Directional MEAs and G-MEAs

Sluggo63

Sluggo63

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
1,927
Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
Can I file and fly V190 from PHX (SW corner of chart) northeast bound to CHEKR at 11,000?

upload_2021-1-4_9-14-46.png

Specifically the segment between PEAKS and TEDDI.
 
If aircraft GPS equipped, for clearance below 13000 MEA (but not blw MOCA 10100),
Ref: JO 7110.65Y
4−5−6. MINIMUM EN ROUTE ALTITUDES (MEA)
a. An aircraft may be cleared below the MEA but not below the MOCA for the route segment being flown if the altitude assigned is at least 300 feet above the floor of controlled airspace and one of the following conditions are met:
3. The aircraft is GNSS equipped.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sluggo63 said:
Can I file and fly V190 from PHX (SW corner of chart) northeast bound to CHEKR at 11,000?

View attachment 92960

Specifically the segment between PEAKS and TEDDI.
Click to expand...
You should be able to fly it at 11,000 but the FAA failed to include the G 11,000 for that small segment. So, legally you are stuck with 13,000. Be interesting what center would do for that segment if you filed the route at 11,000.
 
In the January, 2020 Part 95 consolidation that is the way it reads. There are six amendments, which anyone with too much time on their hands could search for any possible amendment to V191 during the year (or wait for the January, 2021 consolidation):

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/aero_data/Part_95_Consolidation/

The presumption I would make is that the FAA charting folks followed all the 2020 revisions correctly.
 
aterpster said:
Where do you find a MOCA of 10,100?
Click to expand...

Yeah, there’s not a MOCA defined for that route segment. However, the OROCA in that quadrant is 10,100 feet. The OROCA includes the required vertical spacing buffer (2000ft in mountainous regions), so it would seem to me that a request for 11,000 ft in that area, if GPS equipped, would be legal, no?
 
jimhorner said:
Yeah, there’s not a MOCA defined for that route segment. However, the OROCA in that quadrant is 10,100 feet. The OROCA includes the required vertical spacing buffer (2000ft in mountainous regions), so it would seem to me that a request for 11,000 ft in that area, if GPS equipped, would be legal, no?
Click to expand...
That would be a minimum IFR altitude but it doesn't mean ATC would let you have it. Chances are, you'd not get it unless in radar coverage and above whatever their MVA is.
 
jimhorner said:
Yeah, there’s not a MOCA defined for that route segment. However, the OROCA in that quadrant is 10,100 feet. The OROCA includes the required vertical spacing buffer (2000ft in mountainous regions), so it would seem to me that a request for 11,000 ft in that area, if GPS equipped, would be legal, no?
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, OROCAs are not legal IFR altitudes for use on airways. It's what is published under Part 95 (Part 97 for IAPs) or what the controller has for center MIAs. Centers don't use OROCAs. You could certainly use OROCAs to plan an off-route IFR flight.
 
aterpster said:
You should be able to fly it at 11,000 but the FAA failed to include the G 11,000 for that small segment. So, legally you are stuck with 13,000. Be interesting what center would do for that segment if you filed the route at 11,000.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm curious as well.

Since I was primarily a East Coast GA flier in the past, and all my other flying out west was in the Flight Levels, this is the first time a directional MEA is really affecting my planning. Now that this is in my mind, I can't for the life of me figure out why on that route 10,000; 12,000; 13,000 and higher are all acceptable, but 11,000 is left out of the mix on that little route segment, with no MOCA published.

I was trying to get out to COS IFR and stay out of the oxygen altitudes, but it looks like that's not possible without a long detour to Dalhart, TX.
 
aterpster said:
In the January, 2020 Part 95 consolidation that is the way it reads. There are six amendments, which anyone with too much time on their hands could search for any possible amendment to V191 during the year (or wait for the January, 2021 consolidation):

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/aero_data/Part_95_Consolidation/

The presumption I would make is that the FAA charting folks followed all the 2020 revisions correctly.
Click to expand...
Thanks! This was the document I was looking for to see what was actually published, and it looks like the chart mirrors what is in the publication.
 
For 11000, how about:
PHX V190 PEAKS DCT IZTIR V190 ...
... thoughts?
 
I submitted a report to the designers. He agree that it is wrong but the air traffic division in the region has to request that it be changed.
 
aterpster said:
I submitted a report to the designers. He agree that it is wrong but the air traffic division in the region has to request that it be changed.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I wonder how I get them to request that. Any ideas? I'll be more than happy to write some emails.
 
MikeNY said:
For 11000, how about:
PHX V190 PEAKS DCT IZTIR V190 ...
... thoughts?
Click to expand...
I mean... maybe. I'm assuming the "spirit of the law" is when you're "on the airway" you'll be at the MEA, and although you broke the airway at PEAKS, I'd guess they'd still make the case that you were on the airway.
 
Does the 11000G in blue print apply to the entire leg PHX-SGN for GPS whereas the individual segments have their directional restrictions for "conventional" VOR navigation so filing at 11000 would be OK with GPS?
 
farmrjohn said:
Does the 11000G in blue print apply to the entire leg PHX-SGN for GPS whereas the individual segments have their directional restrictions for "conventional" VOR navigation so filing at 11000 would be OK with GPS?
Click to expand...
I thought about that, but everything I've read says that the altitude for that segment ends at either the NAVAID or where the "T" symbol is displayed, so it looks like the 13000/11000G/*11000 segment is only between TEDDI and where ever it ends NW-bound.
 
hindsight2020 said:
File for 11. #YOLO. :D
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's becoming more of an academic discussion for me at this point, since the MEAs later on climb up to 11,100 (100 feet... really?). I'll probably end up going at 13,000 or 15,000 and wear the tube. I'm going to have to figure out a solution for the dog, though. He's a pretty laid back lab, but I don't know if he'll enjoy this contraption:
oxygen-hoods-1.jpg

http://www.4pawsaviation.com/products/oxygen-hoods.php
 
Through my NBAA resources I was able to report this to the correct FAA department. They are going to fix it sooner or later. Excerpt from an email I just received:


Mr. Roberts,

I’ve confirmed the segment you’re concerned with, V-190, PEAKS-TEDDI, , is currently published as defined in the PART 95. I’ve requested the proposed amendment be forwarded to the Validation and Prioritization process for review and scheduling.
 
aterpster said:
Through my NBAA resources I was able to report this to the correct FAA department. They are going to fix it sooner or later. Excerpt from an email I just received:


Mr. Roberts,

I’ve confirmed the segment you’re concerned with, V-190, PEAKS-TEDDI, , is currently published as defined in the PART 95. I’ve requested the proposed amendment be forwarded to the Validation and Prioritization process for review and scheduling.
Click to expand...
Thanks! That's awesome. Thanks for following up on that.
 
PPC1052 said:
What? I thought your last name was Terpster. So disappointed. :(
Click to expand...
There was a charting wheel at Jeppesen named Terpstra. He is retired now. He wrote some great articles about terps and charting.
 
aterpster said:
There was a charting wheel at Jeppesen named Terpstra. He is retired now. He wrote some great articles about terps and charting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, one of my navs in the Buff suffered from that condition in-flight. It wasn't pretty......:D
 
Sluggo63 said:
I mean... maybe. I'm assuming the "spirit of the law" is when you're "on the airway" you'll be at the MEA, and although you broke the airway at PEAKS, I'd guess they'd still make the case that you were on the airway.
Click to expand...

Actually, going direct can be a very effective way of avoiding some high MEAs. many times the limitation is based on nav reception. Going direct, because you are GPS equipped, can avoid that issue. We have an airway in my airspace with an MEA of 14,000 ft. Many of the aircraft fly it at 10-12,000 ft. All we need to do is ask the previous facility (Le Raizet approach)to clear the aircraft MODUX DCT COY, rest of route unchanged, instead of R888.
 
Wrench978 said:
Actually, going direct can be a very effective way of avoiding some high MEAs. many times the limitation is based on nav reception. Going direct, because you are GPS equipped, can avoid that issue. We have an airway in my airspace with an MEA of 14,000 ft. Many of the aircraft fly it at 10-12,000 ft. All we need to do is ask the previous facility (Le Raizet approach)to clear the aircraft MODUX DCT COY, rest of route unchanged, instead of R888.
Click to expand...
I know what you're saying, and I'm sure it works great, but it's still goes against the FARs. You technically can't go direct between two points that define an airway and not abide by the MEA (or MOCA). The FAA takes that "loophole" away in 14 CFR 95.1.

14 CFR §95.1 said:
§95.1 Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes altitudes governing the operation of aircraft under IFR on ATS routes, or other direct routes for which an MEA is designated in this part. In addition, it designates mountainous areas and changeover points.

(b) The MAA is the highest altitude on an ATS route, or other direct route for which an MEA is designated, at which adequate reception of VOR signals is assured.

(c) The MCA applies to the operation of an aircraft proceeding to a higher minimum en route altitude when crossing specified fixes.

(d) The MEA is the minimum en route IFR altitude on an ATS route, ATS route segment, or other direct route. The MEA applies to the entire width of the ATS route, ATS route segment, or other direct route between fixes defining that route. Unless otherwise specified, an MEA prescribed for an off airway route or route segment applies to the airspace 4 nautical miles on each side of a direct course between the navigation fixes defining that route or route segment.

(e) The MOCA assures obstruction clearance on an ATS route, ATS route segment, or other direct route, and adequate reception of VOR navigation signals within 22 nautical miles of a VOR station used to define the route.

(f) The MRA applies to the operation of an aircraft over an intersection defined by ground-based navigation aids. The MRA is the lowest altitude at which the intersection can be determined using the ground-based navigation aids.

(g) The changeover point (COP) applies to operation of an aircraft along a Federal airway, jet route, or other direct route; for which an MEA is designated in this part. It is the point for transfer of the airborne navigation reference from the ground-based navigation aid behind the aircraft to the next appropriate ground-based navigation aid to ensure continuous reception of signals.
Click to expand...
(emphasis above is mine)

Now, practically, is the FAA going to come after you for flying "on airway" below the proscribed MEA after being cleared by ATC for that altitude? No. But, just FYI, you can't just say I'm direct between two points on an airway, so I'm not really on the airway.
 
Sluggo63 said:
I know what you're saying, and I'm sure it works great, but it's still goes against the FARs. You technically can't go direct between two points that define an airway and not abide by the MEA (or MOCA). The FAA takes that "loophole" away in 14 CFR 95.1.

(emphasis above is mine)

Now, practically, is the FAA going to come after you for flying "on airway" below the proscribed MEA after being cleared by ATC for that altitude? No. But, just FYI, you can't just say I'm direct between two points on an airway, so I'm not really on the airway.
Click to expand...

Edit for clarification- Im on the other side of the radio- Trainee at San Juan Cerap

You've got me curious now. I'm going to have to ask around at work and find out the justification for doing it the way we do it. the High MEA on that route segment is likely due to navaid reception. its all over water, so there is no terrain to avoid. in training, we were told if an aircraft is filed on R888 (or A555, which has a 12000 ft MEA in that area) below the MEA, clear them direct to the ST Croix VOR, and your'e good. most of the aircraft that fly those routes are Cessna Caravans hauling freight, so I doubt they could get above the MEA anyway.
 
Wrench978 said:
Edit for clarification- Im on the other side of the radio- Trainee at San Juan Cerap

You've got me curious now. I'm going to have to ask around at work and find out the justification for doing it the way we do it. the High MEA on that route segment is likely due to navaid reception. its all over water, so there is no terrain to avoid. in training, we were told if an aircraft is filed on R888 (or A555, which has a 12000 ft MEA in that area) below the MEA, clear them direct to the ST Croix VOR, and your'e good. most of the aircraft that fly those routes are Cessna Caravans hauling freight, so I doubt they could get above the MEA anyway.
Click to expand...

Is there a MOCA? Is there Radar coverage? Are the planes GNSS equipped? Even though what @Sluggo63 said about FAR 95.1, that the MEA applies even if you weren't specifically cleared via the airway but direct between fixes on it, there are ways ATC can clear planes below the MEA. 7110.65 4-5-6
 
luvflyin said:
Is there a MOCA? Is there Radar coverage? Are the planes GNSS equipped? Even though what @Sluggo63 said about FAR 95.1, that the MEA applies even if you weren't specifically cleared via the airway but direct between fixes on it, there are ways ATC can clear planes below the MEA. 7110.65 4-5-6
Click to expand...

thats it. the aircraft are /G, so they are now on a random route. Thanks.
 
luvflyin said:
What is the MIA there?
Click to expand...
It's over water but not far from islands. I don't know anything about that area but I know in the Pacific controlled airspace starts at 5,000. I doubt they have MIAs as such in the Pacific.
 
the segments of A555 and R888 are from the St Croix VOR (COY) and southeast. from the ZSUY segment southeast. completely over water. Radar coverage is fine, but the aircraft isnt Radar ID'ed until around MODUX or ILURI.
 
Wrench978 said:
the segments of A555 and R888 are from the St Croix VOR (COY) and southeast. from the ZSUY segment southeast. completely over water. Radar coverage is fine, but the aircraft isnt Radar ID'ed until around MODUX or ILURI.
Click to expand...

Out there over the water, in the area beyond your MIA map, what is the minimum altitude you can use?
 
aterpster said:
That is P.R. domestic airspace, which the FAA owns. Oceanic is not owned by any country.
Click to expand...

Yeah. While no country 'owns' international airspace, it has been divided into jurisdictions for the purposes of ATC. Like the US has most of the Northern Pacific Ocean run out of Oakland Center, a huge chunk of the Atlantic run out of New York Center. Canada and Ireland have most of the North Atlantic out of Gander and Shanwick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top