If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Sarangan wrote: I realize that that is what the AIM says, but why are they to be used for emergencies only? I always interpreted the MSA as the minimum altitude to use when flying off-feeder routes (direct to the IAF), sort of like the OROCA when flying off-airways. In many countries MSAs are operational altitudes. They are not in the United States. And, in a designated mountainous area you are required by 91.177 to have 2,000 feet vertically or 4 miles laterally when off a published route or segment. MSAs are not IFR altitudes, routes, or segments. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I defer to sammy, who says what I would have said.
Bob "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message om... I realize that that is what the AIM says, but why are they to be used for emergencies only? I always interpreted the MSA as the minimum altitude to use when flying off-feeder routes (direct to the IAF), sort of like the OROCA when flying off-airways. "Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:EJJ2c.135940$4o.172500@attbi_s52... The context of minimum sector altitudes is important...they are to be used only in emergencies. I see many postings in which a pilot is trying to fit an MSA into an approach procedure. Bob Gardner |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Sarangan wrote: I agree that MSA does not satisfy the altitudes in mountainous areas. But in nonmountainous areas MSA does satisfy the altitude requirements. What am I missing here? That they are not published as IFR altitudes under either of the pertinent IFR alitude regulations, Part 95 or Part 97. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Andrew Sarangan wrote: I agree that MSA does not satisfy the altitudes in mountainous areas. But in nonmountainous areas MSA does satisfy the altitude requirements. What am I missing here? That they are not published as IFR altitudes under either of the pertinent IFR alitude regulations, Part 95 or Part 97. True, but under the circumstances Andrew described (flying off-route direct to an IAF), Parts 95 and 97 do not prescribe a minimum altitude. Hence, 91.177a2 applies. In a non-mountainous area, 91.177a2ii specifies a condition that can be assured by reference to the MSA. --Gary |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote: wrote in message ... Andrew Sarangan wrote: I agree that MSA does not satisfy the altitudes in mountainous areas. But in nonmountainous areas MSA does satisfy the altitude requirements. What am I missing here? That they are not published as IFR altitudes under either of the pertinent IFR alitude regulations, Part 95 or Part 97. True, but under the circumstances Andrew described (flying off-route direct to an IAF), Parts 95 and 97 do not prescribe a minimum altitude. Hence, 91.177a2 applies. In a non-mountainous area, 91.177a2ii specifies a condition that can be assured by reference to the MSA. --Gary Your responsibilities under the off-route provisions of 91.177 you site are absolute. OTOH, the design of MSAs by the FAA are done with sectional charts and are not assessed with the precision that are accorded IFR altitudes. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Gary Drescher wrote: wrote in message ... Andrew Sarangan wrote: I agree that MSA does not satisfy the altitudes in mountainous areas. But in nonmountainous areas MSA does satisfy the altitude requirements. What am I missing here? That they are not published as IFR altitudes under either of the pertinent IFR alitude regulations, Part 95 or Part 97. True, but under the circumstances Andrew described (flying off-route direct to an IAF), Parts 95 and 97 do not prescribe a minimum altitude. Hence, 91.177a2 applies. In a non-mountainous area, 91.177a2ii specifies a condition that can be assured by reference to the MSA. --Gary Your responsibilities under the off-route provisions of 91.177 you site are absolute. OTOH, the design of MSAs by the FAA are done with sectional charts Which is typically how I'd ascertain an off-route minimum altitude in accord with 91.177a2. and are not assessed with the precision that are accorded IFR altitudes. I'm not sure what you mean by "precision" here. The parameters are clearly specified: 1000' above any obstacle in the designated sector. (The MSA doesn't assure navaid reception, though, so that has to be assessed separately.) --Gary |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
and are not assessed with the precision that are accorded IFR altitudes. I'm not sure what you mean by "precision" here. The parameters are clearly specified: 1000' above any obstacle in the designated sector. (The MSA doesn't assure navaid reception, though, so that has to be assessed separately.) The folks who design approach procedures at the FAA use very precise topographical information to design the published segments of an instrument approach procedure. For MSAs, though, they simply use sectionals, which may not provide the required obstacle clearance at all times, simply because sectionals do not have the accuracy that USGS 1:24,000 topos have. Plus, when the FAA assesses the published segments they add 200 feet of assumed adverse obstacle ("AAO") pad, because folks can construct towers, etc, up to 200 feet high without notifying the FAA, unless the towers are within certain distances of an airport. There is no AAO assessment made for MSAs, though. Also, spot elevations on sectionals can be off by a fair abount, without adversly affecting their stated purpose; i.e., VFR navigation charts. And, contours on sectionals are very coarse, although that isn't usually an issue in non-mountainous areas. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
and are not assessed with the precision that are accorded IFR altitudes. I'm not sure what you mean by "precision" here. The parameters are clearly specified: 1000' above any obstacle in the designated sector. (The MSA doesn't assure navaid reception, though, so that has to be assessed separately.) The folks who design approach procedures at the FAA use very precise topographical information to design the published segments of an instrument approach procedure. For MSAs, though, they simply use sectionals, which may not provide the required obstacle clearance at all times, simply because sectionals do not have the accuracy that USGS 1:24,000 topos have. Plus, when the FAA assesses the published segments they add 200 feet of assumed adverse obstacle ("AAO") pad, because folks can construct towers, etc, up to 200 feet high without notifying the FAA, unless the towers are within certain distances of an airport. There is no AAO assessment made for MSAs, though. Also, spot elevations on sectionals can be off by a fair abount, without adversly affecting their stated purpose; i.e., VFR navigation charts. And, contours on sectionals are very coarse, although that isn't usually an issue in non-mountainous areas. Hm, so you're saying that the MSA doesn't necessarily provide the obstacle clearance that it's advertised to provide. I hadn't considered that possibility. Are you familiar with any example of an obstacle that's less than 1000' below a current MSA? Thanks, Gary |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote: Hm, so you're saying that the MSA doesn't necessarily provide the obstacle clearance that it's advertised to provide. I hadn't considered that possibility. Are you familiar with any example of an obstacle that's less than 1000' below a current MSA? Thanks, Gary Well, it's an emperical conclusion based on the certain knowledge that some TRACON MVA charts have been found to have less than required obstacle clearance, because sectional charts were used in their construction. The difference there is that ATC assigns you the MVA, so that is the FAA's "fault," not your's. But, if you elect to use an MSA as an IFR altitude, that is strictly your deal. Are you going to be at risk because of this? No, I don't think so. The point I am trying to make is that MSAs are almost an afterthought to the procedures designer. A lot of folks in the charting business would like to do away with them entirely. That has pretty much happened with RNAV MSAs that do not have sectors. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Reasoning behind course reversal | Michael 182 | Instrument Flight Rules | 26 | February 27th 04 03:27 PM |
Requirement to fly departure procedures | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 77 | October 15th 03 06:39 PM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Instrument Flight Rules | 42 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |