Clearance altitude is inadequate to clear obstacles

nj-pilot

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Messages
240
Location
Maine
Display Name

Display name:
josh_me
I noticed that the altitude clearance I received for a recent flight was dangerously below MEA.
I'm PIC, so obviously I need to do whatever is necessary to stay safe, but what is the "appropriate" way to remedy this? Is it ATC's job to ensure this doesn't happen, or is it mine to keep tabs on ATC?
 
One leg of flight was from PMD -> POM on V197. MEA 10.5K feet. Clearance called for me to fly 7K feet.
While in route, ATC asked whether I was aware of 10.5K MEA. Seems odd for them to ask that since they gave me the 7K clearance. What's the right way to address in the future?
 
Ask for 11000.

It's not just dangerously close to terrain. V197 goes right over Mt Waterman, which is over 8000.

Your clearance is not 7000 over the whole flight. That's just the first altitude. PMD has an MCA of 8700.

See 14 CFR 91.177(b).
 
Yeah, staying at 7k would suck.



image.jpg



I'd wager they would climb you, still never hurts to ask and you're right, you're PIC.

I'd just say like Colorado said, or mention the MEA and Mt.Waterman
 
So ATC assigns 7K, and its on me to request higher altitude once en route? Just asking about process, since we dont have these kinds of issues in flatter parts of the country. Read 91.177 (again) - i understand the altitude reqmts, but my question is more about what to do when atc assigns lower.
 
Maybe he was going to climb you, maybe he screwed up (it happens), still a team sport and you're still responsible.
 
Regardless of who is "right," it's your butt that will make small collectibles in the ski area for the next century. You are PIC, and if you don't like what ATC gives you, ask for something else.

If it were me, I'd be asking questions before getting to PMD, as the assigned altitude was lower than the MCA. Flying IFR does not relieve you of terrain awareness. Among other things, large mountains like those can cause icing, and mountain wave activity is not rare.
 
Traditionally, they say something like "...maintain 7,000', expect 11,000 10 minutes after departure..."

That seems important, in case of two-way radio communication failure.
 
Both sides can make mistakes, each side should check what the other side is saying, other wise this can happen.

Alaska B1900C Accident – Contributory ATC Errors
The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) identified contributory ATC errors when they issued their probable cause of a fatal Beechcraft B1900C Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) accident in instrument meteorological conditions at Aleknagik, Alaska on 8 March 2013. The aircraft, N116AX, was operated by Alaska Central Express (Ace) Air Cargo.

The air traffic controller cleared the airplane to fly directly to ‘ZEDAG’ the initial approach fix, stating, “maintain at or above 2,000″ feet until established on a published segment of the approach. This was ambiguous and should have stated the aircraft should enter the terminal arrival area at or above 5,400 feet. The flight crewmembers repeated the clearance back to the controller as “maintain 2,000″ feet until established, and they began descending. The controller did not notice the pilot’s incorrect readback. Shortly after, when at 2,200 feet, the pilot requested to enter the holding pattern while they checked on runway conditions on another frequency, and the controller cleared them to hold “as published.” The published minimum altitude for the hold in that location was 4,300 feet msl. The air traffic system did generate aural visual minimum safe altitude warnings for the controller but he did not intervene.


Approach Plate (Credit: FAA) NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL USE

The aircraft collided with rising terrain at 2,000 feet msl while flying in a wings-level attitude on the outbound leg of the holding pattern. The aircraft had three pieces of navigation equipment that should have provided visual and aural terrain warnings to the flight crew, but these were so damaged on impact their functionality could not be examined.


Wreckage (Credit: NTSB)

The NTSB probable cause was determined to be:

The flight crew’s failure to maintain terrain clearance, which resulted in controlled flight into terrain in instrument meteorological conditions. Contributing to the accident were the flight crew’s failure to correctly read back and interpret clearance altitudes issued by the air traffic controller, their failure to adhere to minimum altitudes depicted on the published instrument approach chart, and their failure to adhere to company checklists.

Also contributing to the accident were the air traffic controller’s issuance of an ambiguous clearance to the flight crew, which resulted in the airplane’s premature descent, his failure to address the pilot’s incorrect read back of the assigned clearance altitudes, and his failure to monitor the flight and address the altitude violations and issue terrain-based safety alerts.
 
One leg of flight was from PMD -> POM on V197. MEA 10.5K feet. Clearance called for me to fly 7K feet...

Where were you when you received that clearance? If you were at or near PMD at the time, I would say it was an ATC screw-up. If the MEA was 7,000 or below at the location where you received that altitude assignment, it wouldn't be unusual, especially if you were a good distance away from the step-up in the MEA. I think ATC normally assigns a higher altitude at the appropriate time, but controllers are human too, so it's really important for the pilot to be aware of the MEA and be proactive when needed.
 
What altitude did you file for?
 
One leg of flight was from PMD -> POM on V197. MEA 10.5K feet. Clearance called for me to fly 7K feet.
While in route, ATC asked whether I was aware of 10.5K MEA. Seems odd for them to ask that since they gave me the 7K clearance. What's the right way to address in the future?
Looks like he was reminding you to ask for higher.
 
One leg of flight was from PMD -> POM on V197. MEA 10.5K feet. Clearance called for me to fly 7K feet.
While in route, ATC asked whether I was aware of 10.5K MEA. Seems odd for them to ask that since they gave me the 7K clearance.
Makes me wonder if you had not filed via an airway, ie, direct, would you have known about the mountain? Would they have said anything? Kudos for using airways in this area.

dtuuri
 
Traditionally, they say something like "...maintain 7,000', expect 11,000 10 minutes after departure..."

That seems important, in case of two-way radio communication failure.
Not really...you're expected to fly MEA if it's higher than you're last clearance altitude.
 
In my area on one route I would routinely file "too low" for the entire route, then request higher enroute. I would do this because when I did I would always get cleared direct, and when I requested the higher altitude when filing I would always get a reroute.
 
In my area on one route I would routinely file "too low" for the entire route, then request higher enroute. I would do this because when I did I would always get cleared direct, and when I requested the higher altitude when filing I would always get a reroute.

AIM 5-1-8 says that the altitude filed in a domestic flight plan form is the initial requested altitude, with requests for changes in altitude going to the controller during the flight if needed. For the ICAO form, AIM 5-1-9 says you can either file the altitude of the first leg, or the altitude for the whole flight.
 
AIM 5-1-8 says that the altitude filed in a domestic flight plan form is the initial requested altitude, with requests for changes in altitude going to the controller during the flight if needed. For the ICAO form, AIM 5-1-9 says you can either file the altitude of the first leg, or the altitude for the whole flight.
I think @FORANE has figured out the system enough to know that when filing low on this particular route the clearance is as desired, direct rather than a reroute.

Nothing wrong with filing "low". Just think if you were on a long flight across Kansas to Utah. You might not want to file the MEA (or higher) over the Rockies if you didn't want to climb up there right away.
 
...Nothing wrong with filing "low". Just think if you were on a long flight across Kansas to Utah. You might not want to file the MEA (or higher) over the Rockies if you didn't want to climb up there right away.
And a similar consideration applies to flights crossing the mountains in California.
 
Man I wish I could fly high enough to do 197.... I always head out 386 to PSP.

Mountain wave is real out there. I've had the living Kanye beat out of me in a B350 in that region more times than not on the early morning Coachella runs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Not really...you're expected to fly MEA if it's higher than you're last clearance altitude.

This.

"Bugsmasher 123 leaving seven-thousand, climbing one-one thousand to avoid large crunching sound ahead." ;)

Should'a just announced it and started up when you needed to, before the hint.
 
This.

"Bugsmasher 123 leaving seven-thousand, climbing one-one thousand to avoid large crunching sound ahead." ;)

Should'a just announced it and started up when you needed to, before the hint.
No, if you're IFR you can request the change early, but you can't climb until you get cleared to do so.
 
One leg of flight was from PMD -> POM on V197. MEA 10.5K feet. Clearance called for me to fly 7K feet.
While in route, ATC asked whether I was aware of 10.5K MEA. Seems odd for them to ask that since they gave me the 7K clearance. What's the right way to address in the future?
More specifics, please. What was the full route? What was your requested altitude?
 
Thanks - I really love this site as it is so rich in the perpetual learning experience. I had previously conditioned myself to trust ATC altitude clearances to protect me from obstacles / terrain. Obviously, if I'm aware of danger, then I take action, but it never occurred to me to double-check them as a matter of practice. Many thanks all!
 
I noticed that the altitude clearance I received for a recent flight was dangerously below MEA.
I'm PIC, so obviously I need to do whatever is necessary to stay safe, but what is the "appropriate" way to remedy this? Is it ATC's job to ensure this doesn't happen, or is it mine to keep tabs on ATC?

I wouldn't call it "keeping tabs on", but the answer to both questions is yes. ATC has a responsibility to issue "legal" instructions. Pilots have a responsibility to fly safely. Read Chapter 5, Section 5 of the AIM.
 
Regardless of who is "right," it's your butt that will make small collectibles in the ski area for the next century. You are PIC, and if you don't like what ATC gives you, ask for something else.

If it were me, I'd be asking questions before getting to PMD, as the assigned altitude was lower than the MCA. Flying IFR does not relieve you of terrain awareness. Among other things, large mountains like those can cause icing, and mountain wave activity is not rare.

Being very familiar with that particular route segment I wouldn't fly it at MEA if there was weather. In fact, as I recall, I only flew it in a turbine Commander going into KEMT from the north. For years the MEA was 10,000 because the FAA had missed terrain to the east of centerline.
 
I was flying along yesterday morning and a Citation took off of Scott County (SCX) heading for Atlanta. He'd been cleared to FL210 and Approach called me at 7500 as traffic to him and pointed him out to me (I reported traffic in sight). The guy voluntarily said he'd hold at 6000 until clear I heard ATC acknowledge but I'm fairly sure they didn't amend his clearance. He pretty quickly shot by me, but I watched him continue in the valley towards the Smokys at a low altitude. A hand-off later ATC tells him he's 5 miles ahead of the traffic. The pilot asks if he's cleared to climb. Controller is confused but tells him he is to FL210. I wonder how long he was planning to stay at an altitude lower than the terrain he was approaching (let alone any legal IFR altitude).

Frankly, there was never any need to arrest his climb. I had reported him in sight and he was already ahead of me and while the flight paths converged there was no way I was catching up to him.
 
Thanks - I really love this site as it is so rich in the perpetual learning experience. I had previously conditioned myself to trust ATC altitude clearances to protect me from obstacles / terrain. Obviously, if I'm aware of danger, then I take action, but it never occurred to me to double-check them as a matter of practice. Many thanks all!

I wouldn't exactly call it "double checking". You should, scratch "should", you have a responsibility to continually know where you are. Google NTSB-AAR-77-08
 
I noticed that the altitude clearance I received for a recent flight was dangerously below MEA.
I'm PIC, so obviously I need to do whatever is necessary to stay safe, but what is the "appropriate" way to remedy this? Is it ATC's job to ensure this doesn't happen, or is it mine to keep tabs on ATC?
It is always a joint responsibility. The controller that assigned you 7,000 was probably not the controller who gave you the big hint. Should that controller climbed you on his own based on the MCA and MEA ahead. Sure, but they are known to drop the ball in situations like this. 90% of the traffic worked by ATC in the Palmdale area are jets.
 
No, if you're IFR you can request the change early, but you can't climb until you get cleared to do so.

However, if the situation deteriorates to the point of becoming an emergency, you can do what you need to do, per 91.3(b).

An example would be if the controller forgot to assign a higher altitude, with the frequency being too busy to get a word in edgewise in time.
 
I'd query first to get higher, but if all else fails and you know there's terrain ahead, along with a higher MEA altitude, yeah I'm climbing.
 
I was flying along yesterday morning and a Citation took off of Scott County (SCX) heading for Atlanta. He'd been cleared to FL210 and Approach called me at 7500 as traffic to him and pointed him out to me (I reported traffic in sight). The guy voluntarily said he'd hold at 6000 until clear I heard ATC acknowledge but I'm fairly sure they didn't amend his clearance. He pretty quickly shot by me, but I watched him continue in the valley towards the Smokys at a low altitude. A hand-off later ATC tells him he's 5 miles ahead of the traffic. The pilot asks if he's cleared to climb. Controller is confused but tells him he is to FL210. I wonder how long he was planning to stay at an altitude lower than the terrain he was approaching (let alone any legal IFR altitude).

Frankly, there was never any need to arrest his climb. I had reported him in sight and he was already ahead of me and while the flight paths converged there was no way I was catching up to him.

Did he see you? I would understand at that close of a distance him just holding at 6k for a little to clear you, won't take him but a second to make up that altitude.
 
[QUOTE="flyingron, post: 2027050, member: 3093"
Frankly, there was never any need to arrest his climb. I had reported him in sight and he was already ahead of me and while the flight paths converged there was no way I was catching up to him.[/QUOTE]

Most likely he was just verifying he still had a higher altitude clearance. Professional pilots will do that, gotta protect the certificate ya know. ;) Plus as James said, he may not have seen you.
 
He still stayed at 6000 longer than I would have. He was barrelling down on some 6500' peaks and it was ATC who prodded him into the climb.
 
He still stayed at 6000 longer than I would have. He was barrelling down on some 6500' peaks and it was ATC who prodded him into the climb.
As long as he was maintaining his own terrain separation and was in VMC, I don't see a problem.

As far as the OP goes, ATC gave the OP a hint that higher terrain was approaching.
 
No, if you're IFR you can request the change early, but you can't climb until you get cleared to do so.

I thought the smiley covered that it was a joke based in the fact that you need to be the one deciding, not the controller, if cumulogranite is in your way. The goofy phraseology was also supposed to be a hint.

Too subtle I guess.
 
Back
Top