ORCA lower than MEA?

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)

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.

Sam Spade wrote:



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

No.

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 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, drop me a line via return mail please.

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)

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.

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)

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.