Lets Talk About OROCA

Discussion in 'Cleared for the Approach' started by luvflyin, Sep 10, 2017.

  1. luvflyin

    luvflyin En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,782
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Luvflyin
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2017
  2. flyingron

    flyingron Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    14,088
    Location:
    Catawba, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FlyingRon
    The FAA outright says not to use it for computing your minimum airway altitude in the Instrument Procedures Handbook. Your quoted information pretty much indicates why (collective wisdom that has been promulgated via other means over the years).

    The sectional chart MEF figures make it a bit easier, provided you use them correctly. Of course they can be rather pessimistic if the determining obstruction is outside your actual 4 mile swath.
     
  3. luvflyin

    luvflyin En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,782
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Luvflyin
    Yeah. They are proposing to not only doing away with that "don't use them to compute..." They are proposing making them mandatory. If I read it right, OROCAS would be added to MEA and MOCA as "minimum altitudes for IFR operations." For now, like you say, MEF's can be more valuable because they are half the size of OROCA grids. Ya just gotta remember that while OROCA's give you 1000 or 2000 feet of clearance depending on Mountainous area or not, MEF's only give you about 300.

    EDIT: They aren't proposing making it a "hard" altitude. Someone did at one time but that got nixed
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2017
  4. flyingron

    flyingron Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    14,088
    Location:
    Catawba, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FlyingRon
    I don't get that at all. It is saying that they should say the OROCA will meet the requirements of 91.177, but it doesn't say anything about requiring it for all off airway routes. You're still free to calculate your own with MEFs or whatever else you have at your disposal.
     
  5. luvflyin

    luvflyin En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,782
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Luvflyin
    I see that now. I was keying off on "The ACF Point-to-Point Subcommittee, established at ACF 16-02,discussed the RTCA proposed solution which was to replace OROCA with a Grid Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA)." Looks like that got nixed.
     
  6. chartbundle

    chartbundle Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    641
    Location:
    State of Confusion
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    chartbundle
    Here in the west I'd sort of like to see Enroute charts with something like the controller MVA/MIA chart/contours instead of a pure grid. With a 60NM grid you get things like 16,000+ OROCA NW of Denver and on-airway MEA of 11,000 in some areas. Of course we can switch to a VFR chart to check terrain, but it would be nice to see what ATC can actually give you if you need to be off-airway.
     
    denverpilot likes this.
  7. mscard88

    mscard88 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    16,959
    Location:
    Alabama
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    Having MVA on the enroute chart would really clutter it up and is probably impractical. . Depending on the airspace those MVA charts have numerous sectors, all with possible different altitudes. Think you could pull up the MVA as a map on the scope back when I did ATC, but that's been many moons ago.
     
  8. Harold Rutila

    Harold Rutila Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2016
    Messages:
    419
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Harold Rutila
    This certainly caught me by surprise.

    Yikes.
     
  9. SbestCFII

    SbestCFII Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2013
    Messages:
    512
    Location:
    NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    CFII Scott
    The OROCA is useful and better than the MEF on a Sectional, since the OROCA includes the additional 1000-2000 ft. altitude in mountainous or non-mountainous terrain and are updated every 28 days instead of every 6 months. The cruise altitudes are the IFR altitudes at or above the OROCA for direction of travel. In the clip below, near Smithfield, NC (KJNX) if going your MEA would be 4000 and 5000 going westerly and easterly respectively. I've never been aware of any temporary obstructions that would encroach on these altitudes. Generally, temporary obstructions rise only a few hundred feet above the ground, certainly not a thousand feet or more. If you follow OROCA guidance on the charts for cruise, I can't foresee of a scenaro where you'll smack into anything.