeuvring, to make a landing RW32 it makes me wonder why bother.

[A Squared]

As to checking terrain, so far as I know, no U.S. airline provides topographical aeronautical charts (called sectional charts).

Mine does.

[cappt]

The JeppFD pro app enroute map can be displayed as LOW, HIGH, or VFR which is basically the sectional.

[b1lanc]

And another near CFIT - Canada Rouge 763 at HUX on 29 Jan

This one really could have been another AA Cali.

[MungoP]

Crew responsibility to adhere to the App. Plate for sure but a pointless clearance from ATC involving what could be a lethal descent alt. could fix a number in the head of the crew already busy and at the very least can cause confusion that would need to be clarified by additional time consuming radio exchanges.

[Ian W]

ATC would appear to have been following the 7110-65 which has an example not unlike this one:

EXAMPLE
The aircraft is en route to Delta waypoint at 6,000 feet. The
MVA for this area is 4,000 feet. “Cross Delta at or above
four thousand. Cleared M-L-S runway one eight
approach.” (See FIG 5-9-3.)

I agree it is ambiguous. Perhaps someone can check if they can access ATC recordings, but I suspect that the 'at or above 7,800' is a routine addition to the transmission for aircraft in the area with MVA of 7.800.

I would think that, as the aircraft was not being vectored the MVA should not be referred to at all. But that is not what the 7110.65 says.

[aterpster]

Implied in that handbook example is that the 4,000' MVA doesn't subsequently increase further along the flight's cleared flight track. 7110.65 also states:


4-6-5(a) In the absence of a published MOCA, assign altitudes at or above the MVA or MIA along the route of flight...

[galaxy flyer]

pointless clearance from ATC involving what could be a lethal descent alt.

As aterpster well knows, that “pointless clearance” given on nearly every approach ckearance in the US comes out of a very specific accident. That this one was erroneous and against the rules is another matter.

[aterpster]

Yep, having been an ALPA rep on the TWA 514 CFIT I know how many rule, policy, and procedure changes were made because of the accident.

Alas, the BE1900 at PADL and this Medford near-hit point to "The return of TWA 514." Without EGPWS Medford would have been a smoking hole.

[Ian W]

Implied is not good enough in a book that is used 'word for word'. There is no reason to give the MVA to any aircraft. MVA is a limit that applies only to the controller doing radar vectoring. No aircraft should be given a level that will be below its minimum safe altitude on the procedure it is flying. 'AT or above' is directly instructing the aircraft that AT the low altitude is acceptable. Yes I know that the crew should check and have situational awareness - but we aren't in a competitive quiz here - the aircraft on that approach should never have been cleared in the way it was. I would think that the controllers had a habit of providing the MVA in their 'sector' as a CYA bottom limit.

(I used to be radar/approach controller at an airport alongside mountains and saw far too many close calls and actual CFITs to be blase about such things. )

[Flugjung]

And another near CFIT - Canada Rouge 763 at HUX on 29 Jan

This one really could have been another AA Cali.

It certainly should.

Being familiar with the area, the airspace below FL200 is uncontrolled and all descente clearances are given at pilot discretion (as it was in this case). The VOR should be checked at 6000 ft and the normally usual VOR DME RWY25 teardrop approach starts at this point.

However some things really sound strange:

- The flight was cleared to 6000ft at pilot discretion but the grid MORA is 16,100 ft and the MEA (for V27E) is 16,000ft. The clearance was given just after checking waypoint NUDOS which is 33 NM from HUX VOR.

Flights from MEX usually fly J13 to OAX VOR and then UJ33 to HUX which both have the same MORA and MEA. We NEVER, EVER fly that area below FL200.

From NUDOS there is enough distance to make a continuous descent to the VOR and fly the approach from FL200 including speed reductions and flap extension. It is approximately 60 NM from TOD to the runway threshold.

I’m still wondering what kind of briefing and descent planning were these guys using......

I know HUX is a far cry from the long radar vectores approaches so usual in the US and major Canadian airports but...... ¿aren't pilots supposed TO BE proficient with basic flight calculations?

[aterpster]

I have just looked at the charts. I find it unbelievable that the airport doesn't have STARS to make a safe descent onto the approaches. The only relief is a 13,400 MSA arriving from NUDOS. That places you way too high over the HUX VOR.

[aterpster]

Since the route passes through th Oaxaca TMA, it appears controlled airspace goes down to 11,500 at the highest. What the base of controlled airspace is south of NUDOS is unknown to me.

[Flugjung]

aterpster

Below FL200 it is uncontrolled. OAX TMA doesn’t have radar but relies on DME reports and pilots acknowleding MEAs and MORAs.

When flying from MEX, the usual route is CUA.J13.OAX.UJ33.HUX.

Although 6000ft is the minimum altitude to check the HUX VOR, a normal approach is possible descending to the MEA and about 60 NM from the VOR , start a 3º path to the runway even if checking the VOR at 10,000ft. There is enough distance in the teardrop approach to fly a continuous glidepath, including speed and flap changes.

[aterpster]

I would never improvise a 3 degree path below MEA. That is contrary to all the efforts we made in the U.S. after TWA 514.

I would file and insist on routing over PXM V1 HUX.

[galaxy flyer]

Fluglung,

Are you stating that flights normally begin a descent from the MEA of 16,000’ before the HUX VOR? I see where F200 and 3⁰ path might work, but you still be below the MEA prior to the VOR.

[Flugjung]

aterpster

It is not improvised and actually used in airline operations. UJ33 is the high altitude airway but you are usually recleared to the V27 with a MEA of 14000. Usually we get visual clearance to the VOR since it is uncontrolled airspace. When in IMC , the usual procedure is to hold over the VOR and descend as published.

You can always get a clearance from Mexico CTR to intercept any desired airway and descend to the VOR. However the V1 is usually used in departure routes to MEX and other surrounding airports like OAX, TLC or GDL.