Terrain
--The understanding was that you, as the pilot, would climb visually to the minimum sector altitude and then outclimb any steps ahead of you until you were established on track at your MSA--
What I'm trying to ascertain is what happens if the pilot cannot climb visually to the MSA ie the cloud base is below the MSA. How does the pilot /the ATC process the aircraft to the MSA on the diversion track. And whose responsibility is it- pilot or controller
What I'm trying to ascertain is what happens if the pilot cannot climb visually to the MSA ie the cloud base is below the MSA. How does the pilot /the ATC process the aircraft to the MSA on the diversion track. And whose responsibility is it- pilot or controller
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yarra,
The decision was made on observed met conditions. If there was any doubt as to a pilot's ability to stay VMC until the lowest sector altitude on the chart, a SID was issued.
Once the aircraft was safely in the sector and if he then entered IMC, it was the pilot's responsibility to be able to outclimb the steps ahead of him based on known aircraft performance. Obviously ATC can't help from that point on.
It worked very well because diversionary climbs rarely went beyond 15 miles and the sector charts went out to 50 miles (I think), leaving pilots plenty of time to intercept track above the MSA.
The departure clearance was something along the lines, for instance, of, " XXXXX climb the 248 radial to 7,000 ft, maintain 4000ft to 8DME, climb in accordance with the VOR/DME sector altitude chart" It's been a long time since I issued any such clearance so things may have changed, but it was sure a lifesaver at times at the small approach/tower unit I first worked at. Those were the days!!
The decision was made on observed met conditions. If there was any doubt as to a pilot's ability to stay VMC until the lowest sector altitude on the chart, a SID was issued.
Once the aircraft was safely in the sector and if he then entered IMC, it was the pilot's responsibility to be able to outclimb the steps ahead of him based on known aircraft performance. Obviously ATC can't help from that point on.
It worked very well because diversionary climbs rarely went beyond 15 miles and the sector charts went out to 50 miles (I think), leaving pilots plenty of time to intercept track above the MSA.
The departure clearance was something along the lines, for instance, of, " XXXXX climb the 248 radial to 7,000 ft, maintain 4000ft to 8DME, climb in accordance with the VOR/DME sector altitude chart" It's been a long time since I issued any such clearance so things may have changed, but it was sure a lifesaver at times at the small approach/tower unit I first worked at. Those were the days!!
Thanks ATCO1962.
The reason I'm asking is that here in OZ there are some regional airports without radar and without SIDs. According to AIP the pilot is required to set course on departure within 5nm at or above the LSALT. (ie "clear for take of make left/right turn) One of the common separation solutions is to fire an aircraft, regardless of weather conditions/cloud base, out on an obscure radial in order to establish early lateral separation.
If the aircraft is on a known published route then the pilot knows what the LSALT is and can plan accordingly. My understanding is that on this obscure diversion the Minimum Sector Altitude should be used (after all what other LSALT is there?) which may be substantialy higher than a nearby published route. Therefore in order to track on the diversion you first need to clear the aircraft on a KNOWN route until the aircraft reaches the Minimum Sector Altitude after which the aircraft can can instructed to track and intercept the diversion route.
I know this sounds cumbersome but following a recent incident (which has yet to be investigated completely) I find it difficult to expect a pilot, after reporting ready, to have to instantly change and digest all the factors involved in departing on a non published diversion route without some chance of getting something wrong.
Just wondering whether or not I'm making a "mountain etc" when it is really the pilot's responsibility to work all that out. Me-- I'll do everything I can to give the pilot a fighting chance!
Thanks
The reason I'm asking is that here in OZ there are some regional airports without radar and without SIDs. According to AIP the pilot is required to set course on departure within 5nm at or above the LSALT. (ie "clear for take of make left/right turn) One of the common separation solutions is to fire an aircraft, regardless of weather conditions/cloud base, out on an obscure radial in order to establish early lateral separation.
If the aircraft is on a known published route then the pilot knows what the LSALT is and can plan accordingly. My understanding is that on this obscure diversion the Minimum Sector Altitude should be used (after all what other LSALT is there?) which may be substantialy higher than a nearby published route. Therefore in order to track on the diversion you first need to clear the aircraft on a KNOWN route until the aircraft reaches the Minimum Sector Altitude after which the aircraft can can instructed to track and intercept the diversion route.
I know this sounds cumbersome but following a recent incident (which has yet to be investigated completely) I find it difficult to expect a pilot, after reporting ready, to have to instantly change and digest all the factors involved in departing on a non published diversion route without some chance of getting something wrong.
Just wondering whether or not I'm making a "mountain etc" when it is really the pilot's responsibility to work all that out. Me-- I'll do everything I can to give the pilot a fighting chance!
Thanks
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yarra
One of the great things about living in our current era is that this conversation may very well be a thing of the past if modern avionics and aircraft performance are headed where I think they are.
With the kind of overlays they have or are proposing to have on primary navigation displays, it seems like we'll not have to worry about such things except in the event of an emergency. Even though MLS is already obsolete with the advent of GPS derived situation information, it pointed the way towards unusual flight paths based on a smart use of modern technology and I suspect that we'll be putting such technology to good use soon in the area of terrain separation in non-radar areas.
In fact, we are already. Look at the displays that are showing synthetic terrain information in a user-friendly, 3-D way. I'm not sure how many aircraft are equipped with such displays, but it's only a matter of time before they will be standard, even on lighties. Then we will be able to give flexible departure instructions to departing aircraft in non-radar airspace easily, that is, if we are still required and Big Brother hasn't taken over
Have a good day!
One of the great things about living in our current era is that this conversation may very well be a thing of the past if modern avionics and aircraft performance are headed where I think they are.
With the kind of overlays they have or are proposing to have on primary navigation displays, it seems like we'll not have to worry about such things except in the event of an emergency. Even though MLS is already obsolete with the advent of GPS derived situation information, it pointed the way towards unusual flight paths based on a smart use of modern technology and I suspect that we'll be putting such technology to good use soon in the area of terrain separation in non-radar areas.
In fact, we are already. Look at the displays that are showing synthetic terrain information in a user-friendly, 3-D way. I'm not sure how many aircraft are equipped with such displays, but it's only a matter of time before they will be standard, even on lighties. Then we will be able to give flexible departure instructions to departing aircraft in non-radar airspace easily, that is, if we are still required and Big Brother hasn't taken over
Have a good day!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC have no responsibility as soon as you loose an engine and can no longer make the required terrain clearance
As for allocating diverse vectors on IFR departure (described by Yarrayarra) that seems very dodgy. IMHO you use a planned profile, either the standard one designed by ATC or which the pilot has accepted their own responsibility for TC and therefore should know and take into account SALTs, Obstructions etc. You make it up at your peril?
Pierre-thanks.
I'm in agreement about the dodgy bit. In VMC there's no problem. What worries me her in OZ, is that these "obscure" tracks are being used in non radar environmets with no consideration for how the pilot is getting to the LSALT (whatever that is). Now it could be argued that the pilot should analyse this amended tracking and work out the LSALT / climb performance etc, and if unabl;e to comply with IMC climb gradients, ask for something else. I just don't think pilots have the tools readily at hand to do that "off the cuff" and I believe ATC are putting aircraft into situations outside the norm without any consideration for the consequences.
I'm in agreement about the dodgy bit. In VMC there's no problem. What worries me her in OZ, is that these "obscure" tracks are being used in non radar environmets with no consideration for how the pilot is getting to the LSALT (whatever that is). Now it could be argued that the pilot should analyse this amended tracking and work out the LSALT / climb performance etc, and if unabl;e to comply with IMC climb gradients, ask for something else. I just don't think pilots have the tools readily at hand to do that "off the cuff" and I believe ATC are putting aircraft into situations outside the norm without any consideration for the consequences.
Yarra
There is NO requirement to set course within 5 nm despite what AIP says.
In our company (major 737 operator) if it looks like that we will be entering cloud below the LSA at an airport where there is no published SID we advise the tower that we will be flying our single engine contingency procedure.
By that I mean that we will be tracking by a pre-determined track that ensures terrain clearance up to the LSA on one engine. By flying it on 2 we are obviously going to get to the LSA far faster, but nonetheless we know where the aeroplane will be in relation to terrain at all times.
It isn't popular with ATC at times but that is just tough, we need to make sure that we don't wnd up in IMC below the LSA with no idea of where the terrain is - and then add to that the possibility of having an engine failure in IMC below the LSA - you need to make sure that you know where you are in relation to the terrain.
PM me if you want more info
There is NO requirement to set course within 5 nm despite what AIP says.
In our company (major 737 operator) if it looks like that we will be entering cloud below the LSA at an airport where there is no published SID we advise the tower that we will be flying our single engine contingency procedure.
By that I mean that we will be tracking by a pre-determined track that ensures terrain clearance up to the LSA on one engine. By flying it on 2 we are obviously going to get to the LSA far faster, but nonetheless we know where the aeroplane will be in relation to terrain at all times.
It isn't popular with ATC at times but that is just tough, we need to make sure that we don't wnd up in IMC below the LSA with no idea of where the terrain is - and then add to that the possibility of having an engine failure in IMC below the LSA - you need to make sure that you know where you are in relation to the terrain.
PM me if you want more info
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Single European Sky
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I mentioned earlier in this topic that ICAO has an amendment to Doc 4444 PANS-ATM in November this year, that makes terrain clearance the controller's responsibility for a "direct to".
What countries are going to implement this change?
How do we know who's doing it and who's not?
What countries are going to implement this change?
How do we know who's doing it and who's not?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What countries are going to implement this change?
How do we know who's doing it and who's not?
Can't answer the first question. However to find ou the answer to the second one, chack the GEN section of the AIP for that country and there will be a section that lists all the differences between that countries procedures and the ICAO Standards.
Jeppesen have some of the differences listed in the ATC section for each country.
Regards,
DFC
How do we know who's doing it and who's not?
Can't answer the first question. However to find ou the answer to the second one, chack the GEN section of the AIP for that country and there will be a section that lists all the differences between that countries procedures and the ICAO Standards.
Jeppesen have some of the differences listed in the ATC section for each country.
Regards,
DFC
