Near CFIT at Medford, Oregon
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
I have to say, I would have expected better in the US. But checking terrain and obstacles became an ingrained habit
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having said that, the clearance was illegal and a setup for an unwary crew.
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
I have to say, I would have expected better in the US. But checking terrain and obstacles became an ingrained habit
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I have no idea why a controller would act differently for any flight.
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
aterpster,
Thanks. More than enough information there I would have thought!
Thanks. More than enough information there I would have thought!
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.
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
A Part 121 operator wouldn't be carrying expired charts. In any case, this particular procedure hasn't been changed for years.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....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?
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?
Originally Posted by Rat
The last 6nm: Can a CRJ-900 do that easily?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
If you are then saying it would be difficult, or need delaying manoeuvring, to make a landing RW32 it makes me wonder why bother.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts