No Spanish minimum radar vectoring altitudes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Spanish minimum radar vectoring altitudes
AENA has removed the radar vectoring altitude charts of all the Spanish airports.
So, EAG, had to remove them to comply with the Spanish AIP.
How about Jeppesen as well ?
The charts were removed as a consequence of an audit performed by Spanish Civil Aviation authorities on Aena, since they didn't comply with the ICAO standards. They are going to re-introduce them in the future, but there isn't a specific date or ....
Anybody have more info or comment on this ? gracias
Nice, you go into Malaga, Granada or Bilbao and MSA only.
So, EAG, had to remove them to comply with the Spanish AIP.
How about Jeppesen as well ?
The charts were removed as a consequence of an audit performed by Spanish Civil Aviation authorities on Aena, since they didn't comply with the ICAO standards. They are going to re-introduce them in the future, but there isn't a specific date or ....
Anybody have more info or comment on this ? gracias
Nice, you go into Malaga, Granada or Bilbao and MSA only.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jepps the same, as will all chart producers as they can only publish what is in the AIP.
Our company told us that they were being moved to the Enroute section of the AIP, which seems a bit pointless to me. Hope it is sorted as they are a VERY useful tool to ensuring terrain safety when being vectored. We all know the controller is responsible for terrain separation when offering a radar control service, but I have always felt a little uneasy about accepting descent below MSA when I have no access to such data. As we all know, we are all capable of human error and what is to say a radar controller won't descend an aircraft to an unsafe altitude one day.........those charts are a solid piece of cheese in a lump of Swiss otherwise riddled with holes!!!!!!!!!
I'll sign up to your campaign to get them re-instated Mach!
PP
Our company told us that they were being moved to the Enroute section of the AIP, which seems a bit pointless to me. Hope it is sorted as they are a VERY useful tool to ensuring terrain safety when being vectored. We all know the controller is responsible for terrain separation when offering a radar control service, but I have always felt a little uneasy about accepting descent below MSA when I have no access to such data. As we all know, we are all capable of human error and what is to say a radar controller won't descend an aircraft to an unsafe altitude one day.........those charts are a solid piece of cheese in a lump of Swiss otherwise riddled with holes!!!!!!!!!
I'll sign up to your campaign to get them re-instated Mach!
PP
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Weedon
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know the controller is responsible for terrain separation when offering a radar control service,
This was discussed in the "Questions" forum, including all the various ANO legal bits and they seem to come to the same conclusion. anyway its common sense, if we are allowed to use that now.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The frequency jungle
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I am concerned the only person responsible for terrain clearance is the captain.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can't buy nothin' from "the controller was responsible" when your sitting on a cloud in heaven with your angel wings on playing harp singing hallelujah (or havin a barbie in hell).
i WANT a map where i can see in which cloud the mountain is.
i WANT a map where i can see in which cloud the mountain is.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC may be responsible for ensuring terrain clearance but it would a foolish crew who do not double check the vectors and descent clearances.
I for one will always turn down a descent/vector if there is no information available to me to ensure that it is safe.
I for one will always turn down a descent/vector if there is no information available to me to ensure that it is safe.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Euroville
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
those charts are a solid piece of cheese in a lump of Swiss otherwise riddled with holes!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't speak for Spanish ATC, as i'm not one.
But, while i accept if there is no information available you won't want to descend below MSA, at what point will you accept a descent from radar?
Just curious
louby
But, while i accept if there is no information available you won't want to descend below MSA, at what point will you accept a descent from radar?
Just curious
louby
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar vectoring charts are a relatively recent innovation and their use is not mandatory. They are a very useful tool in monitoring a radar descent clearance below MSA. Telstar implies (probably in error so please don't get upset Telstar) that they could be used to determine a safe descent altitude in the absence of a radar service. I believe this would be totally illegal if IMC (and if not IMC they are pretty much redundant anyway).
Louby, there are several other ways to determine if a radar descent below MFA is acceptable. The use of a terrain chart without a radar overlay is a good one. EGPWS is very useful. Familiarity with an airfield, it's ATC patterns and normal radar descent profiles can also help (so long as you don't fall into the familiarity leading to contempt trap). As hinted above being VMC makes life really easy. Finally, if you are really stuck and you are sure that you are receiving a radar control service then it is legal just to trust the radar controller.
Louby, there are several other ways to determine if a radar descent below MFA is acceptable. The use of a terrain chart without a radar overlay is a good one. EGPWS is very useful. Familiarity with an airfield, it's ATC patterns and normal radar descent profiles can also help (so long as you don't fall into the familiarity leading to contempt trap). As hinted above being VMC makes life really easy. Finally, if you are really stuck and you are sure that you are receiving a radar control service then it is legal just to trust the radar controller.
Last edited by tightcircuit; 27th Oct 2007 at 13:20.
MRVA charts are not meant to replace sector altitude charts. Rather, they are only intended to show pilots the lowest altitudes that ATC is permitted to assign when providing radar vectors. This is partly because pilots have often asked for lower altitudes when ATC isn't permitted to assign them.
Me-Thinks that they have been removed due people like ME asking/refusing not to go to the altitude ATC have just cleared me too, as according to the radar chart, the cleared level was below the minimum radar altitude in that sector/position. Sorry chart or no chart am not going below MSA unless me and ATC both think we are in the same position and it is safe to decend.
However I believe it is time with these crowded skies that a world wide agreement is made on do you don't you decend on ATC instructions. Lets face it you have to go below MSA at some point or you'll be up there all day.
However I believe it is time with these crowded skies that a world wide agreement is made on do you don't you decend on ATC instructions. Lets face it you have to go below MSA at some point or you'll be up there all day.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I am concerned the only person resposible for terrain clearance is the captain.
I for one will always turn down a descent/vector if there is no information available to me to ensure that it is safe.
PP
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot Pete
I fully agree with you. In fact from my own experience in my airline, and from listening to the R/T calls of other airlines, I fear that a lot of pilots do not know their responsibilities regarding terrain separation.
The ICAO rules are as follows:
The commander is responsible for terrain seperation at all times EXCEPT when being VECTORED by RADAR.
In my experience this is disregarded on a regular basis particularly by Spanish ATC. They regularly clear an aircraft direct to a waypoint / beacon, and also issue a descent clearance below the local MSA. This is not acceptable. The ONLY time we can accept a descent below MSA is when being vectored. No exceptions. Malaga, Madrid are regulars in disregarding this rule. I cannot accept a descent below MSA when self-positioning or flying direct to a waypoint / beacon. Simple. When on vectors, it is very nice to have a "radar minimums" chart to check local minimums.
I fully agree with you. In fact from my own experience in my airline, and from listening to the R/T calls of other airlines, I fear that a lot of pilots do not know their responsibilities regarding terrain separation.
The ICAO rules are as follows:
The commander is responsible for terrain seperation at all times EXCEPT when being VECTORED by RADAR.
In my experience this is disregarded on a regular basis particularly by Spanish ATC. They regularly clear an aircraft direct to a waypoint / beacon, and also issue a descent clearance below the local MSA. This is not acceptable. The ONLY time we can accept a descent below MSA is when being vectored. No exceptions. Malaga, Madrid are regulars in disregarding this rule. I cannot accept a descent below MSA when self-positioning or flying direct to a waypoint / beacon. Simple. When on vectors, it is very nice to have a "radar minimums" chart to check local minimums.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A campaign to have contour charts available everywhere we can, PLUS a good 'awareness' brief of terrain AND the 'expected' approach path become ever more important. If the airfield and IMC approach is 'new' to us then we will have to be prepared to be 'procedural' as said above.
BCN R07 (or whatever it is now) has always been a problem with ATC vectoring for a GP intecept below radar cleared altitude, so the 'awareness' required merely increases?
Incidentally, personally I care little for the 'wording' in ICAO - when it is my little pink bottom involved, I am responsible.
BCN R07 (or whatever it is now) has always been a problem with ATC vectoring for a GP intecept below radar cleared altitude, so the 'awareness' required merely increases?
Incidentally, personally I care little for the 'wording' in ICAO - when it is my little pink bottom involved, I am responsible.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is becoming an interesting debate about the various perceptions of just who is responsible for terrain separation. It ultimately rests with the commander, indeed any JAR compliant Part A stipulates;
Paragraph (b) above is interesting, and a point often not taken into consideration by pilots in my experience. Also the fact that the 25nm MSA has a 5nm buffer area, where if higher obstacles or terrain exist these are taken into consideration.
Further to the above
So, we can see that we can descend below MFA when under positive radar control and, if we have access to the radar vectoring chart, the clearance is in compliance with the minimum altitudes thereon. It is also clearly stated that when being vectored, when IFR, ATC SHOULD issue clearances that comply with obstacle clearance criteria. The final caveat of course is that the captain must continuously monitor the aircraft position and altitude with regards to terrain.......
So technically I read it that we can descend below MFA without a radar vectoring chart and the ATC unit should be giving clearances that comply with terrain separation minima, BUT without any cross-reference information available I can't see how as commander you can justify doing this and fulfil the statement
Many pilots think otherwise it would appear............
PP
8.2.1 Minimum Flight Altitudes (MFA)(JAR-OPS 1.250, 1.365)
Flight Crew Responsibility
(a) The Flight Crew will not allow the aeroplane to be flown below MFAs, except when necessary for take-off and landing. (JAR OPS 1.365).
(b) Flight Crew must refer to the Flight Guide Chart NOTAMS to determine if the required MFA has changed in order to use chart MSA uncorrected. These are for emergency use otherwise. Changes are notified ahead of chart/plate
re-publication through these pages.
(c) The objectives of Air Traffic Control (ATC) services do not explicitly include prevention of collision with terrain. It therefore remains the responsibility of the Flight Crew to ensure that all clearances issued by ATC are safe in respect of terrain and obstacle clearance. Flight Crew should take into account non-International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) conditions and wind speed corrections in making this determination. If in any doubt double-check clearances with ATC.
Flight Crew Responsibility
(a) The Flight Crew will not allow the aeroplane to be flown below MFAs, except when necessary for take-off and landing. (JAR OPS 1.365).
(b) Flight Crew must refer to the Flight Guide Chart NOTAMS to determine if the required MFA has changed in order to use chart MSA uncorrected. These are for emergency use otherwise. Changes are notified ahead of chart/plate
re-publication through these pages.
(c) The objectives of Air Traffic Control (ATC) services do not explicitly include prevention of collision with terrain. It therefore remains the responsibility of the Flight Crew to ensure that all clearances issued by ATC are safe in respect of terrain and obstacle clearance. Flight Crew should take into account non-International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) conditions and wind speed corrections in making this determination. If in any doubt double-check clearances with ATC.
Further to the above
Lower Separation Standards
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.2 (Company Policy (a)) and 8.2 (Flight Crew Responsibility (a)), descent below previously specified MFAs is authorised under the following conditions:
(a) When on a published departure, arrival or approach procedure, or when flying a visual approach (see Section 8.2 (Visual Approaches) and 8.2 (Night Visual Approach)).
(b) When under positive radar control and, where published in accordance with the Radar Minimum Terrain Clearance/Altitudes Chart. Please note Section 8.2 (Company Flight Guide Approach Plates)...........
Other Considerations
(a) Radar Vectoring
When vectoring an IFR flight (except when offering a Radar Information Service), Air Traffic Control should issue clearances such that the prescribed
terrain and obstacle clearance will exist at all times until the aeroplane reaches the point where the pilot will resume own navigation. (see Section 8.2 (Flight Crew Responsibility (b)). It is therefore essential that the pilot continuously monitors the aeroplane position and altitude in case a loss of radio communication occurs.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.2 (Company Policy (a)) and 8.2 (Flight Crew Responsibility (a)), descent below previously specified MFAs is authorised under the following conditions:
(a) When on a published departure, arrival or approach procedure, or when flying a visual approach (see Section 8.2 (Visual Approaches) and 8.2 (Night Visual Approach)).
(b) When under positive radar control and, where published in accordance with the Radar Minimum Terrain Clearance/Altitudes Chart. Please note Section 8.2 (Company Flight Guide Approach Plates)...........
Other Considerations
(a) Radar Vectoring
When vectoring an IFR flight (except when offering a Radar Information Service), Air Traffic Control should issue clearances such that the prescribed
terrain and obstacle clearance will exist at all times until the aeroplane reaches the point where the pilot will resume own navigation. (see Section 8.2 (Flight Crew Responsibility (b)). It is therefore essential that the pilot continuously monitors the aeroplane position and altitude in case a loss of radio communication occurs.
So technically I read it that we can descend below MFA without a radar vectoring chart and the ATC unit should be giving clearances that comply with terrain separation minima, BUT without any cross-reference information available I can't see how as commander you can justify doing this and fulfil the statement
It therefore remains the responsibility of the Flight Crew to ensure that all clearances issued by ATC are safe in respect of terrain and obstacle clearance.
PP
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SV Marie Celeste
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A comon problem in Spain is that a controler will give you a descent clearance to below the minimum radar altitude. This is done on the basis that if you continue descending at X ft/min your descent path will clear the higher minimums zone before you enter a sector with a lower minimum altitude. All well and good if you maintain your rate of descent and the controler keeps an eye on you. On the last sector of a busy day/ week/ month, dark, bad weather, etc is indeed a big hole in the cheese. It also creates a state of alarm on the crews and develops a mistrust on the ATC system.
A couple of weeks ago we had the exact scenario on the north of Spain having been cleared to FL80 when the minimum was 11000. I called the sector superviser afterwards and he explained the reasoning of the controler as above. He did however also said that it was not acceptable practice and that he will issue a reminder to controlers on this sector not issue clearances bellow the radar minimum. This seems to have been implemented in my last few trips to that part of the world. A polite phonecall seems to have worked pretty well on this ocasion.
A couple of weeks ago we had the exact scenario on the north of Spain having been cleared to FL80 when the minimum was 11000. I called the sector superviser afterwards and he explained the reasoning of the controler as above. He did however also said that it was not acceptable practice and that he will issue a reminder to controlers on this sector not issue clearances bellow the radar minimum. This seems to have been implemented in my last few trips to that part of the world. A polite phonecall seems to have worked pretty well on this ocasion.
