Minimum Vector Altitude charts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum Vector Altitude charts
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.
Thanks in advance.
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.
They were handy for keeping an eye on how you were going during protracted vectors.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Min Vectoring Altitude YMML
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!
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!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia at the moment
Posts: 177
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
The equipment I fly now has EGPWS so in Australian airspace a mistake-CFIT- would be unlikely
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I get criticised by the checkers but its a warm and fuzzy thing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topdrop,
Thanks for adding something relevant to this thread champ. Good job.
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.
Thanks for adding something relevant to this thread champ. Good job.
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.
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
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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".
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: australia
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)!!!
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.
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)!!!
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall (from a few years ago) that YPAD has a MVA of 1000ft overwater for RWY 05
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!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 )
(C-Change will understand my sarcasm, for the rest of you that post was sarcastic )
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!