MEA oddity near Harrisburg, PA?

[Journeyman]

I have the current Jepp LO 47 chart and there's something odd around
the SEG (Sellinsgrove) VOR (just north of HAR). The MEAs around the
VOR are in the 4000' range, except for V106 to RASHE, which is 14000'.

I sent a note to Jepp querying this. They claim it's correct, based
on navaid reception. I still find this hard to swallow. 14,000???
C'mon. And if so, why isn't there a MOCA for the segment? There's
a 6000 MEA / 3900T for the next segment.

Anyone have a NOAA chart? Does it have the same MEA? Anyone know
the MVA for the area? Anyone have a topo/sectional map of the area
to explain the mysterious navaid reception issue?

Morris (who cannot be the first person to have noticed this)

[BillJ]

Journeyman wrote:
> I have the current Jepp LO 47 chart and there's something odd around
> the SEG (Sellinsgrove) VOR (just north of HAR). The MEAs around the
> VOR are in the 4000' range, except for V106 to RASHE, which is 14000'.
>
> I sent a note to Jepp querying this. They claim it's correct, based
> on navaid reception. I still find this hard to swallow. 14,000???
> C'mon. And if so, why isn't there a MOCA for the segment? There's
> a 6000 MEA / 3900T for the next segment.
>
> Anyone have a NOAA chart? Does it have the same MEA? Anyone know
> the MVA for the area? Anyone have a topo/sectional map of the area
> to explain the mysterious navaid reception issue?
>
> Morris (who cannot be the first person to have noticed this)
Same on the NOAA chart. Knowing the terrain I would agree it has to be a
mistake.

[Mike Granby]

I've noticed it, and I've flown that segment way below 14K (albeit /G)
so I've no idea what's going on. There is a ridge that might block
reception on the south edge of the airway, so perhaps that's the issue
given how close the VOR is to start of the ridge...

[David Kazdan]

Similarly, there's one from Madison, Wisconsin to Chicago with something
like a 10,000 MEA. The best I can tell is that there's one hill in the
flats of Wisconsin that limits the signal, but it's not obvious.

Journeyman wrote:
> I have the current Jepp LO 47 chart and there's something odd around
> the SEG (Sellinsgrove) VOR (just north of HAR). The MEAs around the
> VOR are in the 4000' range, except for V106 to RASHE, which is 14000'.
>
> I sent a note to Jepp querying this. They claim it's correct, based
> on navaid reception. I still find this hard to swallow. 14,000???
> C'mon. And if so, why isn't there a MOCA for the segment? There's
> a 6000 MEA / 3900T for the next segment.
>
> Anyone have a NOAA chart? Does it have the same MEA? Anyone know
> the MVA for the area? Anyone have a topo/sectional map of the area
> to explain the mysterious navaid reception issue?
>
> Morris (who cannot be the first person to have noticed this)

[Jim Macklin]

The sectional chart may help, but you can find the law that
establishes an airway, each one has a public statement. In
that discussion you will find many answers.
If you want to see real odd altitudes, look around Key West
for the safe quadrangle altitude, it is about 14,000 last
time I looked. Why? Because they sometimes have a tethered
balloon and radar up looking at the drug smugglers.



"David Kazdan" > wrote in message
. com...
| Similarly, there's one from Madison, Wisconsin to Chicago
with something
| like a 10,000 MEA. The best I can tell is that there's
one hill in the
| flats of Wisconsin that limits the signal, but it's not
obvious.
|
| Journeyman wrote:
| > I have the current Jepp LO 47 chart and there's
something odd around
| > the SEG (Sellinsgrove) VOR (just north of HAR). The
MEAs around the
| > VOR are in the 4000' range, except for V106 to RASHE,
which is 14000'.
| >
| > I sent a note to Jepp querying this. They claim it's
correct, based
| > on navaid reception. I still find this hard to swallow.
14,000???
| > C'mon. And if so, why isn't there a MOCA for the
segment? There's
| > a 6000 MEA / 3900T for the next segment.
| >
| > Anyone have a NOAA chart? Does it have the same MEA?
Anyone know
| > the MVA for the area? Anyone have a topo/sectional map
of the area
| > to explain the mysterious navaid reception issue?
| >
| > Morris (who cannot be the first person to have noticed
this)

[Greg Farris]

In article <f989g.18838$ZW3.12367@dukeread04>,
says...
>
>
Why? Because they sometimes have a tethered
>balloon and radar up looking at the drug smugglers.
>

Yes, but that's different from reception issues.
I think Mike's answer is probably closer - because the VOR is close to
the ridge, that gives rise to some seemingly wierd MEA's, without
anything untoward inthe MOCA. Puts a kink in your plans though, if you
weren't planning (or cannot do) 14000.

GF

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Greg Farris > wrote:

> In article <f989g.18838$ZW3.12367@dukeread04>,
> says...
> >
> >
> Why? Because they sometimes have a tethered
> >balloon and radar up looking at the drug smugglers.
> >
>
> Yes, but that's different from reception issues.
> I think Mike's answer is probably closer - because the VOR is close to
> the ridge, that gives rise to some seemingly wierd MEA's, without
> anything untoward inthe MOCA. Puts a kink in your plans though, if you
> weren't planning (or cannot do) 14000.
>
> GF

Take a look at some of the airways in western CT based on the LGA VOR. The
MEA's make no sense based on terrain alone. I'm told the problem is that
the VOR is nestled in among the hangars and other buildings and the signal
suffers.

[Scott Skylane]

Journeyman wrote:
> I have the current Jepp LO 47 chart and there's something odd around
> the SEG (Sellinsgrove) VOR (just north of HAR). The MEAs around the
> VOR are in the 4000' range, except for V106 to RASHE, which is 14000'.
/snip/

You wanna see something really wild? Go to
http://idisk.mac.com/scottdb-Public
and look at the "HiMEA" file. Right in the middle, the transitional MEA
for V462 is listed as 88000 between FAGIN and NONDA. This obviously
should be 8800, but I don't think it is just a typo on Jepp's part.
When our company's flight planning software generates a low altitude
route through this area, it actually bypasses that one segment, since
our planes can't climb that high. Makes me think that the data is bad
from the FAA.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Sam Spade]

Journeyman wrote:

> I have the current Jepp LO 47 chart and there's something odd around
> the SEG (Sellinsgrove) VOR (just north of HAR). The MEAs around the
> VOR are in the 4000' range, except for V106 to RASHE, which is 14000'.
>
> I sent a note to Jepp querying this. They claim it's correct, based
> on navaid reception. I still find this hard to swallow. 14,000???
> C'mon. And if so, why isn't there a MOCA for the segment? There's
> a 6000 MEA / 3900T for the next segment.
>
> Anyone have a NOAA chart? Does it have the same MEA? Anyone know
> the MVA for the area? Anyone have a topo/sectional map of the area
> to explain the mysterious navaid reception issue?
>
> Morris (who cannot be the first person to have noticed this)

Those in the NE are because of VOR stations that are shooting craps and
fail flight inspection below those very high altitudes.

[JPH]

Journeyman wrote:
> I have the current Jepp LO 47 chart and there's something odd around
> the SEG (Sellinsgrove) VOR (just north of HAR). The MEAs around the
> VOR are in the 4000' range, except for V106 to RASHE, which is 14000'.
>
> I sent a note to Jepp querying this. They claim it's correct, based
> on navaid reception. I still find this hard to swallow. 14,000???
> C'mon. And if so, why isn't there a MOCA for the segment? There's
> a 6000 MEA / 3900T for the next segment.
>
> Anyone have a NOAA chart? Does it have the same MEA? Anyone know
> the MVA for the area? Anyone have a topo/sectional map of the area
> to explain the mysterious navaid reception issue?
>
> Morris (who cannot be the first person to have noticed this)

I don't have a chart nearby, so I don't know if the entire route is
within 40 miles of the facility. If it's more than 40 miles, then the
Standard Service Volume for the VOR is limited, and would need flight
check approval of an "Extended Service Volume". The Extended Service
Volume is a two fold process; it needs approval from the frequency
management office to ensure that there is no radio frequency
interference from other facilities or communications equipment that
might give a bend or interference to the signal, and the frequency
manager either approves the altitudes and distances requested, or
restricts them, or disapproves any extensions. Once that process is
complete, the flight inspection aircraft needs to verify a good signal,
but he will only approve what the frequency manager has offered.
Once that process is done, the MEA is based on the obstacle clearance or
approved service volume, whichever is higher.

If the next fix is within 40 miles of the facility, then the flight
inspection aircraft may have noticed a poor signal and raised the MEA to
an altitude where a safe signal is ensured.

John

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Sam Spade > said:
>Those in the NE are because of VOR stations that are shooting craps and
>fail flight inspection below those very high altitudes.

Like when they built the new fire station on KROC to the west of the VOR,
and suddenly the MEAs on the airways to the west went up to 6,000 feet
when there isn't any terrain or towers above 1,500.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
echo '16i[q]sa[ln0=aln100%Pln100/snlbx]sb20293A2058554E494Csnlbxq'|dc

[Dave Butler]

Scott Skylane wrote:

> You wanna see something really wild? Go to
> http://idisk.mac.com/scottdb-Public

Wish I could, but you don't like my browser.

> and look at the "HiMEA" file. Right in the middle, the transitional MEA
> for V462 is listed as 88000 between FAGIN and NONDA. This obviously
> should be 8800, but I don't think it is just a typo on Jepp's part. When
> our company's flight planning software generates a low altitude route
> through this area, it actually bypasses that one segment, since our
> planes can't climb that high. Makes me think that the data is bad from
> the FAA.

That's the Alaska airway V462, not the Federal airway V462, right?

The ATA-100 AWY file effective June 08, 2006 shows a MOCA of 12200 and an MEA of
14000 between FAGIN and NONDA.

[Scott Skylane]

Dave Butler wrote:

> Scott Skylane wrote:
>
>> You wanna see something really wild? Go to
>> http://idisk.mac.com/scottdb-Public
>
>
> Wish I could, but you don't like my browser.

Sorry about that, try http://homepage.mac.com/scottdb/FileSharing7.html

> That's the Alaska airway V462, not the Federal airway V462, right?
>
> The ATA-100 AWY file effective June 08, 2006 shows a MOCA of 12200 and
> an MEA of 14000 between FAGIN and NONDA.

That's the one. It appears that the MOCA on that segment should be
8800, as the co-located T223 route has a MOCA of 8200.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Dave Butler]

Scott Skylane wrote:

>
> That's the one. It appears that the MOCA on that segment should be
> 8800, as the co-located T223 route has a MOCA of 8200.

Reformatted from AWY.txt for compactness. Each MEA/MOCA/MAA applies to the
segment from the fix named on that line of text to the fix named on the
following line. I hope the formatting isn't lost in the mail.

airway name: V462 type: ALASKA
ARTCC: (ZAN) Anchorage
MEA 5000 MOCA 4300
NDB EHM CAPE NEWENHAM MEA 5000
REPORTING POINT ROGOC MEA 5000
REPORTING POINT DUYEG MEA 5000
REPORTING POINT PEDUJ MEA 3000 MOCA 2500
VOR/DME DLG DILLINGHAM MEA 3000
REPORTING POINT OCDIJ MEA 3000
REPORTING POINT UVHAL MEA 5000 MOCA 3800
REPORTING POINT KOWOK MEA 14000 MOCA 8800
REPORTING POINT SAHOK MEA 14000
REPORTING POINT SPAKE MEA 14000
REPORTING POINT FAGIN MEA 14000 MOCA 12200
REPORTING POINT NONDA MEA 14000
REPORTING POINT NEARR MEA 3000 MOCA 2500
REPORTING POINT BLUGA MEA 3000
REPORTING POINT AMOTT MEA 3000
REPORTING POINT GASTO MEA 3000
VOR/DME ANC ANCHORAGE
-------
airway name: T223 type: ALASKA
ARTCC: (ZAN) Anchorage
MEA 5000 MAA 17500
NDB EHM CAPE NEWENHAM MEA 5000 MAA 17500
VOR/DME DLG DILLINGHAM MEA 9000 MOCA 8200 MAA 17500
REPORTING POINT FAGIN MEA 12000 MOCA 11500 MAA 17500
REPORTING POINT NONDA MEA 2000 MCA 8500 SW BND MOCA 1400 MAA 17500
REPORTING POINT BLUGA MEA 2000
VOR/DME ANC ANCHORAGE

[Journeyman]

In article . com>, Mike Granby wrote:
>
> There is a ridge that might block
> reception on the south edge of the airway, so perhaps that's the issue
> given how close the VOR is to start of the ridge...

That must be it. Thanks for all the replies.


Morris