Swoop Terrain Warning

[tbayav8er]

Wrong. Not in terminal airspace. The post above me is correct.

Not so sure about that, legally speaking the only time atc takes terrain responsibility is when they give you a vector. Unless you can show me a reference otherwise. The only thing I’ve ever seen black and white atc takes terrain responsibility is in the aim when it discusses radar vectors. Otherwise it’s up to you to decide. Now in Canada ATC isn’t going to clear you down to an altitude that’s below the minimum for that sector but direct responsibility for terrain clearance is the PICs in that case.

AIM RAC 1.5.5

Minimum radar vectoring altitudes (lowest altitude at which an aircraft may be vectored and still meet obstacle clearance criteria), which may be lower than minimum altitudes shown on navigation and approach charts, have been established at a number of locations to facilitate transitions to instrument approach aids. When an IFR flight is cleared to descend to the lower altitude, ATC will provide terrain and obstacle clearance until the aircraft is in a position from which an approved instrument approach or a visual approach can be commenced.

Yes, but if you're cleared to descend to an altitude let's say below the MSA, on a STAR, then following the STAR guarantees terrain clearance. If you deviate from the STAR and get too close to terrain as a result, it's not ATC's fault. They could clear you for the approach as soon as you crossed the first waypoint on the STAR if they chose to do so. By my interpretation anyways.

[AuxBatOn]

Not so sure about that, legally speaking the only time atc takes terrain responsibility is when they give you a vector. Unless you can show me a reference otherwise. The only thing I’ve ever seen black and white atc takes terrain responsibility is in the aim when it discusses radar vectors. Otherwise it’s up to you to decide. Now in Canada ATC isn’t going to clear you down to an altitude that’s below the minimum for that sector but direct responsibility for terrain clearance is the PICs in that case.

AIM RAC 1.5.5

Minimum radar vectoring altitudes (lowest altitude at which an aircraft may be vectored and still meet obstacle clearance criteria), which may be lower than minimum altitudes shown on navigation and approach charts, have been established at a number of locations to facilitate transitions to instrument approach aids. When an IFR flight is cleared to descend to the lower altitude, ATC will provide terrain and obstacle clearance until the aircraft is in a position from which an approved instrument approach or a visual approach can be commenced.

Yes, but if you're cleared to descend to an altitude let's say below the MSA, on a STAR, then following the STAR guarantees terrain clearance. If you deviate from the STAR and get too close to terrain as a result, it's not ATC's fault. They could clear you for the approach as soon as you crossed the first waypoint on the STAR if they chose to do so. By my interpretation anyways.

This isn’t what this says. It says if you are on an IFR flight and ATC clears you at an altitude below the published MSA, you should clear obstacles and terrain until an approach can be commenced.

[Eric Janson]

One thing that struck me looking at the Abbotsford plates (Jeppesen).

SID and STAR plates do not have an MSA on them or a terrain map showing the highest elevation. This is now standard on Jeppesen plates.

All that is listed is a 100nm safe altitude.

This is a serious safety deficiency imho.

Which Jepp plates are you looking at? They all have the MSA box on my set.

In the case of the custom RNP's, sector altitudes are not even really needed, because they were not designed to be a DCT IAF approach. The routing notes on both RNP's state how to connect and fly the approach from the STAR. The At or above altitudes provide terrain guidance all the way down.

Edit

Sorry, I misread your post (speed reading before coffee) and thought you were writing about the Jepp Approach plates.

I think Jepp is in the process of upgrading their plates with colour terrain profiles etc, but I think the 100 nm safe is the standard on most charts. I don't think I have ever seen 25 MSA's published on STARS or SIDS.

They've been published for years for airports all over the World (nice to have the 25 MSA on the SID/STAR charts) - I see other Canadian Airports now have the updated Jeppesen chart format. Given the high 100nm safe altitude you would think they would put some more information on the SID/STAR charts.

[altiplano]

When you're cleared for an approach, in Canada, your clearance is to descend only to the lowest published IFR altitude, unless you're being radar vectored.

That's some basic shit.

No matter where you're cleared direct to, or if you were cleared to descend previously on a STAR and now you're going direct, The minimum published IFR altitude is all, unless ATC is providing vectors.

I think lots of people are complacent on it, or just aren't experienced flying in the mountains and are used to MSAs that are more or less the same as the altitude over the transition or IAF so it always worked out... "the fix I was cleared to says 3000' so I descended to 3000'"

This isn’t what this says. It says if you are on an IFR flight and ATC clears you at an altitude below the published MSA, you should clear obstacles and terrain until an approach can be commenced WHEN ON RADAR VECTORS.

I fixed it for you... you are referencing radar vectoring altitudes. ATC clearing you below safe IFR altitudes does not absolve you for your own (ie. published) terrain clearance if you're not on radar vectors.

Even being recleared laterally by ATC without a descent clearance doesn't absolve you of your responsibility.
ie. you're level on an airway or transition below sector and you get cleared off the airway/transition direct to the IAF. You are responsible to request a new altitude that provides terrain clearance or reject the clearance.

[lostaviator]

None of this is relevant. ATC never cleared either of the Swoop planes direct the IAF.

Even with the absence of MSA on the charts, a pilot with any IFR experience would ask "am I safe doing this?". If there are no MSA's, the 100 nm is your next best safe place. They took their plane out of a safe environment, and pointed it towards terrain.

Two sets of pilots, two days in a row. Scary.

But CAE instructors and Swoop procedures are better.

[AuxBatOn]

When you're cleared for an approach, in Canada, your clearance is to descend only to the lowest published IFR altitude, unless you're being radar vectored.

That's some basic shit.

No matter where you're cleared direct to, or if you were cleared to descend previously on a STAR and now you're going direct, The minimum published IFR altitude is all, unless ATC is providing vectors.

I think lots of people are complacent on it, or just aren't experienced flying in the mountains and are used to MSAs that are more or less the same as the altitude over the transition or IAF so it always worked out... "the fix I was cleared to says 3000' so I descended to 3000'"

This isn’t what this says. It says if you are on an IFR flight and ATC clears you at an altitude below the published MSA, you should clear obstacles and terrain until an approach can be commenced WHEN ON RADAR VECTORS.

I fixed it for you... you are referencing radar vectoring altitudes. ATC clearing you below safe IFR altitudes does not absolve you for your own (ie. published) terrain clearance if you're not on radar vectors.

Even being recleared laterally by ATC without a descent clearance doesn't absolve you of your responsibility.
ie. you're level on an airway or transition below sector and you get cleared off the airway/transition direct to the IAF. You are responsible to request a new altitude that provides terrain clearance or reject the clearance.

Where do you see when on radar vectors in that sentence?

When an IFR flight is cleared to descend to the lower altitude, ATC will provide terrain and obstacle clearance until the aircraft is in a position from which an approved instrument approach or a visual approach can be commenced.

It says that ATC may assign you altitudes down to the MRVA and they will ensure you miss terrain and obstacles. If they meant when on radar vectors, the sentence would have started with: When an IFR flight on radar vectors is cleared [...]

For the Swoop incident, they deviated from their previously cleared route because they were cleared for an approach (which is fine) however they should have, at that point, meet the published minimum safe altitudes since ATC could not have expected them go direct the IAF given they were on a STAR.

[altiplano]

AIM RAC 1.5.5

Minimum radar vectoring altitudes (lowest altitude at which an aircraft may be vectored and still meet obstacle clearance criteria), which may be lower than minimum altitudes shown on navigation and approach charts, have been established at a number of locations to facilitate transitions to instrument approach aids. When an IFR flight is cleared to descend to the lower altitude, ATC will provide terrain and obstacle clearance until the aircraft is in a position from which an approved instrument approach or a visual approach can be commenced.

Yes, but if you're cleared to descend to an altitude let's say below the MSA, on a STAR, then following the STAR guarantees terrain clearance. If you deviate from the STAR and get too close to terrain as a result, it's not ATC's fault. They could clear you for the approach as soon as you crossed the first waypoint on the STAR if they chose to do so. By my interpretation anyways.

This isn’t what this says. It says if you are on an IFR flight and ATC clears you at an altitude below the published MSA, you should clear obstacles and terrain until an approach can be commenced.

Uhhh... Yes, it does... take a look where it says it.

Your quote is under:

1.5.5 Obstacle Clearance During Radar Vectors ................. 182

Screenshot_20191229-173809.png (435.47 KiB) Viewed 3835 times

[AuxBatOn]

The paragraph above and below duly note “radar vectors” in sentences where it applies. It is not mentioned in this one, therefore applicable to all IFR flights assigned a lower altitude.

Example: “You are cleared to YAB, descend to 4,000 feet”. ATC is then responsible for terrain/obstacle clearance.

Subsequently, “You are cleared for the RNAV Y runway 25”. You become responsible for terrain/obstacle clearance.

[ahramin]

The entire section (1.5.5) is for aircraft being radar vectored. It only applies to aircraft being radar vectored, even if each sentence doesn't specify radar vectors.

However, in Canada radar controllers are not permitted to clear you to an altitude that has a terrain or traffic conflict. Even on a STAR they aren't allowed to do it which is why "Descend via STAR" was such an obvious disaster from suggestion to implementation to retraction.

[dialdriver]

http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/media/Public ... 444-EN.pdf

Air Traffic Management (PANS-ATM)
1/11/01

8.6.5 Radar vectoring

8.6.5.2 When vectoring an IFR flight and when giving an
IFR flight a direct routing which takes the aircraft off an ATS
route, the radar controller shall issue clearances such that the
prescribed obstacle clearance will exist at all times until the
aircraft reaches the point where the pilot will resume own
navigation. When necessary, the minimum radar vectoring
altitude shall include a correction for low temperature effect.
Note 1.— When an IFR flight is being vectored, the pilot
may be unable to determine the aircraft’s exact position in
respect to obstacles in this area and consequently the altitude
which provides the required obstacle clearance. Detailed
obstacle clearance criteria are contained in PANS-OPS
(Doc 8168), Volume I, Part VI, Chapter 3 (Altimeter
Corrections) and Volume II, Part II, Departure Procedures,
Part III, 24.2.2.3 (Procedures based on tactical vectoring),
and Part VI (Obstacle Clearance Criteria for En-route).

[altiplano]

The paragraph above and below duly note “radar vectors” in sentences where it applies. It is not mentioned in this one, therefore applicable to all IFR flights assigned a lower altitude.

Example: “You are cleared to YAB, descend to 4,000 feet”. ATC is then responsible for terrain/obstacle clearance.

Subsequently, “You are cleared for the RNAV Y runway 25”. You become responsible for terrain/obstacle clearance.

The entire section is under "radar vectors", they don't have to explicitly say "radar vector" in every sentence for it to apply to that... this is basic linguistic construction.

Look at the subject at the top of every clause you guys are quoting:

8.6.5 RADAR VECTORING
1.5.5 Obstacle Clearance during RADAR VECTORING

I can't believe this is an issue with a group I assumed are professional pilots.

So for the new IFR pilots reading this, and to summarize:

Every ATC altitude clearance does not guarantee terrain clearance.

Every ATC lateral clearance does not guarantee terrain clearance.

When you aren't being radar vectored, you are responsible for your own terrain... if you don't get that you're a hazard and should go talk to your local IFR guy and see if he can sort you out.

[AuxBatOn]

Part of my job is to write flight rules and interpret others. My guess is that they put that blurb in this section because they define MRVA in that section (related to radar vectoring) and its applicability to other situations. Why would they explicitly put “radar vectors” in other sentences but not this one? Also, the ATM supports my interpretation. In Canada (this incident happened in Canada yes?), ATC will not assign you an altitude below the MRVA, guaranteeing obstacle and terrain clearance.

[altiplano]

LOL... I like that it's your 'guess"...

It's explicitly written under, and applies to the subject.

Just to be clear, in your view, does every ATC clearance guarantee terrain separation?

What statement in the ATM supports you? The part under RADAR VECTORING?

[AuxBatOn]

Yes. Sounds like they consider giving a clearance direct to a fix a “radar vector” for that purpose...

When vectoring an IFR flight and when giving an
IFR flight a direct routing which takes the aircraft off an ATS
route, the radar controller shall issue clearances such that the
prescribed obstacle clearance will exist at all times

“Cleared direct XYZ, descend to 4,000 ft” will guarantee obstacle clearance.

[altiplano]

Yes. Sounds like they consider giving a clearance direct to a fix a “radar vector” for that purpose...

When vectoring an IFR flight and when giving an
IFR flight a direct routing which takes the aircraft off an ATS
route, the radar controller shall issue clearances such that the
prescribed obstacle clearance will exist at all times

“Cleared direct XYZ, descend to 4,000 ft” will guarantee obstacle clearance.

You are taking about a clearance while RADAR VECTORING though. "When vectoring"

Not all clearances constitute a radar vector and terrain responsibility by ATC.

Can you answer my question?

Do all ATC clearances guarantee terrain seperation?

[altiplano]

You should try flying on an airway at the MEA, but below MSA and ask for a clearance direct to your destination or IAF or whatever... you'll get the clearance...

In fact I've had ATC offer it... on the west coast, at 10,000' with pressurization problems but continuing on the airway at MEA to destination on the North Coast... Van Centre clears me direct to the IAF through sectors with 16,000'+ MSAs while I'm at 10,000'... Who do you think has responsibility for terrain seperation there?

[AuxBatOn]

Yes. Sounds like they consider giving a clearance direct to a fix a “radar vector” for that purpose...

When vectoring an IFR flight and when giving an
IFR flight a direct routing which takes the aircraft off an ATS
route, the radar controller shall issue clearances such that the
prescribed obstacle clearance will exist at all times

“Cleared direct XYZ, descend to 4,000 ft” will guarantee obstacle clearance.

You are taking about a clearance while RADAR VECTORING though. "When vectoring"

Not all clearances constitute a radar vector and terrain responsibility by ATC.

Can you answer my question?

Do all ATC clearances guarantee terrain seperation?

When ATC assigns you an altitude with a clearance, yes, it guarantees terrain separation.

The “and” in the ATM means it applies when on radar vectors and also when you are cleared direct a fix off airways. You cannot be on vectors and cleared direct a fix at the same time... that sentence would literally mean nothing if you had to be on vectors and direct a fix at the same time since these are mutually exclusive.

[altiplano]

Yes but in your case you are already on radar vectors and now they are putting you in a position to go direct off their vector. It's like the wrap up of their vector, and part of that.

Going in circles here...

Once again, can you answer my simple yes/no question?

Do all ATC clearances guarantee terrain seperation?

[ahramin]

Altiplano and AuxBatOn, the reason you two are going around in circles is that you are both correct. In Canada, which is where the incident happened, every altitude or lateral clearance from ATC should keep you clear of terrain. However, this is not true in other places in the world, and Canadian IFR training and the AIM reflect that. Even in Canada, there is nowhere in the AIM that relieves the pilots of the responsibility for terrain clearance except when on radar vectors.

[altiplano]

I agree, there is no time, other than radar vectors, that the pilot is relieved from terrain clearance responsibilities.

I provided an example where an ATC clearance did not provide terrain clearance.

ATC will give you a direct, off airway, clearance below sector altitudes. It's not a radar vector and they aren't responsible for terrain clearance.

Everything being quoted above is right under the sections pertaining specifically to radar vectors.

The specifics of this incident are unclear, but it doesn't sound to me like it wasn't a radar vector they were on.