Beech 1900 down, let this be a lesson to you all.

TMetzinger said:
How many of us brief the MSA as part of the chart review while heading to the IAF? I will admit that I sometimes forget, but this is a reminder to do it in the future.
Click to expand...

This plate doesn't have an MSA.
 
roncachamp said:
No. I already said there was no need to issue an altitude at all if they were within the TAA. "At or above 2000" did not require them to descend to 2000.
Click to expand...

But, it did require them to climb a significant amount without federal aid.
 
This sounds hauntingly similar to kinds of circumstances that led to the accident at Mount Weather with an approach clearance into IAD.
 
At certain airports,aren't clearances routinely given for vectors to IAFs that are below the minimum altitude for the that IAF? And for altitudes that are below the MSA?

Is the argument here saying that all altitude clearances be checked against MSA and charted minimum altitudes before compliance?
 
"Yes, sir, I will maintain WELL above 2,000, for obstacle clearance . . . and because I still have so much to live for!"
 
All I learned from this is that you can't pay me peanuts to do that s--t for a living..
 
snoboy said:
He never said that it had one.
Click to expand...

I never said that he said that it had one.

His point is clear, if one is neglecting to review the MSA on a chart they are probably not reviewing the TAA when it appears either.
Click to expand...

Actually, that that was his point is not clear.
 
Bill Watson said:
At certain airports,aren't clearances routinely given for vectors to IAFs that are below the minimum altitude for the that IAF? And for altitudes that are below the MSA?
Click to expand...

Not in my experience - In fact, I can't ever remember getting vectors to an IAF at all. I have caught a controller giving me a vector at an altitude below the FAF, questioned them, and had them amend it to the correct altitude, though. I also check my enroute altitudes pretty thoroughly, especially when I'm filing a non-direct route, so that I know when I can accept direct at my planned altitude.

Is the argument here saying that all altitude clearances be checked against MSA and charted minimum altitudes before compliance?
Click to expand...

Sure hurts less than the alternative when someone makes a mistake.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
The GPS 19 for Dillingham? I see a split MSA diagram in the upper right hand corner.
Click to expand...

Apparently that is not technically a MSA and that is why it does not say MSA.

I.e. "MSAs are not depicted on terminal arrival area (TAA) approach charts."

Also "When the TAA is published, it replaces the MSA for that approach procedure."
 
Last edited:
alfadog said:
Apparently that is not technically a MSA and that is why it does not say MSA.

I.e. "MSAs are not depicted on terminal arrival area (TAA) approach charts."

Also "When the TAA is published, it replaces the MSA for that approach procedure."
Click to expand...

Technically you are correct. But the arcs, ranges and altitudes are there. Maybe I am old fashioned, (OK, OK, I AM old fashioned) but briefing the chart is something I don't skip. The information was there. Tragic.
 
A word of caution on synthetic vision. I've had a G1000 with SVT in my DA40 for the last 5 years. It's fantastic for providing situational awareness on approaches. It also makes flying approaches much easier and thus I believe less mistake prone unless your flying depends on SVT for a safe outcome. I also think it is harder to become disoriented in IMC because it does a better job of depicting the horizon than a two color display does

However it sucks as a terrain avoidence tool. I live in the Rockies and coming from the east you need to fly through one of 3 canyons If you want to,land VFR at my home field so I have plenty of experience with SVT as a terrain avoidence tool. It depicts mountains in a very two demential way compared to what is out the windscreen. Once the terrain turns yellow in the PFD you have to be very lucky to make it out safely. Terrain on the mfd however is great. If that magenta line goes through yellow or red, you're screwed and you know it with plenty or warning.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Technically you are correct. But the arcs, ranges and altitudes are there. Maybe I am old fashioned, (OK, OK, I AM old fashioned) but briefing the chart is something I don't skip. The information was there. Tragic.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. I am just clarifying what is meant when folks in the thread say there is no MSA on the chart. I had to look that up, too.
 
TAAs look superficially like MSA circles I guess, but the semantics are completely different. The altitudes in TAA arcs are published altitudes and the NoPT notations mean the same thing that they would on feeder routes. If you're cleared for the approach, you're cleared (and, I believe, expected) to descend to the published TAA altitude once you're within the depicted area. Very different from MSAs.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Not in my experience - In fact, I can't ever remember getting vectors to an IAF at all. I have caught a controller giving me a vector at an altitude below the FAF, questioned them, and had them amend it to the correct altitude, though.
Click to expand...

That he changed the altitude doesn't mean the previously issued altitude was incorrect. The MVA could be lower than the charted altitude. The controller can vector down to the MVA but using the charted altitude makes for fewer questions asked.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
The GPS 19 for Dillingham? I see a split MSA diagram in the upper right hand corner.
Click to expand...

No you don't. That is a TAA. TAA procedures are great, but you must be trained for them before you use them.

When was the last time you saw, "30 NM to ZEDAG (NoPT)" on an MSA?
 
bobmrg said:
Once upon a time Seattle Center had me at an altitude that would have run me into the Cascade mountains. I questioned it, he gave me a higher altitude, and all was well. IMHO the crew in this instance dropped the ball.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

Bob,

I presume by the context of your message that by "the crew in this instance dropped the ball" means they didn't figure out that ATC was sending them down the primrose path.

If so, I agree. But, in this era of "radar babies" and "children of the magenta line" how many would pick up on a dangerous ATC altitude assignment?

I am surprised in this case. I thought the Alaska Part 135 folks were sharper (as matter of survival) than folks in the lower 48.
 
aterpster said:
I am surprised in this case. I thought the Alaska Part 135 folks were sharper (as matter of survival) than folks in the lower 48.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. AK folks fly differently and therefore have to learn som different "tricks of the trade" but they aren't super pilots. Add on to the fact they were freight pilots which means they are automatically flying tired all of the time. Even the best pilots die when they make simple mistake. Even without looking at the TAA, it is extremely odd to get an altitude over 2,000 feet below the fix you are intercepting. I get vectors or told to proceed direct an IAF almost daily. It is very common on the western half of the U.S.
 
aterpster said:
No you don't. That is a TAA. TAA procedures are great, but you must be trained for them before you use them.

When was the last time you saw, "30 NM to ZEDAG (NoPT)" on an MSA?
Click to expand...

Technically you are correct. But the arcs, ranges and altitudes are there. Maybe I am old fashioned, (OK, OK, I AM old fashioned) but briefing the chart is something I don't skip. The information was there. Tragic.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Technically you are correct. But the arcs, ranges and altitudes are there. Maybe I am old fashioned, (OK, OK, I AM old fashioned) but briefing the chart is something I don't skip. The information was there. Tragic.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. You are apparently one who could fly the procedure without some prior exposure.
 
alfadog said:
Apparently that is not technically a MSA and that is why it does not say MSA.

I.e. "MSAs are not depicted on terminal arrival area (TAA) approach charts."

Also "When the TAA is published, it replaces the MSA for that approach procedure."
Click to expand...

yeahbut... I treat that diagram the same way... don't go below those altitudes without being damn sure it's ok to do so.
 
Why is there so much discussion of this? To me, it is obvious that both the controllers and the pilots share some blame.

Who gives a rat's ass about whether or not the controller was correctly interpreting the TERPS? If you were that controller, do you think you would sleep well knowing that you had said the word "two thousand," even if, technically, you were within your rights to do so?

And the pilots could have saved themselves by reviewing the freaking plate!
 
spiderweb said:
And the pilots could have saved themselves by reviewing the freaking plate!
Click to expand...

An iPad with any one of the popular aviation apps could have given them a graphical heads-up on where they were and where they were headed. Pretty cheap situational awareness.
 
aterpster said:
Yes indeed. You are apparently one who could fly the procedure without some prior exposure.
Click to expand...

I would hope that ANY rated pilot could execute an approach without prior exposure. That is why they print the plates. You brief the plate, fly the procedure as indicated. It's not that complicated if you follow the procedure and cross check.
 
aterpster said:
Yes indeed. You are apparently one who could fly the procedure without some prior exposure.
Click to expand...

I fly procedures weekly to airports I have never been to. Any professional aviator should be able to, and expected to do this with little to no prior notice. In fact any instrument rated pilot should be able to READ an approach plate, and fly it.
 
LDJones said:
An iPad with any one of the popular aviation apps could have given them a graphical heads-up on where they were and where they were headed. Pretty cheap situational awareness.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but flights like this are done by the thousands every single day without an iPad. Hell the airplane is reported to have GPWS and TAWS with a 430. You dont get a whole lot more in terms of situational awareness than that.
 
Inverted said:
Agreed, but flights like this are done by the thousands every single day without an iPad. Hell the airplane is reported to have GPWS and TAWS with a 430. You dont get a whole lot more in terms of situational awareness than that.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I just wonder if a couple of bleary eyed guys heard "descend and maintain 2600 or above" and dialed in the lower altitude, just looking forward to hitting the chocks and the coffee pot. The freight haulers I was aquatinted with up there were typically hour hungry and sleep deprived.
 
LDJones said:
An iPad with any one of the popular aviation apps could have given them a graphical heads-up on where they were and where they were headed. Pretty cheap situational awareness.
Click to expand...

I fly with a G1000, built-in moving map with terrain graphics. It is great! However, in doing my IR training, my instructor suggested getting charts on board or at least on Ipad. Ipad was cheaper, so that is what I did. But, I found out that looking at the Ipad was difficult while managing simulated IMC. I was doing better with the paper chart in front of me and setting the I-pad aside. It is just a matter of mounting it in an effective location to make better use of it. But, here is my real point:

On my IR checkride, I had the G1000 moving map with terrain activated, doing some holding patterns, and then the DPE cleared me direct to the VOR and begin the VOR approach. OK, no problem, except that it took me 30 seconds or so to finally get it set properly (To the VOR). I kept hitting the wrong button sequence causing excess delay. Then, after getting it properly set, and just before I was about to start my turn towards the VOR, the DPE said "look up". I complied only to see mountain terrain directly in front of me perhaps 2 to 4 miles ahead (i.e. less than 2 minutes). Prior to that moment, I had been completely unaware of the terrain ahead due to concentrating on the procedures and directions given by the DPE (i.e. ATC).

This re-inforced three things. 1) get turned towards the proper heading promptly, 2) Even though a moving map with terrain is on display, if you don't keep it in your scan, it does nothing for you, and 3) I want synthetic vision! If I had this, I don't see how I could have missed the impending terrain...

All it takes is a few minutes of screw ups and/or losing some situational awareness to hit a mountain...
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I would hope that ANY rated pilot could execute an approach without prior exposure. That is why they print the plates. You brief the plate, fly the procedure as indicated. It's not that complicated if you follow the procedure and cross check.
Click to expand...

I do not share your rosy view. I was involved in the development of TAA procedures and all involved it needed a detailed explanation in the AIM, which it got.

You need to hang out with some active CFIs. :D
 
spiderweb said:
Why is there so much discussion of this? To me, it is obvious that both the controllers and the pilots share some blame.

Who gives a rat's ass about whether or not the controller was correctly interpreting the TERPS? If you were that controller, do you think you would sleep well knowing that you had said the word "two thousand," even if, technically, you were within your rights to do so?

And the pilots could have saved themselves by reviewing the freaking plate!
Click to expand...

The controller doesn't have to know TERPs; most don't.

But, they have to know a fundamental of IFR clearances: not to clear an aircraft below the center's MIA, which was 4,000 in that area. There is no option about that except on a route assignment with an MEA lower than 4,000. In fact, since the applicable TAA was 5,400 the assigned altitude should have been not less than 5,400. If the assignment had been the MIA (4,000) and the crew had been sharp, they would have requested a climb to at least 4,300 and, if in doubt about the direct clearance, they should have requested 5,400.

But, the crew didn't catch the gross mishandling by ATC and they paid the ultimate price for not being ATC auditors, so to speak. Maybe they were very tired. Who knows? The NTSB will track their duty and rest times.

Friends of mine died in the 1974 TWA 514 crash for us to get all these conservative altitude rules. And, those guys in 1974 were far more to blame than this BE1900 crew.
 
aterpster said:
I do not share your rosy view. I was involved in the development of TAA procedures and all involved it needed a detailed explanation in the AIM, which it got.

You need to hang out with some active CFIs. :D
Click to expand...

Well in the CFI world, maybe pilots sit down and look at an approach plate a week in advance because they feel like bringing a student there, that's great. But the majority, and I mean large majority of aviating that is done on this planet, is not like that. If any corporate, charter, freight, regional, major airline pilot told their bosses that they couldn't do the flight until they reread the AIM and needed to study all the approach plates they would be laughed at, then fired, and rightfully so.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Technically you are correct. But the arcs, ranges and altitudes are there. Maybe I am old fashioned, (OK, OK, I AM old fashioned) but briefing the chart is something I don't skip. The information was there. Tragic.
Click to expand...


I'm with you on this regarding available information and the fact that we should use all available information on these charts. Whether it's an MSA or TAA the minimum obstruction altitude is given.


d. Terminal Arrival Area (TAA)
1. The objective of the TAA is to provide a seamless transition from the en route structure to the terminal environment for arriving aircraft equipped with Flight Management System (FMS) and/or Global Positioning System (GPS) navigational equipment. The underlying instrument approach procedure is an area navigation (RNAV) procedure described in this section. The TAA provides the pilot and air traffic controller with a very efficient method for routing traffic into the terminal environment with little required air traffic control interface, and with minimum altitudes depicted that provide standard obstacle clearance compatible with the instrument procedure associated with it. The TAA will not be found on all RNAV procedures, particularly in areas of heavy concentration of air traffic. When the TAA is published, it replaces the MSA for that approach procedure. See FIG 5-4-9 for a depiction of a RNAV approach chart with a TAA.
 
aterpster said:
I do not share your rosy view. I was involved in the development of TAA procedures and all involved it needed a detailed explanation in the AIM, which it got.

You need to hang out with some active CFIs. :D
Click to expand...

I'm sure you mean CFIIs :D But then 90% of the CFIIs I run into have very little real world experience in actual IFR. Maybe I'm just lucky enough to have flown a whole bunch of spur-of-the-moment-go-right-now-screw-the weather hours and got a lot of practice gleaning information from charts and plates.
 
This was to be a short flight; the mileage between PAKN and PADL on V453 is 58NM. The MEA is 2100.

We are missing some factual data that would help us understand how the accident occurred.

  • What was the assigned routing and altitude from King Salmon (PAKN) to Dillingham (PADL)
  • Where along this route was the aircraft when the approach clearance was issued and what was its then current assigned altitude
  • What was the exact verbiage used by the controller when he issued the approach clearance
If the aircraft was already within the boundary of the TAA and was established on a segment of the approach, an altitude assignment for obstruction clearance is not required. (See APT 7110.65, Para 4-8-1-e)

If the aircraft was outside of the TAA depicted on the approach chart when the approach clearance was issued, the controller was required to include an altitude assignment that will provide obstruction clearance until the aircraft is established inside the TAA.

The altitude assignment of “2000 or above” by the controller is highly questionable. If they were already established on a segment of the approach, the assignment was unnecessary and likely caused confusion to the crew. If they were outside of the TAA, the altitude assignment was just flat wrong because it did not provide the required obstruction clearance.

The crew’s lack of realization of the dangerous situation they were entering into calls into question their training, knowledge and lack of situational awareness.

I suspect that when all is said and done there will be plenty of blame for everyone involved.





 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top