Short cuts below MSA.

[16024]

Ask three trainers and you'll get four answers.
What is the official, rather than company preferred line on this.
For example, on a SID in day VMC "Cleared direct to (end of SID)".
What about in night IMC?
The kneejerk response is "Can't accept it", but we take radar vectors or "Direct to CF" every day, on to the ILS, descending to platform below MSA.
Any thoughts?

[MrHorgy]

I think surely it depends who is asking. If ATC clear you direct to a point, then they remain responsible for terrain seperation. If you ask then it's a bit more hazy. I've been a big believer of "if you can see it you can avoid it" - I would have no issue asking for, and accepting a shortcut in day VMC below the MSA, but it would be silly to ask for it in IMC or at night when you can't see the obstacles.

[Checkboard]

Originally Posted by EU-OPS

OPS 1.230
Instrument departure and approach procedures
(a) An operator shall ensure that instrument departure and approach procedures established by the State in which the aerodrome is located are used.
(b) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) above, a commander may accept an ATC clearance to deviate from a published departure or arrival route, provided obstacle clearance criteria are observed and full account is taken of the operating conditions. The final approach must be flown visually or in accordance with the established instrument approach procedure.

That should cover it.

[qwertyuiop]

MrHorgy

As a trainer I spend most of my time insisting it is the crew that are responsible for terrain separation.

NEVER blindly follow ATC instuctions!!!

[172_driver]

Just a little note, in US (probably same in Europe) the MSA is based on 25 nm from a NAVAID for reference. This navaid is not always located on the aerodrome, sometimes 15-20 nm away which makes the MSA less than helpful in some cases.

The departures I used to fly was "after departure fly heading XXX vectors XXX" initial climb clearance below MSA and grid MORA due to airspace restrictions. I was quite aware of the terrain but had to trust ATC and their minimum vector altitude to get out of the airspace/terrain safely. This was in a light twin with benign single engine performance. I knew the escape manoeuver was to head west. How different the world can be….

[fireflybob]

16024, what does your Company Operations manual say?

[aterpster]

172 Driver:

Just a little note, in US (probably same in Europe) the MSA is based on 25 nm from a NAVAID for reference. This navaid is not always located on the aerodrome, sometimes 15-20 nm away which makes the MSA less than helpful in some cases.

Do you have an example of a U.S. MSA that is that far from the airport? In any case, in the U.S. MSAs are not operational altitudes and don't provide required obstacle clearance in designated mountainous areas. Further, on RNAV IAPs MSAs are not sectorized so they often have no usefulness in mountainous areas whatsoever. But, you probably knew all this.

[aterpster]

qwertyuiop:

As a trainer I spend most of my time insisting it is the crew that are responsible for terrain separation.

NEVER blindly follow ATC instuctions!!!

So true. Sadly, it's a message that is often not heard. Today, we do have EGPWS to make the final save (unless the terrain is too steep and too high).

[172_driver]

15-20 seems a bit excessive at second look, apologies, first thought about KSEE which is 13 nm from MZB. Also KSBA has 14 nm to GVO. Wasn't aware the MSAs didn't provide required obstacle clearance, even though I've never used them for any operational purpose (in US). But I agree they don't provide much usefulness for any accurate terrain assessment in SoCal. Especially not for my type of flying machine.

[buzzc152]

My understanding is that you can go below MSA when you are either :

i) under positive radar control
ii) on a published procedure (SID, STAR etc)
iii) visual

[misd-agin]

Company provides Jepps 10-1R page. Provides min vectoring altitude information. Nice to have in mountainous terrain.

[Checkboard]

An IFR flight in the EU may descend below the en-route lowest safe altitude when:

1. within 25 miles, and descending to a published MSA
2. Operating under the VFR
3. conducting an Instrument approach
4. under Radar vectors, and above the minimum vectoring altitude
5. established in a published holding procedure, and above the minimum altitude for holding.

[Johnny Tightlips]

My company SOP:

Daytime VMC: No short cuts below MSA during the climb.(I was told it's due to poorer visibility during the climb, and if you had an engine failure below the MSA and your not on an airway/SID which have a certain terrain clearance margin you might be in a spot of bother.) In the descent below MSA it's not a problem as long as you can maintain VMC and don't hit anything!

Nighttime VMC: No directs below MSA in climb or descent.

Of course if we are given radar vectors it's not a problem.

[aterpster]

misd-agin:

Company provides Jepps 10-1R page. Provides min vectoring altitude information. Nice to have in mountainous terrain.

Jeppesen provides the 10-1R to all subscribers but only when the ICAO member state publishes the MVA data in the AIP.

Countries such as the U.S. and Canada do not provide source MVA data, thus no 10-1R pages for those countries (and others as well).

[OPEN DES]

An IFR flight in the EU may descend below the en-route lowest safe altitude when:
within 25 miles, and descending to a published MSA
Operating under the VFR
conducting an Instrument approach
under Radar vectors, and above the minimum vectoring altitude
established in a published holding procedure, and above the minimum altitude for holding.

I suppose you mean in ground visual contact rather than VFR. We routinely go below MSA/MVA when in ground visual contact....

[BOAC]

I reckon 'VMC/VFR' is fine - as long as you can see any prospective cumulo-granitus.

[main_dog]

If ATC clear you direct to a point, then they remain responsible for terrain seperation.

Beware, ATC are responsible for your separation ONLY IF THEY ARE RADAR VECTORING YOU. Being cleared direct to a point is NOT a radar vector: for it to be a radar vector they have to issue you a heading. As such terrain separation remains your responsibility.

In answer to the question, if cleared off a SID direct to a point while still below MSA (and in absence of company guidance), it's up to the PIC to decide whether to accept it or not, and terrain separation is up to him/her.

The other night departing an unfamiliar Chinese airport, immediately after departure I was cleared off a lengthy SID direct to a point: being unfamiliar with the airport and the surrounding terrain, we politely accepted but only started our turn once above MSA. If it had been day VMC at a familiar field, different story...

[bookworm]

Beware, ATC are responsible for your separation ONLY IF THEY ARE RADAR VECTORING YOU.

Not according to ICAO. 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. (My bold.)

The usual caveats about division of responsibility apply.

[9.G]

cleared direct to is radar vectoring however resume own navigation isn't with the responsibility always resting on commanders shoulders regardless. Many are unaware of difference in cleared direct to during descent and climb. Self-understanding is that in descent direct to clearance should provide adequate terrain clearance whereas in climb below MSA it's solely commander's responsibility. Having said that him/her must account for contingency in case of EO. Merry Xmas.

[16024]

Thanks for the replies. Clearly EU ops is not easy to interpret. But the concensus is more or less what I thought. Broadly this:
Yes, it is ok to accept.
VMC or IMC makes no legal difference, common sense aside.
Know where you are in relation to terrain (yeah, I know..!).
Your company may have a more restrictive guideline.