Filing a lower altitude for Preferred Routes

Trogdor

Trogdor

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
409
Location
NJ
Display Name
Display name:
Trogdor
I have the following preferred route:

47N BREZY V39.SOARS V487.CAM KRUT

The issue is after SOARS the MEA is 12000. Why? I really don’t know. If you look at the Sectional MEFs and/or the OROCAs, there are no obstacles even close to that. There is an MCA of 12000 right after SOARS on V487 but again, I really don’t know why minus NAVID reception (but it’s probably not an MRA because the Victor airway is not predicated on it).

Could I just file 6000 instead? The reason for 6000 is that its the GPS MEA past SOARS going in the opposite direction but certainly high enough to avoid all obstacles and then some.

I guess my general question is this: If I flew this route, would I really get FL120? I think that would be ridiculous to say the least (not to mention that I would probably be past KRUT by the time I got there - just kidding, sorta).
 
Trogdor said:
I have the following preferred route:

47N BREZY V39.SOARS V487.CAM KRUT

The issue is after SOARS the MEA is 12000. Why? I really don’t know. If you look at the Sectional MEFs and/or the OROCAs, there are no obstacles even close to that. There is an MCA of 12000 right after SOARS on V487 but again, I really don’t know why minus NAVID reception (but it’s probably not an MRA because the Victor airway is not predicated on it).

Could I just file 6000 instead? The reason for 6000 is that its the GPS MEA past SOARS going in the opposite direction but certainly high enough to avoid all obstacles and then some.

I guess my general question is this: If I flew this route, would I really get FL120? I think that would be ridiculous to say the least (not to mention that I would probably be past KRUT by the time I got there - just kidding, sorta).
Click to expand...
Yes you can file 6000. I doubt if you would get 12,000. MEA being 12,000 doesn’t make sense to me either. I can see no logical reason for it at first glance.
 
I’ve flown to RUT from FRG and I’ve never filed or gotten cleared above 8000. You’ll be fine at 6000. I don’t remember the MEA being that high. Maybe a charting error?
 
Yeah, it is so strange! 12000 seems outlandish for that airway.
 
I don't know the answer but the chart information suggests to me the possibility of a problem with VOR line-of-sight reception from BDR and/or ALB at the lower altitudes which is irrelevant if you have GPS and or are in radar contact where they can give you a correcting vector if necessary..

upload_2021-9-18_13-21-56.png
 
Last edited:
Trogdor said:
The reason for 6000 is that its the GPS MEA past SOARS going in the opposite direction but certainly high enough to avoid all obstacles and then some.
Click to expand...
I see that the navaid 6000 MEA is southbound and 12000 MEA northbound , as indicated by the black text and black arrows, but isn't the GPS MEA (blue 6000G) for either direction?

upload_2021-9-18_11-54-53.png
 
Yes, it is. I could just file 6000G and I think that’s that.
 
Remember that you file your initial requested altitude…even if you needed to be at 12k after SOARS, that could be issued by ATC as a change after departure.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Remember that you file your initial requested altitude…even if you needed to be at 12k after SOARS, that could be issued by ATC as a change after departure.
Click to expand...

I actually been told you can file EITHER your initial altitude or the highest of the MEAs of your selected route. In either case, you may not get either.
 
I would guess that the ALB VOR is screwed up. There always seemed to be weird NOTAMs about that VOR, now there is a segment not available at all, and a note on the low chart that at least one radial is unusable. If I were cynical, I'd also guess that the FAA plan is to let every VOR between NYC and Montreal break.
 
STUBY on V39 has an MRA of 12000. STUBY is where V39 turns NE bound and uses BDR VOR-DME until that point. So it is a reception issue with BDR355R. From BDR line of sight to STUBY is along rising terrain and the direct line between BDR and ALB along V91 doesn't switch from BDR to ALB until about 3 NM after STUBY.

So if you are using VOR for navigation on the V airways, the MRA is the issue. You can use the 6000G if you are using GPS to navigate the airway.
 
John Collins said:
So if you are using VOR for navigation on the V airways, the MRA is the issue.
Click to expand...
Yep, if you're southbound at MEA of 4000' on V39, at STUBY you'd need to climb up another 8000' before proceeding. Contrast that with being southbound on V91 at ALB—even though the MEA is the same, 12000', the MCA is 9300', so no need to hold while climbing to MEA if above that. Don't look for Victor airways north of ALB, though. They're on the scrap heap of history. I wonder if there's a market for obsolete charts? Hmmm....

Phantom Victor airways north of ALB.png
 
Trogdor said:
I actually been told you can file EITHER your initial altitude or the highest of the MEAs of your selected route. In either case, you may not get either.
Click to expand...
FWIW you can file anything you want. The downside of filing lower than what you want to cruise at, is they’ll just probably leave you down there thinking that’s what you want. As far as lost com goes it’s simply not a factor. Filed altitude does not figure into the rules on that. There are some issues for the big iron guys who need to burn off some gas before they can get light enough to get up to where they want to be. Usually an Oceanic thing. I don’t remember what the rules are on how to file in this situation.
 
Disclaimer, IFR student...

The segment appears to be between the Bridgeport VOR (8' MSL) and the Albany VOR (284' MSL). Bridgeport is only 22 miles from SOARS, but Albany is 78 miles. I suspect the combination of 78 miles, the 284' altitude and mountainous terrain probably has some impact on reception, thus the higher MEA to ensure VOR reception.
 
Yeah, that’s what I figured (see original post). It’s still strange. Perhaps the 6000G is in fact to mitigate the 12k issue with ALB.

One other question is how do they choose the ‘G’ MEAs?
 
luvflyin said:
Any references on that?
Click to expand...

AIM 5-1-9 International Flight Plan Form:

6. Item 15. Cruise Speed, Level and Route
(a) Cruise Speed (maximum 5 characters). Insert the true airspeed for the first or the whole cruising portion of the flight, in terms of knots, expressed as N followed by 4 digits (e.g. N0485), or Mach number to the nearest hundredth of unit Mach, expressed as M followed by 3 digits (for example, M082).
(b) Cruising level (maximum 5 characters). Insert the planned cruising level for the first or the whole portion of the route to be flown, in terms of flight level, expressed as F followed by 3 figures (for example, F180; F330), or altitude in hundreds of feet, expressed as A followed by 3 figures (for example, A040; A170).
Click to expand...

If ATC needs to change your initial cruise altitude, the clearance will have the amended altitude. Initial altitudes are filed all the time when I go west over the mountains. ATC will eventually clear me to higher MIA/MEA altitudes if they need to.
 
Last edited:
Trogdor said:
Yeah, that’s what I figured (see original post). It’s still strange. Perhaps the 6000G is in fact to mitigate the 12k issue with ALB.

One other question is how do they choose the ‘G’ MEAs?
Click to expand...

The G MEA are chosen to be above the MIA and provide Com along the route at the altitude. The MEA on a Victor airway is based on VOR navigation reception and Com. In this case, the VOR navigation signal drives the higher MEA.
 
luvflyin said:
Any references on that?
Click to expand...
AIM:
  1. Block 7. Enter the requested en route altitude or flight level.
    NOTE-

    Enter only the initial requested altitude in this block. When more than one IFR altitude or flight level is desired along the route of flight, it is best to make a subsequent request direct to the controller.
Click to expand...
 
MauleSkinner said:
AIM:
Click to expand...
Gotcha. That’s from the Domestic Flight Plan form. The ICAO form has this to say:

(b) Cruising level (maximum 5 characters).
Insert the planned cruising level for the first or the
whole portion of the route to be flown, in terms of
flight level, expressed as F followed by 3 figures (for
example, F180; F330), or altitude in hundreds of feet,
expressed as A followed by 3 figures (for example,
A040; A170).
 
luvflyin said:
FWIW you can file anything you want. The downside of filing lower than what you want to cruise at, is they’ll just probably leave you down there thinking that’s what you want. As far as lost com goes it’s simply not a factor. Filed altitude does not figure into the rules on that. There are some issues for the big iron guys who need to burn off some gas before they can get light enough to get up to where they want to be. Usually an Oceanic thing. I don’t remember what the rules are on how to file in this situation.
Click to expand...
Doesn't have to be Oceanic. Any significantly long leg, and we'll have step climbs filed. Here's a briefing strip from our flight plan for a flight I did from Asia to Europe.

The highlighted numbers are the filed altitudes. The "S" altitudes at the beginning are in meters, then at point SARIN we switched over to feet.
IMG_0144.jpg
Those filed altitudes are great for planning purposes, but in reality, we'll request higher when the FMS tells us that it's advantageous to do so.

luvflyin said:
Gotcha. That’s from the Domestic Flight Plan form. The ICAO form has this to say:

(b) Cruising level (maximum 5 characters).
Insert the planned cruising level for the first or the
whole portion of the route to be flown ...
Click to expand...
I take that to mean that if you plan on changing altitudes during the flight, file the first altitude you want. If the whole flight is going to be at one altitude, file that one altitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top