Near CFIT at Medford, Oregon

[MungoP]

Crew responsibility to adhere to the App. Plate for sure but a pointless clearance from ATC involving what could be a lethal descent alt. could fix a number in the head of the crew already busy and at the very least can cause confusion that would need to be clarified by additional time consuming radio exchanges.

[Ian W]

ATC would appear to have been following the 7110-65 which has an example not unlike this one:

EXAMPLE
The aircraft is en route to Delta waypoint at 6,000 feet. The
MVA for this area is 4,000 feet. “Cross Delta at or above
four thousand. Cleared M-L-S runway one eight
approach.” (See FIG 5-9-3.)

I agree it is ambiguous. Perhaps someone can check if they can access ATC recordings, but I suspect that the 'at or above 7,800' is a routine addition to the transmission for aircraft in the area with MVA of 7.800.

I would think that, as the aircraft was not being vectored the MVA should not be referred to at all. But that is not what the 7110.65 says.

[aterpster]

Implied in that handbook example is that the 4,000' MVA doesn't subsequently increase further along the flight's cleared flight track. 7110.65 also states:

4-6-5(a) In the absence of a published MOCA, assign altitudes at or above the MVA or MIA along the route of flight...

[galaxy flyer]

pointless clearance from ATC involving what could be a lethal descent alt.

As aterpster well knows, that “pointless clearance” given on nearly every approach ckearance in the US comes out of a very specific accident. That this one was erroneous and against the rules is another matter.

[aterpster]

Yep, having been an ALPA rep on the TWA 514 CFIT I know how many rule, policy, and procedure changes were made because of the accident.

Alas, the BE1900 at PADL and this Medford near-hit point to "The return of TWA 514." Without EGPWS Medford would have been a smoking hole.

[Ian W]

Implied is not good enough in a book that is used 'word for word'. There is no reason to give the MVA to any aircraft. MVA is a limit that applies only to the controller doing radar vectoring. No aircraft should be given a level that will be below its minimum safe altitude on the procedure it is flying. 'AT or above' is directly instructing the aircraft that AT the low altitude is acceptable. Yes I know that the crew should check and have situational awareness - but we aren't in a competitive quiz here - the aircraft on that approach should never have been cleared in the way it was. I would think that the controllers had a habit of providing the MVA in their 'sector' as a CYA bottom limit.

(I used to be radar/approach controller at an airport alongside mountains and saw far too many close calls and actual CFITs to be blase about such things. )

[Flugjung]

Originally Posted by b1lanc

And another near CFIT - Canada Rouge 763 at HUX on 29 Jan

This one really could have been another AA Cali.

It certainly should.

Being familiar with the area, the airspace below FL200 is uncontrolled and all descente clearances are given at pilot discretion (as it was in this case). The VOR should be checked at 6000 ft and the normally usual VOR DME RWY25 teardrop approach starts at this point.

However some things really sound strange:

- The flight was cleared to 6000ft at pilot discretion but the grid MORA is 16,100 ft and the MEA (for V27E) is 16,000ft. The clearance was given just after checking waypoint NUDOS which is 33 NM from HUX VOR.

Flights from MEX usually fly J13 to OAX VOR and then UJ33 to HUX which both have the same MORA and MEA. We NEVER, EVER fly that area below FL200.

From NUDOS there is enough distance to make a continuous descent to the VOR and fly the approach from FL200 including speed reductions and flap extension. It is approximately 60 NM from TOD to the runway threshold.

I’m still wondering what kind of briefing and descent planning were these guys using......

I know HUX is a far cry from the long radar vectores approaches so usual in the US and major Canadian airports but...... ¿aren't pilots supposed TO BE proficient with basic flight calculations?

[aterpster]

I have just looked at the charts. I find it unbelievable that the airport doesn't have STARS to make a safe descent onto the approaches. The only relief is a 13,400 MSA arriving from NUDOS. That places you way too high over the HUX VOR.

[aterpster]

Since the route passes through th Oaxaca TMA, it appears controlled airspace goes down to 11,500 at the highest. What the base of controlled airspace is south of NUDOS is unknown to me.

[Flugjung]

aterpster

Below FL200 it is uncontrolled. OAX TMA doesn’t have radar but relies on DME reports and pilots acknowleding MEAs and MORAs.

When flying from MEX, the usual route is CUA.J13.OAX.UJ33.HUX.

Although 6000ft is the minimum altitude to check the HUX VOR, a normal approach is possible descending to the MEA and about 60 NM from the VOR , start a 3º path to the runway even if checking the VOR at 10,000ft. There is enough distance in the teardrop approach to fly a continuous glidepath, including speed and flap changes.

[aterpster]

I would never improvise a 3 degree path below MEA. That is contrary to all the efforts we made in the U.S. after TWA 514.

I would file and insist on routing over PXM V1 HUX.

[galaxy flyer]

Fluglung,

Are you stating that flights normally begin a descent from the MEA of 16,000’ before the HUX VOR? I see where F200 and 3⁰ path might work, but you still be below the MEA prior to the VOR.

[Flugjung]

aterpster

It is not improvised and actually used in airline operations. UJ33 is the high altitude airway but you are usually recleared to the V27 with a MEA of 14000. Usually we get visual clearance to the VOR since it is uncontrolled airspace. When in IMC , the usual procedure is to hold over the VOR and descend as published.

You can always get a clearance from Mexico CTR to intercept any desired airway and descend to the VOR. However the V1 is usually used in departure routes to MEX and other surrounding airports like OAX, TLC or GDL.