Swoop Terrain Warning

[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.

[lostaviator]

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.

[co-joe]

Seems like this wasn't an isolated incident. Happened the very next day as well....

December 17
A Swoop Inc. Boeing 737-8CT (C-FYBK/WSW107) on a flight from Hamilton, ON (CYHM) to Abbotsford, BC (CYXX) checked in on the HOPE 3 Arrival and was cleared for the area navigation (RNAV) 25 approach. The aircraft proceeded direct TASDI. The aircraft was levelled at the minimum IFR altitude.

...

The Cadors waters it down a bit, considering it was the controller who "levelled the aircraft off" by repeatedly calling them and instructing them to climb. Hacking HE, and KEKPO off the star is a bad idea. There's a reason ATC always instructs you to cross KEKPO at 9000' even though it a hard altitude on the star.

Eric is right, there's no terrain on the jepp star 10-2, and it's not geo synchronized so own ship doesn't display . There's a 100 nm safe and the crossing restrictions and that's it.

[losercruiser]

If you really need to know 25nm safe just look at the approach plate.

100nm safe is all you need for a STAR as long as you follow the STAR!

You can't just cut off sections as you please, it's not the same as ATC telling you to go DCT GOREG because you are radar controlled at that point and THEY take responsibility for terrain clearance.

Man fucking Swoop. Every time I drive by YXX on that side road and see those puke planes I roll my eyes and cry a little bit about the state of our profession in Canada.

[Edelweiss air]

If you really need to know 25nm safe just look at the approach plate.

100nm safe is all you need for a STAR as long as you follow the STAR!

You can't just cut off sections as you please, it's not the same as ATC telling you to go DCT GOREG because you are radar controlled at that point and THEY take responsibility for terrain clearance.

Man fucking Swoop. Every time I drive by YXX on that side road and see those puke planes I roll my eyes and cry a little bit about the state of our profession in Canada.

Only time atc takes terrain clearance is if you’re on a radar vector ie flying an assigned heading. Accepting direct to a fix it’s up to you.

[AuxBatOn]

If you really need to know 25nm safe just look at the approach plate.

100nm safe is all you need for a STAR as long as you follow the STAR!

You can't just cut off sections as you please, it's not the same as ATC telling you to go DCT GOREG because you are radar controlled at that point and THEY take responsibility for terrain clearance.

Man fucking Swoop. Every time I drive by YXX on that side road and see those puke planes I roll my eyes and cry a little bit about the state of our profession in Canada.

Only time atc takes terrain clearance is if you’re on a radar vector ie flying an assigned heading. Accepting direct to a fix it’s up to you.

“You are cleared direct X, descend to 4,000 feet”. Obstacle clearance is ATC’s responsibility.

[losercruiser]

If you really need to know 25nm safe just look at the approach plate.

100nm safe is all you need for a STAR as long as you follow the STAR!

You can't just cut off sections as you please, it's not the same as ATC telling you to go DCT GOREG because you are radar controlled at that point and THEY take responsibility for terrain clearance.

Man fucking Swoop. Every time I drive by YXX on that side road and see those puke planes I roll my eyes and cry a little bit about the state of our profession in Canada.

Only time atc takes terrain clearance is if you’re on a radar vector ie flying an assigned heading. Accepting direct to a fix it’s up to you.

Not in terminal airspace. The post above me is correct. ATC isn't going to just tell you to go DCT GOREG when you are over the Hope beacon...

They'll usually start with a heading, then descend you and then clear you direct somewhere.

You might be right "technically" but that's just not how real life works.

[Edelweiss air]

If you really need to know 25nm safe just look at the approach plate.

100nm safe is all you need for a STAR as long as you follow the STAR!

You can't just cut off sections as you please, it's not the same as ATC telling you to go DCT GOREG because you are radar controlled at that point and THEY take responsibility for terrain clearance.

Man fucking Swoop. Every time I drive by YXX on that side road and see those puke planes I roll my eyes and cry a little bit about the state of our profession in Canada.

Only time atc takes terrain clearance is if you’re on a radar vector ie flying an assigned heading. Accepting direct to a fix it’s up to you.

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.

[fish4life]

Exactly just because Canadian ATC does it as a best practice doesn’t mean you can trust ATC elsewhere to do it as well.

[AuxBatOn]

Only time atc takes terrain clearance is if you’re on a radar vector ie flying an assigned heading. Accepting direct to a fix it’s up to you.

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.

[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 3836 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).