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reads (or mis-reads) the outdated MVA chart he pulled off the web and flies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

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?

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 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 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).

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.