Short cuts below MSA.
when cleared from present position direct to a fix the pilots are responsible for terrain avoidance and must confirm sector altitude requirements...
remember the AA flight in Colombia although several other factors were responsible for that accident...if 411A were still here he would pontificate exactly what those factors were...
remember the AA flight in Colombia although several other factors were responsible for that accident...if 411A were still here he would pontificate exactly what those factors were...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: GPS L INVALID
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edited:
I am an oaf - just looked the specifics up again, enroute and terminal clearances direct to some point are NOT vectors and thus are not subject to MVAs but to "minimum flight altitudes", so usually MSA with the PIC being responsible for terrain clearance.
I am an oaf - just looked the specifics up again, enroute and terminal clearances direct to some point are NOT vectors and thus are not subject to MVAs but to "minimum flight altitudes", so usually MSA with the PIC being responsible for terrain clearance.
I'm so out of it myself, very busy... regarding MSA the controllers have MVA as STBYRUD writtenthat may be lower than MSA, this information may or may not be available to pilots, but it's perfectly legal to accept radar vectors below MSA...even in IMC of course minimums for the specific IAP still apply
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STBYRUD,
Let's stick to the facts, shall we? Merry Xmas.
Doc 4444 - PANS ATM § 8.6.5.2 When vectoring an IFR flight and when giving an IFR flight a direct routing which takes the aircraft off an ATS route , the controller shall issue clearances such that the prescribed obstacle clearance will exist at all times until the aircraft reaches the point where the pilot will resume own navigation. When necessary , the relevant minimum vectoring altitude shall include a correction for low temperature effect.
Note 2.- It is the responsibility of the ATS authority to provide the controller with minimum altitudes corrected for temperature effect.
Note 2.- It is the responsibility of the ATS authority to provide the controller with minimum altitudes corrected for temperature effect.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: GPS L INVALID
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn and blast, thats the paragraph I was looking for yesterday so I edited my original post again - a JAA presentation from 2002 threw me further off track... Thanks for that, happy holidays 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PANS-ATM 8.6.5.2 says:
When vectoring an IFR flight and when giving an IFR flight a direct routing which takes an aircraft off an ATS route, the controller shall issue clearances such that the prescribed obstacle clearance will exist at all times until the aircraft reaches the point where the pilot will resume own navigation.
When vectoring an IFR flight and when giving an IFR flight a direct routing which takes an aircraft off an ATS route, the controller shall issue clearances such that the prescribed obstacle clearance will exist at all times until the aircraft reaches the point where the pilot will resume own navigation.
Thanks for the reference bookworm. For the avoidance of doubt, I assume a SID counts as an ATS route in this context and so the paragraph applies?
Having said all that, it's still my rear end on the airplane and I will continue taking all instructions with a hefty serving of salt...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In t'sky
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was always my belief that if you are issued an instruction by air traffic control, and have been positively identified, then they are primarily responsible for terrain separation. My previous post was perhaps poorly written - it's very bad SA if you blindy accept what ATC tell you without question. When operating near mountains or other obstacles I would always refer to MSA and reject any clearance I was not happy with, regardless of who is TECHNICALLY responsible.
Bookworm - thanks for that reference, I was beginning to doubt myself!
Horgy
Bookworm - thanks for that reference, I was beginning to doubt myself!
Horgy
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ITALY
Age: 42
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOC 8168:
1.7 RADAR VECTORS
Pilots should not accept radar vectors during departure unless:
a. they are above the minimum altitude(s)/height(s) required to maintain obstacle clearance in the event of engine failure. This relates to engine failure between V1 and minimum sector altitude or the end of the contingency procedure as appropriate; or
b. the departure route is non-critical with respect to obstacle clearance.
1.7 RADAR VECTORS
Pilots should not accept radar vectors during departure unless:
a. they are above the minimum altitude(s)/height(s) required to maintain obstacle clearance in the event of engine failure. This relates to engine failure between V1 and minimum sector altitude or the end of the contingency procedure as appropriate; or
b. the departure route is non-critical with respect to obstacle clearance.
Originally Posted by OPEN DES
I suppose you mean in ground visual contact rather than VFR. We routinely go below MSA/MVA when in ground visual contact....
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, no I don't. If you are routinely flying below MSA without the required VFR in flight visibility, but just "ground visual contact" (and not meeting any of the other provisos) you are operating outside the regulations, and rather unsafely.
Visual Approach:
EU OPS 1.430
An operator shall not use an RVR of less than 800 m for a visual approach.
EU OPS 1.435
“Visual approach”. An approach when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain.
Those are the regulations, you decide what you think is safe.
I will give and example of when that in my opinion may be safely applied:
You are flying an arrival that lines you up for a straight in approach, you are at 7000 feet. Only there is a big 6000 feet hill 15 nm prior to the field to screw up your descent, the arrival dictates to maintain 7000 feet till overhead the VOR at the field, join a holding, an out bound and a base turn (or something long winded that you rather avoid).
Just before passing the hill, the controller ask you if you are visual with the terrain. The visibility is 2 km and you see the hill unmistakably and the lake that lies after the hill and between the hill and the field. You hoped for this to happen because the controller asked you this on many previous occasions when visiting that airport (only those times you were too fast to make a straight in). But you learned and, hence you are already at flaps 5 and flying 180 knots, ready to put your gear down and start descent and configuring as soon as you are safely clear of the hill.
You reply affirm and the controller clears you to "descent 3000 feet with visual reference to terrain cleared straight in ILS runway xx".
You did not have VMC. You completed part of the approach visually with reference to the terrain below the MSA, according to the rules specified above.
And by the way:
An IFR flight in the EU may descend below the en-route lowest safe altitude when:
2. Operating under the VFR
2. Operating under the VFR
Did you mean VMC or did you actually copied that from some official text (in that case which??)
Last edited by cosmo kramer; 16th Mar 2012 at 22:36.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vectors and direct to
Around here, whenever given a direct to on a SID, it normally comes as a conditional clearence, i.e. "After xxxxft, cleared direct to ...". When descending, sometimes we get cleared below a given MSA or MVA upon stating to ATC we are indeed VMC.
But, as much as I like directs, I always like to make sure we can comply with "cross at or above xxxxft" as depending on the direct, we can end with insuficient horizontal distance for compliance, but I guess that is why we are paid for
But, as much as I like directs, I always like to make sure we can comply with "cross at or above xxxxft" as depending on the direct, we can end with insuficient horizontal distance for compliance, but I guess that is why we are paid for
EU OPS 1.430
An operator shall not use an RVR of less than 800 m for a visual approach.
An operator shall not use an RVR of less than 800 m for a visual approach.
The US equivalent is:
Originally Posted by the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual
• “[A visual approach is] an approach conducted on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan which authorizes the pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport;
• “The pilot must, at all times, have either the airport or the preceding aircraft in sight;
• “[The visual] approach must be authorized and under the control of the appropriate air traffic control facility; [and],
• “Reported weather at the airport must be ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater.
• “The pilot must, at all times, have either the airport or the preceding aircraft in sight;
• “[The visual] approach must be authorized and under the control of the appropriate air traffic control facility; [and],
• “Reported weather at the airport must be ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater.
)... but the point is: 800m as a minima for a visual approach??
That simply has to be an error, or intended to refer to something entirely different.
... The visibility is 2 km and you see the hill unmistakably and the lake that lies after the hill ...
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Just Around The Corner
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 2004 in Italy a Citation was on IFR to Cagliari (Sardegna) ,on final stage of flight they request a Visual APP , the ATC man after having request the positive sight of the field and the surroundind obstacles (mountain area) cleared the visual. .
The aircraft crashed on a mountain killing all o/b , the two ATC's man where sentenced of 3 (later changed in 2 ) years of prison .
The judge state that the ATC forgot to advise the pilots of their potential dangerous trajectory .
The aircraft crashed on a mountain killing all o/b , the two ATC's man where sentenced of 3 (later changed in 2 ) years of prison .
The judge state that the ATC forgot to advise the pilots of their potential dangerous trajectory .
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As buzzc152 said can only below MSA either:
Published poce/radar vector/visual
Could somebody give me the material source, what documentation cover these statements?
Tks a lot.
Published poce/radar vector/visual
Could somebody give me the material source, what documentation cover these statements?
Tks a lot.
Last edited by Richardatnos; 21st May 2012 at 10:59.
