ORCA lower than MEA?

[Dan[_1_]]

There are some places on IFR enroute charts where the OROCA (Off-route
obstruction clearance altitude) is actually lower than MEAs on an
airway in the same quadrant. The higher MEA is NOT due to obstacles in
adjacent quadrants.

If I'm on the airway, usually they don't let folks go down to the MOCA,
however if I file direct off-airways, how likely am I to be able to get
the ORCA? The goal is trying to stay below oxygen altitudes in
mountainous terrain while remaining IFR.

--Dan

[Jim Macklin]

MEA is established by VOR reception when distance or
obstacles require an altitude higher than terrain clearance
only requires. You may or may not be given a clearance, if
radar coverage is not available.

Buy or rent some oxygen equipment.



"Dan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| There are some places on IFR enroute charts where the
OROCA (Off-route
| obstruction clearance altitude) is actually lower than
MEAs on an
| airway in the same quadrant. The higher MEA is NOT due to
obstacles in
| adjacent quadrants.
|
| If I'm on the airway, usually they don't let folks go down
to the MOCA,
| however if I file direct off-airways, how likely am I to
be able to get
| the ORCA? The goal is trying to stay below oxygen
altitudes in
| mountainous terrain while remaining IFR.
|
| --Dan
|

[Sam Spade]

Dan wrote:

> There are some places on IFR enroute charts where the OROCA (Off-route
> obstruction clearance altitude) is actually lower than MEAs on an
> airway in the same quadrant. The higher MEA is NOT due to obstacles in
> adjacent quadrants.
>
> If I'm on the airway, usually they don't let folks go down to the MOCA,
> however if I file direct off-airways, how likely am I to be able to get
> the ORCA? The goal is trying to stay below oxygen altitudes in
> mountainous terrain while remaining IFR.
>
> --Dan
>
When you go off-route the center will use is minimum instrument altitude
(MIA) chart. ATC will not use ORCAs; those are a concept that never
went anywhere other than to provide you with some information for
emergency or lost comm use.

Also, you can run into issues if you try to go direct through one of
those many chunks of Class G airspace in the western part of the country.

[Ron Natalie]

Dan wrote:
> There are some places on IFR enroute charts where the OROCA (Off-route
> obstruction clearance altitude) is actually lower than MEAs on an
> airway in the same quadrant. The higher MEA is NOT due to obstacles in
> adjacent quadrants.

MEA's are often higher because of the signal issues of the NAVAIDS
involved. We got an airway here with a 9000' MEA which is way higher
than the obstructions and the MVA because there's something wonky
with the VOR that defines it.

[Dan[_1_]]

I (and just about everyone else these days) is using an IFR certified
GPS unit, but I suppose we'll be stuck with the VOR technology limits
until ATC moves into the 20th century....

--Dan


Ron Natalie wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > There are some places on IFR enroute charts where the OROCA (Off-route
> > obstruction clearance altitude) is actually lower than MEAs on an
> > airway in the same quadrant. The higher MEA is NOT due to obstacles in
> > adjacent quadrants.
>
> MEA's are often higher because of the signal issues of the NAVAIDS
> involved. We got an airway here with a 9000' MEA which is way higher
> than the obstructions and the MVA because there's something wonky
> with the VOR that defines it.

[Dan[_1_]]

I don't suppose this MIA information is avaliable or published
somewhere is it? It would be useful for flight planning.

--Dan



Sam Spade wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
> > There are some places on IFR enroute charts where the OROCA (Off-route
> > obstruction clearance altitude) is actually lower than MEAs on an
> > airway in the same quadrant. The higher MEA is NOT due to obstacles in
> > adjacent quadrants.
> >
> > If I'm on the airway, usually they don't let folks go down to the MOCA,
> > however if I file direct off-airways, how likely am I to be able to get
> > the ORCA? The goal is trying to stay below oxygen altitudes in
> > mountainous terrain while remaining IFR.
> >
> > --Dan
> >
> When you go off-route the center will use is minimum instrument altitude
> (MIA) chart. ATC will not use ORCAs; those are a concept that never
> went anywhere other than to provide you with some information for
> emergency or lost comm use.
>
> Also, you can run into issues if you try to go direct through one of
> those many chunks of Class G airspace in the western part of the country.

[Ron Natalie]

Dan wrote:
> I (and just about everyone else these days) is using an IFR certified
> GPS unit, but I suppose we'll be stuck with the VOR technology limits
> until ATC moves into the 20th century....
>
>
No you're not. If you're in radar coverage you can go direct to the
other end of the airway (or anywhere else) at any appropriate
minimum IFR altitude. The MEA isn't limitting unless you are
using VOR's to fly the Victor airway.

[rps]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > I (and just about everyone else these days) is using an IFR certified
> > GPS unit, but I suppose we'll be stuck with the VOR technology limits
> > until ATC moves into the 20th century....
> >
> No you're not. If you're in radar coverage you can go direct to the
> other end of the airway (or anywhere else) at any appropriate
> minimum IFR altitude. The MEA isn't limitting unless you are
> using VOR's to fly the Victor airway.

Doesn't an MEA also guarantee communications reception unless an MRA
indicates a higher altitude? Other altitudes (e.g., OROCA) don't
guarantee radio reception. You can ask for MVA or MIA too, but those
are uncharted. I've asked Flight Service for this info and they've
provided it (after putting me on hold to check with Center).

[Ron Natalie]

rps wrote:

>
> Doesn't an MEA also guarantee communications reception unless an MRA
> indicates a higher altitude?

No. Com reception is not a factor in MEA determination. MRA has
nothing to do with comm either. The MRA tells you that you can
receive the nav signal that is used to define an intersection (from
an off airway navaid).

[Sam Spade]

Dan wrote:
> I don't suppose this MIA information is avaliable or published
> somewhere is it? It would be useful for flight planning.
>
No, they guard that stuff like it belongs only to them.

[Sam Spade]

Dan wrote:

> I (and just about everyone else these days) is using an IFR certified
> GPS unit, but I suppose we'll be stuck with the VOR technology limits
> until ATC moves into the 20th century....
>
Then, once they get comfortable with that, maybe they will move into
this century. ;-)

[Sam Spade]

Ron Natalie wrote:


> No you're not. If you're in radar coverage you can go direct to the
> other end of the airway (or anywhere else) at any appropriate
> minimum IFR altitude. The MEA isn't limitting unless you are
> using VOR's to fly the Victor airway.

He has to have a controller willing to assign him the MIA under the
airway then keep an eye on it all.

[Sam Spade]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> rps wrote:
>
>>
>> Doesn't an MEA also guarantee communications reception unless an MRA
>> indicates a higher altitude?
>
>
> No. Com reception is not a factor in MEA determination. MRA has
> nothing to do with comm either. The MRA tells you that you can
> receive the nav signal that is used to define an intersection (from
> an off airway navaid).

Wrong. Here is the Victor Airways TERPS:

1718. MINIMUM ENROUTE INSTRUMENT ALTITUDES (MEA). An MEA will be
established for each segment of an airway/route from radio fix to radio
fix. The MEA will be established based upon obstacle clearance over the
terrain or over manmade objects, adequacy of navigation facility
performance, and communications requirements. Segments are designated
West to East and South to North. Altitudes will be established to the
nearest 100 foot increment; that is, 2049 feet becomes 2000, and 2050
feet become 2100.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>> I don't suppose this MIA information is avaliable or published
>> somewhere is it? It would be useful for flight planning.
>>
> No, they guard that stuff like it belongs only to them.




More drivel.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>> I don't suppose this MIA information is avaliable or published
>>> somewhere is it? It would be useful for flight planning.
>>>
>> No, they guard that stuff like it belongs only to them.
>
>
>
>
>
> More drivel.

Rather than just making such a cavalier statement, why not be positive
and point us pions to the public source for MIA charts.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>> Dan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't suppose this MIA information is avaliable or published
>>>> somewhere is it? It would be useful for flight planning.
>>>>
>>> No, they guard that stuff like it belongs only to them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> More drivel.
>
>
> Rather than just making such a cavalier statement, why not be positive
> and point us pions to the public source for MIA charts.

I have no idea if there is a website with all the data. I have
occasionally come across various MVA or MIA maps online. But nobody
guards it as it isn't sensitive. Stop by any facility and they'll make
a copy for you.

[Ron Natalie]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>> rps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't an MEA also guarantee communications reception unless an MRA
>>> indicates a higher altitude?
>>
>>
>> No. Com reception is not a factor in MEA determination. MRA has
>> nothing to do with comm either. The MRA tells you that you can
>> receive the nav signal that is used to define an intersection (from
>> an off airway navaid).
>
> Wrong. Here is the Victor Airways TERPS:
>
> 1718. MINIMUM ENROUTE INSTRUMENT ALTITUDES (MEA). An MEA will be
> established for each segment of an airway/route from radio fix to radio
> fix. The MEA will be established based upon obstacle clearance over the
> terrain or over manmade objects, adequacy of navigation facility
> performance, and communications requirements. Segments are designated
> West to East and South to North. Altitudes will be established to the
> nearest 100 foot increment; that is, 2049 feet becomes 2000, and 2050
> feet become 2100.

You missed the rest of the line that says "...although adequate
communication at the MEA is not guaranteed." The MRA has nothing
whatsoever to do with communciations requirements.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't suppose this MIA information is avaliable or published
>>>>> somewhere is it? It would be useful for flight planning.
>>>>>
>>>> No, they guard that stuff like it belongs only to them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> More drivel.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rather than just making such a cavalier statement, why not be positive
>> and point us pions to the public source for MIA charts.
>
>
> I have no idea if there is a website with all the data. I have
> occasionally come across various MVA or MIA maps online. But nobody
> guards it as it isn't sensitive. Stop by any facility and they'll make
> a copy for you.

There is no web site with MIA data. I had to make a Freedom of
Information Act request to get MIA data for a couple centers. The group
I work with had the same problem with MVAs, but got those loosened up.

What you are saying is true, but it means stopping by the facility with
one's hat in their hand. That does not help the OP at all.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 21 Jan 2007 21:51:03 -0800, "Dan" > wrote:

>There are some places on IFR enroute charts where the OROCA (Off-route
>obstruction clearance altitude) is actually lower than MEAs on an
>airway in the same quadrant. The higher MEA is NOT due to obstacles in
>adjacent quadrants.
>
>If I'm on the airway, usually they don't let folks go down to the MOCA,
>however if I file direct off-airways, how likely am I to be able to get
>the ORCA? The goal is trying to stay below oxygen altitudes in
>mountainous terrain while remaining IFR.
>
> --Dan

Although I've never done it, I have read that in that sort of area you
could request "VFR-on-top". There is no requirement that this sort of
flight be carried out *over* an undercast.

AIM
4-4-7. IFR Clearance VFR-on-top

a. A pilot on an IFR flight plan operating in VFR weather conditions, may
request VFR-on-top in lieu of an assigned altitude. This permits a pilot to
select an altitude or flight level of their choice (subject to any ATC
restrictions.)

....

e. When operating in VFR conditions with an ATC authorization to "maintain
VFR-on-top/maintain VFR conditions" pilots on IFR flight plans must:

1. Fly at the appropriate VFR altitude as prescribed in 14 CFR Section
91.159.

2. Comply with the VFR visibility and distance from cloud criteria in 14
CFR Section 91.155 (Basic VFR Weather Minimums).

3. Comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to this flight;
i.e., minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio communications,
course to be flown, adherence to ATC clearance, etc.

....

--------------------------------


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Sam Spade]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Ron Natalie wrote:
>>
>>> rps wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't an MEA also guarantee communications reception unless an MRA
>>>> indicates a higher altitude?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No. Com reception is not a factor in MEA determination. MRA has
>>> nothing to do with comm either. The MRA tells you that you can
>>> receive the nav signal that is used to define an intersection (from
>>> an off airway navaid).
>>
>>
>> Wrong. Here is the Victor Airways TERPS:
>>
>> 1718. MINIMUM ENROUTE INSTRUMENT ALTITUDES (MEA). An MEA will be
>> established for each segment of an airway/route from radio fix to
>> radio fix. The MEA will be established based upon obstacle clearance
>> over the terrain or over manmade objects, adequacy of navigation
>> facility performance, and communications requirements. Segments are
>> designated West to East and South to North. Altitudes will be
>> established to the nearest 100 foot increment; that is, 2049 feet
>> becomes 2000, and 2050 feet become 2100.
>
>
> You missed the rest of the line that says "...although adequate
> communication at the MEA is not guaranteed." The MRA has nothing
> whatsoever to do with communciations requirements.

That is not pertinent to your statement "No, Com reception is not a
factor in MEA determination." That is just plain wrong.

Then, you go on to discuss MRA. That is a different issue.

[Sam Spade]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On 21 Jan 2007 21:51:03 -0800, "Dan" > wrote:
>
>
>>There are some places on IFR enroute charts where the OROCA (Off-route
>>obstruction clearance altitude) is actually lower than MEAs on an
>>airway in the same quadrant. The higher MEA is NOT due to obstacles in
>>adjacent quadrants.
>>
>>If I'm on the airway, usually they don't let folks go down to the MOCA,
>>however if I file direct off-airways, how likely am I to be able to get
>>the ORCA? The goal is trying to stay below oxygen altitudes in
>>mountainous terrain while remaining IFR.
>>
>> --Dan
>
>
> Although I've never done it, I have read that in that sort of area you
> could request "VFR-on-top". There is no requirement that this sort of
> flight be carried out *over* an undercast.

But, it has to be at, or above the minimum IFR altitude, plus comply
with the VFR altitude rules. Often, that forces you higher than MEA.

[KP[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>> Newps wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't suppose this MIA information is avaliable or published
>>>>>> somewhere is it? It would be useful for flight planning.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, they guard that stuff like it belongs only to them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More drivel.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rather than just making such a cavalier statement, why not be positive
>>> and point us pions to the public source for MIA charts.
>>
>>
>> I have no idea if there is a website with all the data. I have
>> occasionally come across various MVA or MIA maps online. But nobody
>> guards it as it isn't sensitive. Stop by any facility and they'll make a
>> copy for you.
>
> There is no web site with MIA data. I had to make a Freedom of
> Information Act request to get MIA data for a couple centers. The group I
> work with had the same problem with MVAs, but got those loosened up.
>
> What you are saying is true, but it means stopping by the facility with
> one's hat in their hand. That does not help the OP at all.

There's a lot of stuff that's not on the web. So what? Not everything
justifies the time, energy, money, and bandwidth needed to put it on the
web.

Then there's the issue of keeping it current. MVAs and MIAs, along with
LOAs, SOPs, and a myriad of other pieces of paper (or computer files) are
internal facility documents that change, require review at periodic
intervals, or simply get cancelled. What happens when some stick actuator
reads (or mis-reads) the outdated MVA chart he pulled off the web and flies
into the new cell phone transmission tower?

MVAs and MIAs aren't classified. They're probably not even FOUO. But just
because they're not on the web or in your local library branch doesn't mean
there's some evil conspiracy to keep them from the public.

All you have to do is ask.

[Sam Spade]

KP wrote:

>
> There's a lot of stuff that's not on the web. So what? Not everything
> justifies the time, energy, money, and bandwidth needed to put it on the
> web.
>
> Then there's the issue of keeping it current. MVAs and MIAs, along with
> LOAs, SOPs, and a myriad of other pieces of paper (or computer files) are
> internal facility documents that change, require review at periodic
> intervals, or simply get cancelled. What happens when some stick actuator
> reads (or mis-reads) the outdated MVA chart he pulled off the web and flies
> into the new cell phone transmission tower?
>
> MVAs and MIAs aren't classified. They're probably not even FOUO. But just
> because they're not on the web or in your local library branch doesn't mean
> there's some evil conspiracy to keep them from the public.
>
> All you have to do is ask.
>
>

Repeating myself: I had to FOIA the E-MSAW data for Denver, Salt Lake
City, and Los Angeles Centers. Even then, I received a telephone call
asking "20 questions" before they would release the data.

E-MSAW is the only way to reconstruct MIA sectors because, unlike MVAs,
there are not video map files for MIAs. In my FOIA I first requested
the actual MIA maps for ZLA, and was quoted a charge of $14,000.

No doubt, MVA and MIA data would be useless unless it is both current
and georeferenced in a pilot-friendly format. Since those data are
always current for centers and TRACONs, they certainly could be made
available in a current form for pilots, just like sectionals, IFR
charts, and electronic nav databases.

MIAs and MVAs are, in fact IFR altitudes that avoid Part 95 rule-making
and real public scrutiny.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:

>
> E-MSAW is the only way to reconstruct MIA sectors because, unlike MVAs,
> there are not video map files for MIAs. In my FOIA I first requested
> the actual MIA maps for ZLA, and was quoted a charge of $14,000.


I can believe that. The last time we redrew the map it took one of our
guys a month or so to do it. It is not in an electronic format such as
a jpg. The MVA chart is drawn on a sectional and mailed to the people
who handle this with all the supporting documents. These people then
look at it and approve it and mail us back the electronic maps that get
installed in the system. It's pretty comical how much work that goes
into it.


>
> No doubt, MVA and MIA data would be useless unless it is both current
> and georeferenced in a pilot-friendly format. Since those data are
> always current for centers and TRACONs, they certainly could be made
> available in a current form for pilots, just like sectionals, IFR
> charts, and electronic nav databases.
>

Sure they could but it's not in a useable format now. And ATC doesn't
need it in that format, only you do. Thus the high price.



> MIAs and MVAs are, in fact IFR altitudes that avoid Part 95 rule-making
> and real public scrutiny.


So what?

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>
>> E-MSAW is the only way to reconstruct MIA sectors because, unlike
>> MVAs, there are not video map files for MIAs. In my FOIA I first
>> requested the actual MIA maps for ZLA, and was quoted a charge of
>> $14,000.
>
>
>
> I can believe that. The last time we redrew the map it took one of our
> guys a month or so to do it. It is not in an electronic format such as
> a jpg. The MVA chart is drawn on a sectional and mailed to the people
> who handle this with all the supporting documents. These people then
> look at it and approve it and mail us back the electronic maps that get
> installed in the system. It's pretty comical how much work that goes
> into it.
>
>
>>
>> No doubt, MVA and MIA data would be useless unless it is both current
>> and georeferenced in a pilot-friendly format. Since those data are
>> always current for centers and TRACONs, they certainly could be made
>> available in a current form for pilots, just like sectionals, IFR
>> charts, and electronic nav databases.
>>
>
> Sure they could but it's not in a useable format now. And ATC doesn't
> need it in that format, only you do. Thus the high price.
>
>
>
>> MIAs and MVAs are, in fact IFR altitudes that avoid Part 95
>> rule-making and real public scrutiny.
>
>
>
> So what?

That is my point; the ultimate ATC response when out of phony answers.

Some folks like to know independent of the reassuring voice of Mr.
Goodscope that the IFR altitude in use is actually safe. There are dead
pilots that could have benefited greatly had they had that information.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> I can believe that. The last time we redrew the map it took one of our
> guys a month or so to do it. It is not in an electronic format such as
> a jpg. The MVA chart is drawn on a sectional and mailed to the people
> who handle this with all the supporting documents. These people then
> look at it and approve it and mail us back the electronic maps that get
> installed in the system. It's pretty comical how much work that goes
> into it.

That drawing on a sectional is going to be history soon. Your friends
in DC have finally developed an automated CAD tool to design MVAs and MIAs.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 05:20:03 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> On 21 Jan 2007 21:51:03 -0800, "Dan" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There are some places on IFR enroute charts where the OROCA (Off-route
>>>obstruction clearance altitude) is actually lower than MEAs on an
>>>airway in the same quadrant. The higher MEA is NOT due to obstacles in
>>>adjacent quadrants.
>>>
>>>If I'm on the airway, usually they don't let folks go down to the MOCA,
>>>however if I file direct off-airways, how likely am I to be able to get
>>>the ORCA? The goal is trying to stay below oxygen altitudes in
>>>mountainous terrain while remaining IFR.
>>>
>>> --Dan
>>
>>
>> Although I've never done it, I have read that in that sort of area you
>> could request "VFR-on-top". There is no requirement that this sort of
>> flight be carried out *over* an undercast.
>
>But, it has to be at, or above the minimum IFR altitude, plus comply
>with the VFR altitude rules. Often, that forces you higher than MEA.

I've not flown extensively in mountainous areas. Are there really many
airways with MEA's below the minimum 91.177 IFR altitudes for flight?

Or are you saying that ATC would not grant the clearance because of radar
coverage/MIA/MVA issues?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Sam Spade]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>
> I've not flown extensively in mountainous areas. Are there really many
> airways with MEA's below the minimum 91.177 IFR altitudes for flight?

There used to be only one choice for On Top. Fly a Victor Airway at a
compliant VFR altitude, and not less than the MEA. Since MEAs are
almost always at X-thousand, you have to fly higher than that to be at a
VFR altitude.

Now, with RNAV-direct common, you have to fly at, or above, the Center's
MIA at a VFR altitude. This, of course, provided the controller will
give you the MIA. ;-)

As to you providing your own 91.177 altitude that just won't work in
controlled airspace if it is lower than the MIA.
>
> Or are you saying that ATC would not grant the clearance because of radar
> coverage/MIA/MVA issues?

MIA issues and often radar coverage.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:

>
> Some folks like to know independent of the reassuring voice of Mr.
> Goodscope that the IFR altitude in use is actually safe. There are dead
> pilots that could have benefited greatly had they had that information.



They are not dead because the MVA/MIA altitude was bad. That has never
happened.

[Newps]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


>
> I've not flown extensively in mountainous areas. Are there really many
> airways with MEA's below the minimum 91.177 IFR altitudes for flight?
>
> Or are you saying that ATC would not grant the clearance because of radar
> coverage/MIA/MVA issues?


We have lots of airways whose MEA's are well below the peaks of the
mountains, 4-5000 feet below. A lot of airways zig zag to get into the
low areas or passes between mountains. Some just go right over the top.
As for OTP we don't care about radar coverage. We use OTP everyday
here, more in the winter than the summer. We don't care what altitude
you go at. MVA/MIA is also irrelavant for OTP ops.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:


>
> Now, with RNAV-direct common, you have to fly at, or above, the Center's
> MIA at a VFR altitude.

No.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:46:49 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I've not flown extensively in mountainous areas. Are there really many
>> airways with MEA's below the minimum 91.177 IFR altitudes for flight?
>>
>> Or are you saying that ATC would not grant the clearance because of radar
>> coverage/MIA/MVA issues?
>
>
>We have lots of airways whose MEA's are well below the peaks of the
>mountains, 4-5000 feet below. A lot of airways zig zag to get into the
>low areas or passes between mountains. Some just go right over the top.
> As for OTP we don't care about radar coverage. We use OTP everyday
>here, more in the winter than the summer. We don't care what altitude
>you go at. MVA/MIA is also irrelavant for OTP ops.
>

That's what I thought.

When you write about airways below the peaks -- obviously there are many of
those. But what I wondered, specifically, if there were MEA's lower than
the 91.177 minimum required IFR altitude (2,000' above the highest
obstruction within four miles of your flight path).

So far as the requiremnt (for pilots) for VFR altitudes, that would only
apply at 3000' or more AGL. So would probably not be applicable here.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 06:24:32 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>>
>> I've not flown extensively in mountainous areas. Are there really many
>> airways with MEA's below the minimum 91.177 IFR altitudes for flight?
>
>There used to be only one choice for On Top. Fly a Victor Airway at a
>compliant VFR altitude, and not less than the MEA. Since MEAs are
>almost always at X-thousand, you have to fly higher than that to be at a
>VFR altitude.
>
>Now, with RNAV-direct common, you have to fly at, or above, the Center's
>MIA at a VFR altitude. This, of course, provided the controller will
>give you the MIA. ;-)
>
>As to you providing your own 91.177 altitude that just won't work in
>controlled airspace if it is lower than the MIA.
>>
>> Or are you saying that ATC would not grant the clearance because of radar
>> coverage/MIA/MVA issues?
>
>MIA issues and often radar coverage.


It seems to me I heard of OTP flights at low altitudes well before GPS/RNAV
was common.

So far as the Victor Airway is concerned, my understanding is that it does
not officially exist below the MEA.

So far as VFR cruising altitudes are concerned, if one is below the MEA,
that may or may not apply, depending on AGL altitude.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Newps]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>
> When you write about airways below the peaks -- obviously there are many of
> those. But what I wondered, specifically, if there were MEA's lower than
> the 91.177 minimum required IFR altitude (2,000' above the highest
> obstruction within four miles of your flight path).



No, the MEA would follow the 2000 foot rule over the valley floor.


>
> So far as the requiremnt (for pilots) for VFR altitudes, that would only
> apply at 3000' or more AGL. So would probably not be applicable here.

Required altitudes for pilots flying OTP are the pilots problem. I
simply don't care.

[Newps]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


> So far as the Victor Airway is concerned, my understanding is that it does
> not officially exist below the MEA.

It does insofar as you can be cleared on the airway, OTP, and you choose
to be below the MEA.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>
>> Some folks like to know independent of the reassuring voice of Mr.
>> Goodscope that the IFR altitude in use is actually safe. There are
>> dead pilots that could have benefited greatly had they had that
>> information.
>
>
>
>
> They are not dead because the MVA/MIA altitude was bad. That has never
> happened.

No disgreement here, although MVAs and MIAs have been found in some
cases not to comply with the FAA's own criteria.

In fact, if the MVAs or MIAs were in fatal error, then the pilot would
have no use for that data, would he.

The pilots would not have died had they had some form of MVA awareness
to tell them their position and altitude assignment (or what they
thought was an altitude assignment) placed them below the MVA (or MIA).

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Now, with RNAV-direct common, you have to fly at, or above, the
>> Center's MIA at a VFR altitude.
>
>
> No.
>
>
>
Oh? Please enlighten me.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I've not flown extensively in mountainous areas. Are there really many
>> airways with MEA's below the minimum 91.177 IFR altitudes for flight?
>>
>> Or are you saying that ATC would not grant the clearance because of radar
>> coverage/MIA/MVA issues?
>
>
>
> We have lots of airways whose MEA's are well below the peaks of the
> mountains, 4-5000 feet below. A lot of airways zig zag to get into the
> low areas or passes between mountains. Some just go right over the top.
> As for OTP we don't care about radar coverage. We use OTP everyday
> here, more in the winter than the summer. We don't care what altitude
> you go at. MVA/MIA is also irrelavant for OTP ops.
>
>
You may not care, but that doesn't change the position of FAA
headquarters (note "minimum IFR altitudes in No 3).

From the AIM:

e. When operating in VFR conditions with an ATC authorization to
“maintain VFR-on-top/maintain VFR conditions” pilots on IFR flight plans
must:

1. Fly at the appropriate VFR altitude as prescribed in 14 CFR Section
91.159.

2. Comply with the VFR visibility and distance from cloud criteria in 14
CFR Section 91.155 (Basic VFR Weather Minimums).

3. Comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to this
flight; i.e., minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio
communications, course to be flown, adherence to ATC clearance, etc.

[Sam Spade]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:46:49 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I've not flown extensively in mountainous areas. Are there really many
>>>airways with MEA's below the minimum 91.177 IFR altitudes for flight?
>>>
>>>Or are you saying that ATC would not grant the clearance because of radar
>>>coverage/MIA/MVA issues?
>>
>>
>>We have lots of airways whose MEA's are well below the peaks of the
>>mountains, 4-5000 feet below. A lot of airways zig zag to get into the
>>low areas or passes between mountains. Some just go right over the top.
>> As for OTP we don't care about radar coverage. We use OTP everyday
>>here, more in the winter than the summer. We don't care what altitude
>>you go at. MVA/MIA is also irrelavant for OTP ops.
>>
>
>
> That's what I thought.

Both of you need to read the AIM 4-4-7. It doesn't say, "Unless
otherwise authorized by ATC." ;-)

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
> Required altitudes for pilots flying OTP are the pilots problem. I
> simply don't care.
>
>

That sums it up. In the final analysis, it is the pilots' responsiblity
to obey FARs and directive information in the AIM.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Now, with RNAV-direct common, you have to fly at, or above, the
>>> Center's MIA at a VFR altitude.
>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>>
>>
> Oh? Please enlighten me.

We do it every night with the Beech 99's and 1900's that fly the mail
for the postal service. They all want OTP now that the winter winds are
howling. Most want direct also so we clear them direct and OTP. They
will often start out at 6500 westbound, my MVA is 7,000 starting 20
miles out. Not my problem. They are way below the center's MIA,
especially as they near the mountains. Salt Lake terminates radar as
they're way too low for that and asks for a position report in 100 miles
or so. The pilots do not offer or request an altitude and neither we
here at BIL or at ZLC asks.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:


>
> e. When operating in VFR conditions with an ATC authorization to
> “maintain VFR-on-top/maintain VFR conditions” pilots on IFR flight plans
> must:
>
> 1. Fly at the appropriate VFR altitude as prescribed in 14 CFR Section
> 91.159.
>
> 2. Comply with the VFR visibility and distance from cloud criteria in 14
> CFR Section 91.155 (Basic VFR Weather Minimums).
>
> 3. Comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to this
> flight; i.e., minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio
> communications, course to be flown, adherence to ATC clearance, etc.




That's great but that's a problem for pilots, not ATC.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:15:20 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>
>> So far as the Victor Airway is concerned, my understanding is that it does
>> not officially exist below the MEA.
>
>It does insofar as you can be cleared on the airway, OTP, and you choose
>to be below the MEA.
>
>

What I read is that "technically" you should be clearing "via the radials
of V123" rather than "via V123"
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Newps]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>>
>>
>
> What I read is that "technically" you should be clearing "via the radials
> of V123" rather than "via V123"

We don't because we have no idea what altitude you desire.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:27:42 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:46:49 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've not flown extensively in mountainous areas. Are there really many
>>>>airways with MEA's below the minimum 91.177 IFR altitudes for flight?
>>>>
>>>>Or are you saying that ATC would not grant the clearance because of radar
>>>>coverage/MIA/MVA issues?
>>>
>>>
>>>We have lots of airways whose MEA's are well below the peaks of the
>>>mountains, 4-5000 feet below. A lot of airways zig zag to get into the
>>>low areas or passes between mountains. Some just go right over the top.
>>> As for OTP we don't care about radar coverage. We use OTP everyday
>>>here, more in the winter than the summer. We don't care what altitude
>>>you go at. MVA/MIA is also irrelavant for OTP ops.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's what I thought.
>
>Both of you need to read the AIM 4-4-7. It doesn't say, "Unless
>otherwise authorized by ATC." ;-)

4-4-7 does not appear to prohibit (for the pilot) operations at 91.177
compliant altitudes. If ATC does not issue me an altitude restriction,
then 91.177 would apply.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Newps, drop me a line via return mail please.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>>
>> e. When operating in VFR conditions with an ATC authorization to
>> “maintain VFR-on-top/maintain VFR conditions” pilots on IFR flight
>> plans must:
>>
>> 1. Fly at the appropriate VFR altitude as prescribed in 14 CFR Section
>> 91.159.
>>
>> 2. Comply with the VFR visibility and distance from cloud criteria in
>> 14 CFR Section 91.155 (Basic VFR Weather Minimums).
>>
>> 3. Comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to this
>> flight; i.e., minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio
>> communications, course to be flown, adherence to ATC clearance, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> That's great but that's a problem for pilots, not ATC.

I agree. But, some ATC facilities will take the pilot to task if he
wants to go below MEA or MIA.

[Sam Spade]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


>
> 4-4-7 does not appear to prohibit (for the pilot) operations at 91.177
> compliant altitudes. If ATC does not issue me an altitude restriction,
> then 91.177 would apply.

I would agree. But, few pilots can figure that one out.

Then, if I am with a Center that is trained to take exception with
altitudes below the MEA or MIA, then they will also take exception with
my 91.177 selection, if it is "too low."

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:07:41 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>
>>
>> 4-4-7 does not appear to prohibit (for the pilot) operations at 91.177
>> compliant altitudes. If ATC does not issue me an altitude restriction,
>> then 91.177 would apply.
>
>I would agree. But, few pilots can figure that one out.
>
>Then, if I am with a Center that is trained to take exception with
>altitudes below the MEA or MIA, then they will also take exception with
>my 91.177 selection, if it is "too low."

True, but it is ATC's responsibility to issue me a clearance of "VFR on top
at or above nnnn"
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Sam Spade]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:07:41 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>4-4-7 does not appear to prohibit (for the pilot) operations at 91.177
>>>compliant altitudes. If ATC does not issue me an altitude restriction,
>>>then 91.177 would apply.
>>
>>I would agree. But, few pilots can figure that one out.
>>
>>Then, if I am with a Center that is trained to take exception with
>>altitudes below the MEA or MIA, then they will also take exception with
>>my 91.177 selection, if it is "too low."
>
>
> True, but it is ATC's responsibility to issue me a clearance of "VFR on top
> at or above nnnn"
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)


I haven't done it in a long time myself. I did have LA Center a couple
times way back when say "Unable to approve VFR on top at the requested
altitude.."

So, since On Top is an amendment to an IFR clearance I think they can
make whatever they choose out of their responsibilities with on On-Top
amendment to your IFR clearance.

Some controllers or facilities, particularly a mountain-area center,
might reasonably be very unconfortable with the IFR flight plan aspect
of the aircraft being below MIA or MEA.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:09:40 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:


>
>
>I haven't done it in a long time myself. I did have LA Center a couple
>times way back when say "Unable to approve VFR on top at the requested
>altitude.."
>
>So, since On Top is an amendment to an IFR clearance I think they can
>make whatever they choose out of their responsibilities with on On-Top
>amendment to your IFR clearance.
>
>Some controllers or facilities, particularly a mountain-area center,
>might reasonably be very unconfortable with the IFR flight plan aspect
>of the aircraft being below MIA or MEA.

No doubt.

Here in the NE I've only used OTP to get through an overcast.

And my usual clearance would be basically out of the 7110.65. Something
like:

CLIMB TO AND REPORT REACHING VFR-ON-TOP,
NO TOPS REPORTS.
IF NOT ON TOP AT 7000', MAINTAIN 7000', AND ADVISE.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Sam Spade]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:09:40 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>I haven't done it in a long time myself. I did have LA Center a couple
>>times way back when say "Unable to approve VFR on top at the requested
>>altitude.."
>>
>>So, since On Top is an amendment to an IFR clearance I think they can
>>make whatever they choose out of their responsibilities with on On-Top
>>amendment to your IFR clearance.
>>
>>Some controllers or facilities, particularly a mountain-area center,
>>might reasonably be very unconfortable with the IFR flight plan aspect
>>of the aircraft being below MIA or MEA.
>
>
> No doubt.
>
> Here in the NE I've only used OTP to get through an overcast.
>
> And my usual clearance would be basically out of the 7110.65. Something
> like:
>
> CLIMB TO AND REPORT REACHING VFR-ON-TOP,
> NO TOPS REPORTS.
> IF NOT ON TOP AT 7000', MAINTAIN 7000', AND ADVISE.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Picking at nits, that is a clearance to on top, as opposed to modifying
an en route IFR clearance from an assigned altitude to en route on top.
In the former you are excepted to cancel reaching on top. What you do
is a very common practice around here in terminal airspace, and always
has an altitude assignment at, or above MVA. I suppose it could be done
with a center at an airport where they provide terminal service. Never
done that (always files a full en route IFR flight plan out of such
airports; PRB coming to mind where I have done that a lot.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:55:42 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:09:40 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I haven't done it in a long time myself. I did have LA Center a couple
>>>times way back when say "Unable to approve VFR on top at the requested
>>>altitude.."
>>>
>>>So, since On Top is an amendment to an IFR clearance I think they can
>>>make whatever they choose out of their responsibilities with on On-Top
>>>amendment to your IFR clearance.
>>>
>>>Some controllers or facilities, particularly a mountain-area center,
>>>might reasonably be very unconfortable with the IFR flight plan aspect
>>>of the aircraft being below MIA or MEA.
>>
>>
>> No doubt.
>>
>> Here in the NE I've only used OTP to get through an overcast.
>>
>> And my usual clearance would be basically out of the 7110.65. Something
>> like:
>>
>> CLIMB TO AND REPORT REACHING VFR-ON-TOP,
>> NO TOPS REPORTS.
>> IF NOT ON TOP AT 7000', MAINTAIN 7000', AND ADVISE.
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
>Picking at nits, that is a clearance to on top, as opposed to modifying
>an en route IFR clearance from an assigned altitude to en route on top.
> In the former you are excepted to cancel reaching on top. What you do
>is a very common practice around here in terminal airspace, and always
>has an altitude assignment at, or above MVA. I suppose it could be done
>with a center at an airport where they provide terminal service. Never
>done that (always files a full en route IFR flight plan out of such
>airports; PRB coming to mind where I have done that a lot.


You're correct, of course.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:

>> And my usual clearance would be basically out of the 7110.65. Something
>> like:
>>
>> CLIMB TO AND REPORT REACHING VFR-ON-TOP,
>> NO TOPS REPORTS.
>> IF NOT ON TOP AT 7000', MAINTAIN 7000', AND ADVISE.
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
> Picking at nits, that is a clearance to on top, as opposed to modifying
> an en route IFR clearance from an assigned altitude to en route on top.
> In the former you are excepted to cancel reaching on top.

Not true. If you have to climb thru the clouds and desire to cruise
with an OTP clearance this is exactly what you'd get. The 7000 is
probably the top of the controllers airspace or a necessary altitude to
separate you from traffic. A place like southern California sometimes
develops a routine where they get a clearance like you suggest so they
can climb thru the marine layer.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>> And my usual clearance would be basically out of the 7110.65. Something
>>> like:
>>>
>>> CLIMB TO AND REPORT REACHING VFR-ON-TOP,
>>> NO TOPS REPORTS.
>>> IF NOT ON TOP AT 7000', MAINTAIN 7000', AND ADVISE.
>>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>>
>>
>> Picking at nits, that is a clearance to on top, as opposed to
>> modifying an en route IFR clearance from an assigned altitude to en
>> route on top. In the former you are excepted to cancel reaching on top.
>
>
> Not true. If you have to climb thru the clouds and desire to cruise
> with an OTP clearance this is exactly what you'd get. The 7000 is
> probably the top of the controllers airspace or a necessary altitude to
> separate you from traffic. A place like southern California sometimes
> develops a routine where they get a clearance like you suggest so they
> can climb thru the marine layer.
>
In Southern California and all other stratus-laden areas of California,
which are in TRACON airspace, the assignment is alway at, or above MVA,
and predicated on recent pilot reports.

It is not possible (at least in these parts) to continue such a
clearance as an IFR, VFR-on top without an IFR flight plan. If there
was an IFR flight plan there would usually not be a clearance to on-top.

Are you saying if, for example I am departing BIL, and without a flight
plan I request a climb to on top, and then when on top I request on-top
to Salt Lake City, you would grant it?

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:

>>
> In Southern California and all other stratus-laden areas of California,
> which are in TRACON airspace, the assignment is alway at, or above MVA,
> and predicated on recent pilot reports.
>
> It is not possible (at least in these parts) to continue such a
> clearance as an IFR, VFR-on top without an IFR flight plan. If there
> was an IFR flight plan there would usually not be a clearance to on-top.
>
> Are you saying if, for example I am departing BIL, and without a flight
> plan I request a climb to on top, and then when on top I request on-top
> to Salt Lake City, you would grant it?


Of course. It would be nicer if you had already filed a flight plan to
SLC because then I can just change the altitude in the computer to OTP,
but I can always quickly enter the flight plan. Our cargo guys here
have prefiled IFR flight plans. Whenever they can they go OTP and they
often tell us they are OTP as they are taxiing out. So we never give
them a hard altitude but simply "maintain VFR OTP". This works because
most days are just like today, not a cloud in the sky.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
> Of course. It would be nicer if you had already filed a flight plan to
> SLC because then I can just change the altitude in the computer to OTP,
> but I can always quickly enter the flight plan. Our cargo guys here
> have prefiled IFR flight plans. Whenever they can they go OTP and they
> often tell us they are OTP as they are taxiing out. So we never give
> them a hard altitude but simply "maintain VFR OTP". This works because
> most days are just like today, not a cloud in the sky.

That is great service and almost certainly limited to a small TRACON
surrounded by miles of sparsely used (at least low-altitude) airspace.

It wouldn't get anywhere with SoCal Super-TRACON. They have the
"tower-to-tower" routes that will get you from San Diego to Santa
Barbara, and airport pairs between. They would expect me to use that
canned service.

If I want to go further than that they would expect a pre-filed flight
plan. I have never tried but I suspect SoCal would not grant an OTP
request on a "tower-to-tower" route. I am not sure they would ever
grant a level-flight OPT in any circumstances. They would probably say
something to the effect, "make your on-top request to Los Angeles
Center. ZLA, of course, would usually grant the request. But, in a
light aircraft you don't get to talk to ZLA until your out of the huge
metro basin.