Near CFIT at Medford, Oregon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Flying the VOR DME-C as published removes any threat from Mt. Ashland.
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/flig...products/dtpp/
Also, FAA charts can be downloaded from the FAA:
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flig...products/dtpp/
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.
Your quote...
They are supposed to have the paper charts at their position and are supposed to be familiar with each IAP.
Longtimelurker
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: killington Vt
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 .
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Longtimelurker
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: killington Vt
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts