ORCA lower than MEA?

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reads (or mis-reads) the outdated MVA chart he pulled off the web and flies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.