STAR with high altitudes

[midlifeflyer]

I'm looking for a reference regarding the propriety of including a STAR in a filed flight plan where the minimum STAR altitudes are substantially higher than the expected en route altitude.

As an example, consider the DRONE1 arrival into Norfolk VA (KORF)
Graphic Decsription

Coming in on the Kinston Transition, the STAR altitudes are FL 190 and 11,000' until arriving at DRONE and receiving vectors. The non-procedure minimum IFR altitudes in the area are below 4,000'.

No problem with the concept that a piston pusher at, say 5,000' can be cleared for the STAR since the clearance only implies lateral guidance (without a "cleared VIA"). And, of course, especially with one this simple, a piston pilot could include the fixes in a filed flight plan. But how about naming the STAR as such in the filed flight plan when there is no intent to ever go up to that altitude?

 

[HPNPilot1200]

As noted on the chart, those expected altitudes on the DRONE1 are for turbojet aircraft only.

 

[FORANE]

As noted on the chart, those expected altitudes on the DRONE1 are for turbojet aircraft only.

And even then, when filing for or instructed to fly a star, lateral guidance is mandated while vertical clearance is last assigned altitude not what the chart indicates may be expected. Correct?

 

[HPNPilot1200]

And even then, when filing for or instructed to fly a star, lateral guidance is mandated while vertical clearance is last assigned altitude not what the chart indicates may be expected. Correct?

Correct. Unless it's an RNAV arrival and ATC clears you to, "descend via the XYZ arrival." We get that all the time going into Las Vegas (KEPEC3 ARR).

 

[midlifeflyer]

As noted on the chart, those expected altitudes on the DRONE1 are for turbojet aircraft only.

I don't see that.

I see notes regarding turbojet vertical planning information. Not the same thing. Best example of the difference is the information to expect an instruction to cross DEENE at FL210, an intersection for an procedure segment with a published altitude of FL190.

But as it turns out, your comment led me to the answer, so thank you.

The altitudes along the procedure, like the FL190 along the are not minimum altitudes for anyone. Like IAPs, minimum altitudes on SID and STAR charts are designated with an underscore, maximum altitudes with an overscore, mandatory altitudes with both. The absence of any line, as here, signifies nothing more than a recommended altitude, not binding on anyone without descend via."

Since I asked for a reference in my question, for those interested, the reference is the SID/STAR chart legend (duh - to me)

 

[HPNPilot1200]

I don't see that.

I see notes regarding turbojet vertical planning information. Not the same thing. Best example of the difference is the information to expect an instruction to cross DEENE at FL210, an intersection for an procedure segment with a published altitude of FL190.

Whoops...I didn't realize you were talking about minimum altitude on the STAR for each segment. I thought you were talking about the expected altitudes.

Like IAPs, minimum altitudes on SID and STAR charts are designated with an underscore, maximum altitudes with an overscore, mandatory altitudes with both. The absence of any line, as here, signifies nothing more than a recommended altitude, not binding on anyone without descend via."

That notation is only for crossing restrictions. The FL190 and 11,000 ft notations on this arrival are MEAs.

 

[poadeleted20]

Generally speaking, if the depicted altitudes are FL's, they're not going to give it to a light single. Personally, I never file for STAR's unless it's part of a preferred route where I'm going. Other than that, if they give one, I'm OK, but I don't file them.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That notation is only for crossing restrictions. The FL190 and 11,000 ft notations on this arrival are MEAs.

Are they? Look at the en route chart for the same area. ISO-CVI MEA is 2000/3000. STAR segment altitude is FL190.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Generally speaking, if the depicted altitudes are FL's, they're not going to give it to a light single. Personally, I never file for STAR's unless it's part of a preferred route where I'm going. Other than that, if they give one, I'm OK, but I don't file them.

Me too. But I've found, at least in some areas that the STAR routing is also the most common ATC routing along that general routing and also the most sensible and obvious non-direct route and the one I would file. So I check them as one cross-check to see what i might get. Seems to work well enough.

I file I generally use the underlying airway if they are co-located and VORs or intersections if they are not. Just wondering if there is a formal answer to my question.

 

[dtuuri]

I file I generally use the underlying airway if they are co-located and VORs or intersections if they are not. Just wondering if there is a formal answer to my question.

I don't know if this is the answer, but might be interesting. A Preferred Route ending (or beginning) at a fix can be routed from it via a STAR (or to it via a SID). From the A/FD:

2. Preferred IFR routes beginning/ending with a fix indicate that aircraft may be routed to/from these fixes via a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) route, radar vectors (RV), or a Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR).​

So, you could file a preferred route and let ATC decide.

But, from Charlotte over Raleigh, the preferred route is a high altitude one:

MERIL RDU TYI CVI V1 DRONE​

On the other hand it's direct, direct, Victor-1 Drone. You can DO THAT!

Here's a trivia question, two actually, for IFR candidates: Where's the change-over point between TYI and CVI? And why the difference in outbound courses, 64° from TYI and 68° from DEENE for the same radial--or is it the same?

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't know if this is the answer, but might be interesting. A Preferred Route ending (or beginning) at a fix can be routed from it via a STAR (or to it via a SID). From the A/FD:

2. Preferred IFR routes beginning/ending with a fix indicate that aircraft may be routed to/from these fixes via a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) route, radar vectors (RV), or a Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR).​

So, you could file a preferred route and let ATC decide.

But, from Charlotte over Raleigh, the preferred route is a high altitude one:

MERIL RDU TYI CVI V1 DRONE​

On the other hand it's direct, direct, Victor-1 Drone. You can DO THAT!

Definitely can do that.

I'm not sure the information in the AFD about a SID or STAR being assigned to or from a fix in a preferred route helps much. I would have thought it obvious.

In this case, the high altitude CLT-ORF route is, from RDU on, identical to the STAR's RDU transition. It's also a logical low-altitude one (although not necessarily the only logical one). Haven't looked to see how it coincides with a SID out of CLT but wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a MERIL or RDU transition in one of them.

Practically speaking, it comes back to simply entering the waypoints of a route you choose, whether the choice is made based on preferred routing, TEC routing, previously-assigned ATC routings available at some sites and in some apps, a review of SID/STARs, or whatever.

I was just curious. And there may be no "real" answer other than the practical one.

 

[Jaybird180]

Here's a trivia question, two actually, for IFR candidates: Where's the change-over point between TYI and CVI? And why the difference in outbound courses, 64° from TYI and 68° from DEENE for the same radial--or is it the same?

dtuuri

I did find it puzzling that the reciprocal of R-249 CVI is 069* vice the 068* depicted.

It would be arrogant of me to say the answers to the questions asked are obvious, so I won't.

 

[azure]

Here's a trivia question, two actually, for IFR candidates: Where's the change-over point between TYI and CVI? And why the difference in outbound courses, 64° from TYI and 68° from DEENE for the same radial--or is it the same?

I'm not sure what chart DEENE is on, probably a STAR but I'm too lazy now to find it.

But as to the first question, my guess is it's the halfway point as there's no changeover symbol or visible dogleg in the airway. TYI's station declination is ANCIENT, it's 05W which dates from 1960. CVI's dates from 1990 and is 09W. There SHOULD be about a degree difference between their declinations since CVI is significantly further east. So if TYI had been recalibrated in 1990 its declination would probably be 08W and the radial would be 67*. That leaves a 2 degree discrepancy that I can't explain, though 1* or so could be roundoff error, and radials are great circles so that could be part of it too.

If there were a real dogleg somewhere there that was that small, it would be crazy not to mark it on the low enroute chart.

 

[Jaybird180]

The charts are in post #1

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Mark: I fly STARS many times and all times to my home airport. Many times, I'm not cleared for the entire STAR procedure, but direct to a way point on the procedure (in the baron and now the king air). For instance, on the FINGR arrival to Addison, I usually get FINGRx direct FINGR intersection. Usually, 75 miles our or so, they ask me to be at an altitude at FINGR or some distance from there effectively making it pilot's discretion.

I guess my point is, the big iron is coming in on the STAR and I find the piston and even some turbine folks are either cleared below them, or off to one side or the other a bit many places.

Best,

Dave

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks Dave. I agree with your analysis; I've had the same experience. I think where I'm going with this is a related issue: why is the "lowest published altitude between radio fixes that assures acceptable navigational signal coverage and meets obstacle clearance requirements between those fixes" (the definition of MEA) 9000+ feet higher on the STAR than on the en route for the exact same route?

I understand keeping big iron and smaller aircraft separate and even having a different minimum altitude for the identical segment on a STAR higher than on a low en route chart. I guess it's the use of the defined term MEA that's bothering me. Obviously you do have a clear nav signal and obstruction clearance well below FL190/11,000' despite what the STAR chart says.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm not sure what chart DEENE is on, probably a STAR but I'm too lazy now to find it.

It's on the STAR chart I linked to in the first post. It's also on the low en route chart and VFR sectional.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Here's an explanation by a third party that seem good and legend.
http://www.vatusa.net/training/tiki-index.php?page=reading_sids_stars

I don't have all the charts available to me, so, I can't peruse the IFR/VFR charts. I would guess the reception altitudes may be for jets on the high altitude airways since the chart says TURBOJET VERTICAL NAVIGATION PLANNING INFORMATION, but could be wrong.

Best,

Dave

 

[azure]

It's on the STAR chart I linked to in the first post. It's also on the low en route chart and VFR sectional.

Okay, I downloaded the DRONE1 STAR chart you linked to. Looks like the 068 course leaving DEENE is based on the radial off of CVI, not TYI, so I stand by what I wrote.

DEENE is not on any of the low en route charts available on SkyVector or ForeFlight. I don't have the printed versions, and didn't check the sectional (though it would be unusual for a waypoint not on the low en route charts to be on the sectional).

 

[midlifeflyer]

DEENE is not on any of the low en route charts available on SkyVector or ForeFlight.

EDIT - DEENE (wherever it is, is not an issue. It doesn't play into the RDU transition and the stated altitudes whether viewed on the STAR or the low en route.

Oh - I see that was Dave Turri's question. Not my scenario. Sorry. Guess that's what happens with thread ccreep.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Here's an explanation by a third party that seem good and legend.
http://www.vatusa.net/training/tiki-index.php?page=reading_sids_stars

I don't have all the charts available to me, so, I can't peruse the IFR/VFR charts. I would guess the reception altitudes may be for jets on the high altitude airways since the chart says TURBOJET VERTICAL NAVIGATION PLANNING INFORMATION, but could be wrong.

Best,

Dave

It's a very good explanation overall, especially for VATSIM people. But I don't see anything there that helps answer the question of why the "MEA" for a segment of a STAR is almost 17,000' higher than the MEA for the same course without the STAR.

The TURBOJET VERTICAL NAVIGATION PLANNING INFORMATION is just that. Remember that a STAR (or SID) is just a shorthand to avoid longer clearances and instructions. In this case it's long-range descent planning; an "Expect" just like an approach controller or ATIS might tell us to "expect ILS to runway..."

It's not really that important; more of a curiosity.

BTW, all the charts are available online.

 

[MarkZ]

But I don't see anything there that helps answer the question of why the "MEA" for a segment of a STAR is almost 17,000' higher than the MEA for the same course without the STAR.

My guess is that the STAR MEA is as such to facilitate traffic sequencing. It's a lot easier to sequence two jets at 17,000 and FL250 than it is from 11,000 and FL250. We use a rule: 7 knots of groundspeed for each 1000 feet. Do the math and you'll see what I mean.

The TURBOJET VERTICAL NAVIGATION PLANNING INFORMATION is just that. Remember that a STAR (or SID) is just a shorthand to avoid longer clearances and instructions. In this case it's long-range descent planning; an "Expect" just like an approach controller or ATIS might tell us to "expect ILS to runway..."

Right. "Expect" is not a clearance to that altitude. 95% of the time, you will receive that crossing restriction. ATC will expect you to be able to make that crossing when it is issued. If you are flying aircraft capable to participate in a STAR, be ready to make that crossing or let ATC know ahead of time if they hung you up too high to make the crossing.

As an arrival controller, nothing cheeses me off more than an Airbus driver who descends at 500 ft/min through my sector, then balks at the crossing like it was some sort of surprise.

 

[dtuuri]

But I don't see anything there that helps answer the question of why the "MEA" for a segment of a STAR is almost 17,000' higher than the MEA for the same course without the STAR.

I don't think MEAs are expressed in flight levels, they're given in MSL altitudes. Since that's an eastbound STAR I'm guessing FL190 is the lowest applicable. Don't have time to research it today though.

On the difference between the radial and course from DEENE, I'm thinking it's the difference between a "magnetic course" with old declination determining the radial and a "magnetic reference bearing" based on some new-fangled RNAV algorithm from the reporting point DEENE. Don't have the time for that either.

On the changeover, I'm thinking it's halfway, disregarding DEENE.

dtuuri

 

[azure]

On the difference between the radial and course from DEENE, I'm thinking it's the difference between a "magnetic course" with old declination determining the radial and a "magnetic reference bearing" based on some new-fangled RNAV algorithm from the reporting point DEENE. Don't have the time for that either.

So courses leading out of waypoints are RNAV based, and courses leading out of VORs are radials? Is there a reference for that? It kind of makes sense in that GPSes like the 480 do work that way, but the STAR isn't RNAV only and a rule like that wouldn't make a lot of sense to someone flying a /U aircraft. Besides, if it's based on current magnetic variation, it should be 069 or even 070 since CVI's declination is from 1990, and west variation is increasing.

When you have time, I hope you'll post a more definite answer since I tried to answer your question in #13 (and accidentally confused Mark K. who thought I was replying to him). I said basically the same thing as you I think, but figured the 068 was based on the radial off of CVI, or maybe (more likely I think now) it's a magnetic course based on 1990 variation, and no one has bothered to update it since then.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

BTW, all the charts are available online.

Unfortunately, my trust fund isn't large enough to do detailed aviation research during working hours (g). Maybe next life.

Dave

 

[dtuuri]

So courses leading out of waypoints are RNAV based, and courses leading out of VORs are radials? Is there a reference for that?

I checked out the following:

According to the Chart User's Guide re: MEA, low altitude MEAs don't have an "MEA" label, just an MSL altitude, but high altitude MEAs have "MEA" preceding the MSL altitude--not given in flight levels. The legend for STARs show the altitude above the course bearing and distance as a low altitude example without the "MEA" label. Says nothing about a flight level notation there. I didn't see anything in TERPS that says MEA applies to the altitude stratum, just obstacles, reception, etc., so I don't think FL190 is an MEA.

Of course 'radials' are based on declination at the time of station calibration. 'Magnetic reference bearings' are current true courses corrected for current (I presume) variation and are for RNAV equipped aircraft using true courses in their guts. It's a reference for the magnetized pilots, so they don't get confused by that I guess. In this case, according to the sectional, at DEENE variation is a tad under 10°. SkyVector comes up with 59° True To CVI. Adding 'less than 10°' to 'that' is 'less than 69°' and the STAR-charted '68°' is less, isn't it? I'm happy.

EDIT: More research turns up a low altitude Part 95 Direct Route from Tar River to Cofield with an MEA of just 1800'. Also, Jet Route 209 from RDU to Tar River has 18,000' listed as the MEA in Part 95 where the STAR has FL190 charted. I guess MEA does apply to the altitude stratum after all.

EDIT: For further reading: STAR Order 7100.9

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

My guess is that the STAR MEA is as such to facilitate traffic sequencing. It's a lot easier to sequence two jets at 17,000 and FL250 than it is from 11,000 and FL250. We use a rule: 7 knots of groundspeed for each 1000 feet. Do the math and you'll see what I mean.

I think the bottom line is you're absolutely right - that the altitude is not really a MEA (based on the en route chart it can't be), but a minimum segment altitude that includes considerations other than navigation signals and obstacle clearance.

Practical answer but the problem of why there's a published regulatory minimum altitude that's supposedly for nav/obstacles 11,000-16,000 above the published regulatory minimum altitude for nav/obstacles.

 

[midlifeflyer]

EDIT: More research turns up a low altitude Part 95 Direct Route from Tar River to Cofield with an MEA of just 1800'. Also, Jet Route 209 from RDU to Tar River has 18,000' listed as the MEA in Part 95 where the STAR has FL190 charted. I guess MEA does apply to the altitude stratum after all.

MEAs aren't show on the high altitude charts unless they are above 18,000'. And even then, they are in thousands, not in flight levels. See, for example, the 20,000 MEA along J128 here[/QUOTE]

 

[dtuuri]

MEAs aren't show on the high altitude charts unless they are above 18,000'. And even then, they are in thousands, not in flight levels. See, for example, the 20,000 MEA along J128 here

I said that somewhere... here it is:

According to the Chart User's Guide re: MEA, ... high altitude MEAs have "MEA" preceding the MSL altitude--not given in flight levels.

And here's a hard to find consolidation of Part 95 altitudes and changeover points:

View attachment January 2013_Part-95 Consolidation.pdf​

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

EDIT: For further reading: STAR Order 7100.9

A clue! Although the Order defines MEA in the traditional way and with the same TERPS references as any other terminal chart, there's also this brief note in paragraph 11(b):

==============================
(b) Coordinate with the FPO for application of appropriate orders and assistance developing chart depictions.

NOTE-
The purpose of this requirement is to enable NFPO to verify that minimum en route altitudes (MEA) meet minimum required obstruction clearance altitude, minimum reception altitude, communication and airspace requirements (my emphasis).
==============================

Although not restricted to turbojets, the procedure is obviously intended for high altitude flights. "Airspace requirements" (Class A vs Class E). With those considerations and considering the regulatory requirements for lost comm (I always try to remember that so many IFR procedural rules are grounded in lost comm and no-radar situations), minimum segment altitudes for a high altitude STAR make sense.

It's still funny they use the "MEA" term rather than something more procedure-specific. Maybe we can re-define "MEA" to mean:

"the lowest published altitude between radio fixes that assures acceptable navigational signal coverage and meets obstacle clearance requirements between those fixes. On Terminal Procedure charts, the MEA may also consider airspace and aircraft separation requirements."

 

[dtuuri]

A clue! Although the Order defines MEA in the traditional way and with the same TERPS references as any other terminal chart, there's also this brief note in paragraph 11(b):

==============================
(b) Coordinate with the FPO for application of appropriate orders and assistance developing chart depictions.

NOTE-
The purpose of this requirement is to enable NFPO to verify that minimum en route altitudes (MEA) meet minimum required obstruction clearance altitude, minimum reception altitude, communication and airspace requirements (my emphasis).
==============================

I think that's reaching a bit too far. That strikes me as boilerplate to make sure the MEA isn't too low (close to the ground anyhere within the lateral limits). MEA needs to be at least 300' (terminal) and 500' (en route) above controlled airspace which follows the topography.

Check out the legal MEAs in Part 95. The jet routes don't go below 18,000' by definition.

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think that's reaching a bit too far. That strikes me as boilerplate to make sure the MEA isn't too low (close to the ground anyhere within the lateral limits). MEA needs to be at least 300' (terminal) and 500' (en route) above controlled airspace which follows the topography.

Maybe. But it at least offers a tentative explanation for why the MEA is thousands of feet above the MEA and makes practical sense from a flight sequencing point of view.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I kicked this around in another forum or two. Best response so far is the obvious and simple one: it's not a MEA. It's a minimum altitude for the procedure and being depicted the same way as a minimum procedure altitude is depicted on the other terminal charts (IAPs). It might be co-extensive with the MEA but, as in this example, it might not. If there's an error, it's in the legend.