BE1900 CFIT in Alaska Last Year

[roncachamp]

The crew should have been out ahead the airplane and ahead of ATC. They should not have been simply responding to instructions "monkey see monkey do" style. when they asked for direct they should have already known their minimum acceptable altitude and not taken any thing less from ATC.

The crew didn't have to take anything less from ATC. The clearance stated “at or above 2,000 ft. MSL until established on a published segment of the approach.” At the time the clearance was issued they were within the TAA, they were on a published segment of the approach. It's pretty clear the controller didn't have a good understanding of TAAs, if he had his clearance would not have included any altitude. It's also clear the flight crew's understanding wasn't any better than the controller's.

 

[dtuuri]

I will point it out when you are clearly wrong, and don't understand the TAA concept, in this case.

No, you point it out when YOU'RE wrong. Like still using outdated fuel reserves after the chief counsel interpretation that effectively changes it to after the missed approach from before it and not following lost comm rules after you've filed direct to an airport and flying across the center of an airport at TPA and telling everyone it's legal when you have no authority to make such a statement (even the FAA doesn't say that--and they DO have the authority). I can respond to reasonable disagreement in a civilized debate or I can return fire in kind, it's up to you.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

The crew didn't have to take anything less from ATC. The clearance stated “at or above 2,000 ft. MSL until established on a published segment of the approach.” At the time the clearance was issued they were within the TAA, they were on a published segment of the approach. It's pretty clear the controller didn't have a good understanding of TAAs, if he had his clearance would not have included any altitude. It's also clear the flight crew's understanding wasn't any better than the controller's.

All true. I'm speaking to newbies like Jaybird--don't let ATC kill you. That's all.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

No, you point it out when YOU'RE wrong. Like still using outdated fuel reserves after the chief counsel interpretation that effectively changes it to after the missed approach from before it and not following lost comm rules after you've filed direct to an airport and flying across the center of an airport at TPA and telling everyone it's legal when you have no authority to make such a statement (even the FAA doesn't say that--and they DO have the authority). I can respond to reasonable disagreement in a civilized debate or I can return fire in kind, it's up to you.

No, you are the one who likes to twist the interpretations of the regs to read as something that 99% of other pilots wouldn't recognize. I don't care what you do in your own flying but you purport to be an authority telling other people what to do, and I want others to know that some of your interpretations are just crazy.

 

[aterpster]

True, am I missing something.

You are missing the "...or above" as part of the approach clearance from the center controller.

 

[aterpster]

It is not clear to me that pilots and controllers understand the meaning of the TAA. If you don't understand what is required, it is difficult to break the chain. I have raised the issue with ATPAC regarding clearing an aircraft to fly a route or segment below the minimum charted altitude. I believe that one of the links in this chain involved this systemic failure.

Because this crew desired the RNAV 19, they should not have entered the TAA at less than 5,400. At some locations 2,000 could be fatal early on with a TAA of 5,400.

The topography of this particular location was unusual.

 

[aterpster]

Here is an interesting article about modern mapping technology and how poor the present topographical data is for Alaska.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...2e601e-4fd4-11e4-8c24-487e92bc997b_story.html

 

[dtuuri]

...you purport to be an authority telling other people what to do, and I want others to know that some of your interpretations are just crazy.

You defend dogma by parroting it not by defending it. You could have said how you believe what I told Jaybird was incorrect, but instead belittled my post. Further, I do not "puport" to be an authority. My qualifications are listed here and on my website for what they are, nothing more. I engage in debate with others much less qualified without attaking their credentials because I believe my opinions are supported by the facts I present and any truly neutral observers will see that and agree with me. If you don't agree, please defend your opinion with other facts... or be silent.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

You defend dogma by parroting it not by defending it. You could have said how you believe what I told Jaybird was incorrect, but instead belittled my post. Further, I do not "puport" to be an authority. My qualifications are listed here and on my website for what they are, nothing more. I engage in debate with others much less qualified without attaking their credentials because I believe my opinions are supported by the facts I present and any truly neutral observers will see that and agree with me. If you don't agree, please defend your opinion with other facts... or be silent.

The fact that you think the accident has anything to do with the pilot asking for direct is incorrect. 2,000 would have been too low for that approach no matter what routing was used. Look at the TAA altitudes.

 

[weilke]

Not to derail the thread but I know of numerous nav aids with the same identifier as the airport and that don't comply with what I bolded above.

FAR vortac is 10 miles south of KFAR the airport.

 

[weilke]

The topography of this particular location was unusual.

The pic had 5000hrs flying freight for that operator, he must have flown that route 100eds of times.

 

[dtuuri]

The fact that you think the accident has anything to do with the pilot asking for direct is incorrect. 2,000 would have been too low for that approach no matter what routing was used. Look at the TAA altitudes.

My response was to Jaybird's question:

Question: would vigilance by the crew to RTFM (chart) been sufficient to break the accident chain? In theory it's a simple, yes. However since I have zero practical experience, I'd like to know what those with experience have to say.​

The crew should have been out ahead the airplane and ahead of ATC. They should not have been simply responding to instructions "monkey see monkey do" style. When they asked for direct they should have already known their minimum acceptable altitude and not taken any thing less from ATC.

dtuuri

I said only that the crew needs to be ahead of the plane. On a published route it's easy. On a direct route, no so much. Through a TAA, easy again. The crew should have known before they asked how low they could accept. 2000' shouldn't have been in the altitude alerter until it was safe, IMO.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

My response was to Jaybird's question:

Question: wouldI said only that the crew needs to be ahead of the plane. On a published route it's easy. On a direct route, no so much. Through a TAA, easy again. The crew should have known before they asked how low they could accept. 2000' shouldn't have been in the altitude alerter until it was safe, IMO.​

Of course the crew should have been ahead of the airplane. It's no different for a published route or a direct route to the IAF on an RNAV approach with a TAA. That's what the TAA is for.

From the Instrument Procedures Handbook

The TAA consists of a designated volume of airspace designed to allow aircraft to enter a protected area, offering guaranteed obstacle clearance where the initial approach course is intercepted based on the location of the aircraft relative to the airport.

The TAA is different from the MSA and is not just an emergency altitude, but part of the approach.​

 

[Jaybird180]

The TAA is different from the MSA and is not just an emergency altitude, but part of the approach.

Doesn't make sense.

If I can read a TAA just like an MSA and I remain above the minimum altitude, in what other way does it differ?

 

[Everskyward]

So why is a TAA different from MSA???

Read this post by John Collins (post #28 in this thread).

When a TAA is charted on an approach, it serves the purpose of an MSA with some very important distinctions. An MSA may only be used in the case of an emergency and one may not descend after receiving an approach clearance until established on a charted segment of the approach. The TAA is broken into segments that are 30 NM from an IAF. The entire TAA segment is considered as a charted segment of the approach. Once an aircraft is cleared for the approach, when there is a TAA charted, the aircraft is both authorized and expected to descend to the charted TAA segment altitude. The exception is if ATC specifically clears them otherwise, for example: maintain 4000 to ABCDE, Cleared RNAV 12 Approach.

Generally speaking, an approach based on ground navigation aids will have feeder routes from the airway structure to get to an IAF to commence the approach, unless of course the IAF is on an airway or radar is required. In the case of a TAA, one does not normally see feeder routes as any airway that passes thru the TAA (sometimes more than 60 NM across) can consider the TAA segment as the feeder route based on RNAV navigation. There are some cases, supposedly in Alaska, although I have not come across such an example where the TAA does not have an airway passing thru it and a feeder from the airway to the TAA boundary is provided.

 

[Everskyward]

Doesn't make sense.

If I can read a TAA just like an MSA and I remain above the minimum altitude, in what other way does it differ?

The MSA is not a segment of the approach just an emergency altitude for reference. You are not authorized to descend to the MSA when cleared for the approach. However, you are authorized to descend to the TAA when cleared for the approach if you are anywhere within the appropriate section.

 

[Jaybird180]

The MSA is not a segment of the approach just an emergency altitude for reference. You are not authorized to descend to the MSA when cleared for the approach. However, you are authorized to descend to the TAA when cleared for the approach if you are anywhere within the appropriate section.

I did read Johns post earlier. I just don't see the practicality of a TAA and the need for creating this new concept.

 

[dtuuri]

I did read Johns post earlier. I just don't see the practicality of a TAA and the need for creating this new concept.

It supports RNAV in that you can arrive from any direction not just on a published route. The crew should have seen the altitudes there and not descended below.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

I did read Johns post earlier. I just don't see the practicality of a TAA and the need for creating this new concept.

The second paragraph in John's post alludes to it.

In the case of a TAA, one does not normally see feeder routes as any airway that passes thru the TAA (sometimes more than 60 NM across) can consider the TAA segment as the feeder route based on RNAV navigation.

Instead of individual feeder routes to the initial approach fix the whole TAA is a "feeder route" with a minimum altitude. This allows ATC more flexibility for transitioning airplanes from the enroute structure to the approach.

From the Instrument Procedures Handbook.

TAAs are the method by which aircraft are transitioned from the RNAV en route structure to the terminal area with minimal ATC interaction.

That allows ATC to route aircraft direct (gasp) to the IAF from within the TAA and the minimum altitude is already stated.

 

[John Collins]

I did read Johns post earlier. I just don't see the practicality of a TAA and the need for creating this new concept.

In high traffic areas such as at major airports you won't see many TAA's as the most efficient method of arrival and approach is via vectors to final or following an RNAV STAR. However, at the outlying airports, the TAA essentially provides the infrastructure to use RNAV to navigate direct to the IAF and start the approach with a minimum of ATC involvement. So you enter on base or final without the need of a procedure turn. It is sort of like own navigation vectors to final. If you are coming off an airway, still no problem because the TAA is so large an area of airspace that you can be cleared direct off an airway to the approach IAF without the need of a single feeder route. The entire TAA is a feeder route that is based on you being able to navigate via RNAV.

 

[Jaybird180]

It supports RNAV in that you can arrive from any direction not just on a published route. The crew should have seen the altitudes there and not descended below.

dtuuri

The second paragraph in John's post alludes to it.



Instead of individual feeder routes to the initial approach fix the whole TAA is a "feeder route" with a minimum altitude. This allows ATC more flexibility for transitioning airplanes from the enroute structure to the approach.

From the Instrument Procedures Handbook.



That allows ATC to route aircraft direct (gasp) to the IAF from within the TAA and the minimum altitude is already stated.

In high traffic areas such as at major airports you won't see many TAA's as the most efficient method of arrival and approach is via vectors to final or following an RNAV STAR. However, at the outlying airports, the TAA essentially provides the infrastructure to use RNAV to navigate direct to the IAF and start the approach with a minimum of ATC involvement. So you enter on base or final without the need of a procedure turn. It is sort of like own navigation vectors to final. If you are coming off an airway, still no problem because the TAA is so large an area of airspace that you can be cleared direct off an airway to the approach IAF without the need of a single feeder route. The entire TAA is a feeder route that is based on you being able to navigate via RNAV.

Aha! I suspected that it was related to RNAV. Thank you for clearing up the missing data.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Someone should get the tape and give this to 10 different pilot/copilot crews in a simulator. See what happens. When ATC says to you are cleared to 2000', what do you do?

 

[aterpster]

Aha! I suspected that it was related to RNAV. Thank you for clearing up the missing data.

There are a handful of ILS approaches with TAAs. In that case a second ILS is also charted that doesn't require the TAA.