ORCA lower than MEA?

Dan wrote:

I (and just about everyone else these days) is using an IFR certified
GPS unit, but I suppose we'll be stuck with the VOR technology limits
until ATC moves into the 20th century....

Then, once they get comfortable with that, maybe they will move into
this century. ;-)

Ron Natalie wrote:


No you're not. If you're in radar coverage you can go direct to the
other end of the airway (or anywhere else) at any appropriate
minimum IFR altitude. The MEA isn't limitting unless you are
using VOR's to fly the Victor airway.

He has to have a controller willing to assign him the MIA under the
airway then keep an eye on it all.

Ron Natalie wrote:

rps wrote:


Doesn't an MEA also guarantee communications reception unless an MRA
indicates a higher altitude?


No. Com reception is not a factor in MEA determination. MRA has
nothing to do with comm either. The MRA tells you that you can
receive the nav signal that is used to define an intersection (from
an off airway navaid).

Wrong. Here is the Victor Airways TERPS:

1718. MINIMUM ENROUTE INSTRUMENT ALTITUDES (MEA). An MEA will be
established for each segment of an airway/route from radio fix to radio
fix. The MEA will be established based upon obstacle clearance over the
terrain or over manmade objects, adequacy of navigation facility
performance, and communications requirements. Segments are designated
West to East and South to North. Altitudes will be established to the
nearest 100 foot increment; that is, 2049 feet becomes 2000, and 2050
feet become 2100.

Sam Spade wrote:
Dan wrote:

I don't suppose this MIA information is avaliable or published
somewhere is it? It would be useful for flight planning.

No, they guard that stuff like it belongs only to them.




More drivel.

Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:

Dan wrote:

I don't suppose this MIA information is avaliable or published
somewhere is it? It would be useful for flight planning.

No, they guard that stuff like it belongs only to them.





More drivel.

Rather than just making such a cavalier statement, why not be positive
and point us pions to the public source for MIA charts.

Sam Spade wrote:
Newps wrote:



Sam Spade wrote:

Dan wrote:

I don't suppose this MIA information is avaliable or published
somewhere is it? It would be useful for flight planning.

No, they guard that stuff like it belongs only to them.






More drivel.


Rather than just making such a cavalier statement, why not be positive
and point us pions to the public source for MIA charts.

I have no idea if there is a website with all the data. I have
occasionally come across various MVA or MIA maps online. But nobody
guards it as it isn't sensitive. Stop by any facility and they'll make
a copy for you.

Sam Spade wrote:
Ron Natalie wrote:

rps wrote:


Doesn't an MEA also guarantee communications reception unless an MRA
indicates a higher altitude?


No. Com reception is not a factor in MEA determination. MRA has
nothing to do with comm either. The MRA tells you that you can
receive the nav signal that is used to define an intersection (from
an off airway navaid).

Wrong. Here is the Victor Airways TERPS:

1718. MINIMUM ENROUTE INSTRUMENT ALTITUDES (MEA). An MEA will be
established for each segment of an airway/route from radio fix to radio
fix. The MEA will be established based upon obstacle clearance over the
terrain or over manmade objects, adequacy of navigation facility
performance, and communications requirements. Segments are designated
West to East and South to North. Altitudes will be established to the
nearest 100 foot increment; that is, 2049 feet becomes 2000, and 2050
feet become 2100.

You missed the rest of the line that says "...although adequate
communication at the MEA is not guaranteed." The MRA has nothing
whatsoever to do with communciations requirements.

Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:

Newps wrote:



Sam Spade wrote:

Dan wrote:

I don't suppose this MIA information is avaliable or published
somewhere is it? It would be useful for flight planning.

No, they guard that stuff like it belongs only to them.







More drivel.



Rather than just making such a cavalier statement, why not be positive
and point us pions to the public source for MIA charts.


I have no idea if there is a website with all the data. I have
occasionally come across various MVA or MIA maps online. But nobody
guards it as it isn't sensitive. Stop by any facility and they'll make
a copy for you.

There is no web site with MIA data. I had to make a Freedom of
Information Act request to get MIA data for a couple centers. The group
I work with had the same problem with MVAs, but got those loosened up.

What you are saying is true, but it means stopping by the facility with
one's hat in their hand. That does not help the OP at all.

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.

AIM
4-4-7. IFR Clearance VFR-on-top

a. A pilot on an IFR flight plan operating in VFR weather conditions, may
request VFR-on-top in lieu of an assigned altitude. This permits a pilot to
select an altitude or flight level of their choice (subject to any ATC
restrictions.)

....

e. When operating in VFR conditions with an ATC authorization to "maintain
VFR-on-top/maintain VFR conditions" pilots on IFR flight plans must:

1. Fly at the appropriate VFR altitude as prescribed in 14 CFR Section
91.159.

2. Comply with the VFR visibility and distance from cloud criteria in 14
CFR Section 91.155 (Basic VFR Weather Minimums).

3. Comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to this flight;
i.e., minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio communications,
course to be flown, adherence to ATC clearance, etc.

....

--------------------------------


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Natalie wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

Ron Natalie wrote:

rps wrote:


Doesn't an MEA also guarantee communications reception unless an MRA
indicates a higher altitude?



No. Com reception is not a factor in MEA determination. MRA has
nothing to do with comm either. The MRA tells you that you can
receive the nav signal that is used to define an intersection (from
an off airway navaid).


Wrong. Here is the Victor Airways TERPS:

1718. MINIMUM ENROUTE INSTRUMENT ALTITUDES (MEA). An MEA will be
established for each segment of an airway/route from radio fix to
radio fix. The MEA will be established based upon obstacle clearance
over the terrain or over manmade objects, adequacy of navigation
facility performance, and communications requirements. Segments are
designated West to East and South to North. Altitudes will be
established to the nearest 100 foot increment; that is, 2049 feet
becomes 2000, and 2050 feet become 2100.


You missed the rest of the line that says "...although adequate
communication at the MEA is not guaranteed." The MRA has nothing
whatsoever to do with communciations requirements.

That is not pertinent to your statement "No, Com reception is not a
factor in MEA determination." That is just plain wrong.

Then, you go on to discuss MRA. That is a different issue.