Getting the MOCA

Mitty wrote:


On 6/23/2006 8:25 PM, Steven P. McNicoll wrote the following:

"Mitty" wrote in message
...

No it's not. I have gotten lower than MIA. Just this Wednesday, in
fact. It was a VFR day but I was on an IFR flight plan.


So you were cleared via airways and got the MEA or the MOCA which was
lower than the MIA?

Typing speed ovecame brain speed. I was cleared below the MEA, not the
MIA.

You probably were not cleared below the MIA.

Sam Spade writes:
[snip]
However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route
or route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down
to, but not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR
concerned (based on the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance).

Idle curiosity: From whence came the magic 22 nm. number?
The VOR turns into a pumpkin at 22.1 nm?

Idle curiosity: From whence came the magic 22 nm. number?

"Whence". Not "from whence". "Whence" means "from where". "Whither"
means "to where". "Wither" means "it no longer matters to where".

As to your original question, some idle speculation - the VORs are
certified and flight tested out to 22nm, and beyond that they are not
guaranteed to be usable.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Everett M. Greene wrote:
Sam Spade writes:
[snip]

However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route
or route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down
to, but not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR
concerned (based on the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance).


Idle curiosity: From whence came the magic 22 nm. number?
The VOR turns into a pumpkin at 22.1 nm?

It is 25 s.m., which is 22 n.m.

I can only speculate that in the early days of VOR it became quickly
apparent that relief from the MEA when nearing a VOR on an airway with a
lower MOCA would provide better descent transitions onto IAPs, etc.

The feds probably had a meeting and asked the electronic experts to come
up with a distance that would work everywhere.

That's how things like that usually come about.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:Nbdng.34735$AB3.24485@fed1read02...

No, I don't. I keep reading the FARs, unlike you.


It's a pity you're unable to comprehend what you've read.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:Nbdng.34735$AB3.24485@fed1read02...

No, I don't. I keep reading the FARs, unlike you.



It's a pity you're unable to comprehend what you've read.



I comprehend the following language of Part 91 a whole lot better than
you do. Then again, I don't argue with regulations, charts, procedures,
safe operating practices, conservative flight operations, etc.

"However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route
or route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down
to, but not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR
concerned (based on the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance)."

"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message
. ..

Idle curiosity: From whence came the magic 22 nm. number?
The VOR turns into a pumpkin at 22.1 nm?


Can't say for sure, but the 22 knot and 44 knot rules for longitudinal
separation were known as the 25 mph and 50 mph rules before knots and
nautical miles replaced mph and statute miles as standard units for speed
and distance in aviation. I'd bet the magic number for MOCA used to be 25
miles.

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...

As to your original question, some idle speculation - the VORs are
certified and flight tested out to 22nm, and beyond that they are not
guaranteed to be usable.


Service volume of VORs varies with the class of the VOR and altitude, but
the standard for even Terminal VORs is 25 NM.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:mBing.34763$AB3.32586@fed1read02...

I comprehend the following language of Part 91 a whole lot better than you
do.


Actually, you don't, you only think that you do.



Then again, I don't argue with regulations, charts, procedures, safe
operating practices, conservative flight operations, etc.


If what you wrote in these forums was consistent with regulations, charts,
procedures, safe operating practices, conservative flight operations, etc.,
we would never have an argument. There are regular users here that possess
a great deal of valuable information and experience. They present a
valuable educational resource, but you must change your attitude in order to
take advantage of it.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:mBing.34763$AB3.32586@fed1read02...

I comprehend the following language of Part 91 a whole lot better than you
do.



Actually, you don't, you only think that you do.



Then again, I don't argue with regulations, charts, procedures, safe
operating practices, conservative flight operations, etc.



If what you wrote in these forums was consistent with regulations, charts,
procedures, safe operating practices, conservative flight operations, etc.,
we would never have an argument. There are regular users here that possess
a great deal of valuable information and experience. They present a
valuable educational resource, but you must change your attitude in order to
take advantage of it.


Right. You are so full of it, Stevie, it is no wonder many regulars
won't even let you suck them in to feed your tiny, bruised ego.