A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Minimum Safe Altitude (MSA) Standards



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 11th 04, 03:34 AM
Andrew Sarangan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is some good info about MSA that I did not realize. But I am
still a bit confused. The AIM says that MSA provides 1000 ft clearance
over all obstacles, implying that it satisfies the minimum IFR
altitudes (in non-mountainous areas). Is this statement incorrect?
Also, if the MSA is not accurate for IFR, how much extra work is it
anyway to produce a chart with an MSA that conforms to IFR standards?
The numbers are already available from the enroute charts, so it can't
be that difficult, right?



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.

  #22  
Old March 11th 04, 02:24 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Andrew Sarangan wrote:

This is some good info about MSA that I did not realize. But I am
still a bit confused. The AIM says that MSA provides 1000 ft clearance
over all obstacles, implying that it satisfies the minimum IFR
altitudes (in non-mountainous areas). Is this statement incorrect?
Also, if the MSA is not accurate for IFR, how much extra work is it
anyway to produce a chart with an MSA that conforms to IFR standards?
The numbers are already available from the enroute charts, so it can't
be that difficult, right?


The AIM parrots the cartographic standard set forth for MSAs. What I explained is the
reality of how they are constructed. They are intended for emergency use, and with
today's technology their value for that use is questionable.

In any case, the altitude you really want is the center's minimum instrument altitude
sectors on a moving map. Or, approach control's MVA sectors on a moving map when in a
TRACON's airspace. Those are coming, because the FAA recently relented and agreed to
release them (well, the MVAs anyway). It will be a while though.

  #23  
Old March 20th 04, 09:13 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



J Haggerty wrote:

MSA's do not ensure NAVAID or radio reception, and may even contain
sectors that are known areas of no signal coverage. They just ensure 951
feet of obstacle clearance within the specified distance from the NAVAID.


True, except 951 is no longer permitted per AFS-420. No more rounding down on TERPs ROC.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:26 PM
Reasoning behind course reversal Michael 182 Instrument Flight Rules 26 February 27th 04 04:27 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.