MEA's on STAR's

[pstan]

I've been meaning to ask this for awhile. Why do some STARs have such high MEA's. For example, the Kingston 1 arrival into JFK has FL190 under the track line between two waypoints.

It's not a planning altitude is it?

Stan

 

[saracelica]

That is for a turbojet or turboprop airplanes only.

 

[pstan]

thanks for the replies guys

As the kingston arrival is not a "descend via " star, I'm wondering how these "recommended" altitudes are determined. Do you normally find they are different from the atc assigned altitudes?

 

[dtuuri]

STARs don't have MEAs. ... FL190 is a recommended altitude.

Really, you should back up statements like this with a citation. This is wrong.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

thanks for the replies guys

As the kingston arrival is not a "descend via " star, I'm wondering how these "recommended" altitudes are determined. Do you normally find they are different from the atc assigned altitudes?

You may want to review my tutorial "Help Me If You Can" at www.AvClicks.com.

dtuuri

 

[dmspilot]

Really, you should back up statements like this with a citation. This is wrong.

Sorry.

 

[pstan]

Dtuuri, I did review your tutorial. Very nice thanks

So I gather that mea's are charted for a STAR then, according to your info. And so FL190 on the Kingston 1 arrival is an MEA?

So the question remains....

why such a high MEA, FL190?

 

[Velocity173]

The altitudes published aren't MEAs. You could get way lower than FL190 for terrain and signal coverage along that route. This STAR is for arriving turbojets / turboprops from the west. It transitions them from the enroute to the terminal and to affect IFR separation with other arrivals / departures. Only way of truly knowing why they chose 190 is either look at the TERPS data for the arrival or ask one of the JFK approach controllers. I'd guess that particular arrival flying right over the heart of the B and a crapload of V airways below, I'd say they're trying to top departing & V airway traffic below.

 

[dtuuri]

Dtuuri, I did review your tutorial. Very nice thanks

So I gather that mea's are charted for a STAR then, according to your info. And so FL190 on the Kingston 1 arrival is an MEA?

So the question remains....

why such a high MEA, FL190?

I researched this point when I made that tutorial, so I wouldn't be calling it an incorrect name. According to the chart legend and Chart User's Guide it's an MEA. I have links to both from my website. As to "why" they call it that I can only guess that it's because it's the lowest flight level allowed for that direction. If you want to search the FAA's website for Orders that would indicate it really isn't an MEA, I'll be happy to make a correction to the slide.

dtuuri

 

[Velocity173]

I researched this point when I made that tutorial, so I wouldn't be calling it an incorrect name. According to the chart legend and Chart User's Guide it's an MEA. I have links to both from my website. As to "why" they call it that I can only guess that it's because it's the lowest flight level allowed for that direction. If you want to search the FAA's website for Orders that would indicate it really isn't an MEA, I'll be happy to make a correction to the slide.

dtuuri

Sure doesn't fit the definition of what an MEA is. If the chart users guide says it is, so be it.

 

[Sluggo63]

I researched this point when I made that tutorial, so I wouldn't be calling it an incorrect name. According to the chart legend and Chart User's Guide it's an MEA. I have links to both from my website. As to "why" they call it that I can only guess that it's because it's the lowest flight level allowed for that direction. If you want to search the FAA's website for Orders that would indicate it really isn't an MEA, I'll be happy to make a correction to the slide.

dtuuri

That's a good website. Obviously, that's not a Minimum Enroute Altitude, since the grid MORA to the west is 6,500'. I agree that the STAR chart codes it as a MEA (according to the legend), but obviously it's not.

 

[Edgefly]

Ron & McNicoll,

surely you two can contribute to this. Are they MEAs or not ?

 

[bqmassey]

MORA?

 

[John Collins]

I saw a related type of question about MEA depiction on SID. See the KCLT Hugo two departure. The same SID is used for the surrounding airports. It shows an MEA of 11000 on many of the transitions and the SADIE transition which has a segment with an MEA of FL240. The SID is a radar vector SID for propeller aircraft. This is the SID text out of KUZA, my home base: "Expect radar vectors to intercept filed/assigned transition or enroute fix/navaid Maintain 3000, expect filed altitude/flight level 10 minutes after departure". I have flown this SID or variations of it out of KUZA on most IFR departures. I have yet to figure the relevance of the charted MEA's. I can't figure a case when the charted MEA would ever come into effect, including lost communications. As best I can tell, they are chart decorations.

 

[ChrisK]

MORA?

MOROCA

Minimum off route obstacle clearance altitude.

 

[John Collins]

MOROCA

Located on the Northern coast of Africa.

 

[Everskyward]

Discussion about MEAs on STARs in the AIM.

5-4-1. Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR), Area Navigation (RNAV) STAR, and Flight Management System Procedures (FMSP) for Arrivals

>snip<

3. Minimum en route altitudes (MEA) are not considered restrictions; however, pilots must remain above all MEAs, unless receiving an ATC instruction to descend below the MEA.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0504.html

 

[Velocity173]

Discussion about MEAs on STARs in the AIM.



https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0504.html

Didn't even notice note 3 in my AIM. Still think it's a bad way to describe the altitude in a STAR. Key word being arrival and all. Also the altitude in a STAR isn't the minimum as far as obstruction clearance and signal coverage. It's assign for flow purposes.

I'm submitting a change to the FAA on this one. Since it's not a minimum, call them Standard Arrival Altitudes.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That is for a turbojet or turboprop airplanes only.

You'll see high MEAs on procedures that are for pistons as well.

The best answer I've seen in an number of discussions (and echoed in the current IFR magazine) is that the MEAs on SIDs and STARs are minimum procedure altitudes used as defaults on a "descend via" clearance and are designed for flow control rather than obstacle clearance.

It's very clearly not a "MEA" as that term is used for en route charts. John mentioned the CLT HUGO departure. You can also see it when comparing the DRONE STAR into KORF (http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1403/00291DRONE.PDF) with the en route chart (http://skyvector.com/?ll=36.1170214...=4&plan=V.K7.RDU:V.K7.TYI:V.K7.CVI:F.K7.DRONE)

RDU TYI CVI DRONE MEA per STAR: FL190 down to 11,000 after CVI

Highest MEA for the same route per low en route chart? 2500'

BTW, I have been regularly assigned this STAR flying from my home base southwest of KRDU to the Virginia Beach area in a piston at my planned altitude of either 3,000 or 5,000'

They probably should be called something other than "MEA" or we should at least be defining "MEA" as something other than "the lowest published altitude between radio fixes which assures acceptable navigational signal coverage and meets obstacle clearance requirements between those fixes."

 

[midlifeflyer]

Didn't even notice note 3 in my AIM. Still think it's a bad way to describe the altitude in a STAR. Key word being arrival and all. Also the altitude in a STAR isn't the minimum as far as obstruction clearance and signal coverage. It's assign for flow purposes.

I'm submitting a change to the FAA on this one. Since it's not a minimum, call them Standard Arrival Altitudes.

I'd go with "minimum procedure altitude" which would cover, all terminal procedures, including approaches.

 

[John Collins]

I'd go with "minimum procedure altitude" which would cover, all terminal procedures, including approaches.

I would drop the term "minimum", "default" might be more appropriate or just "procedural altitude" for SID/STAR. On approaches, the charted altitudes are minimums.

 

[ChrisK]

I would drop the term "minimum", "default" might be more appropriate or just "procedural altitude" for SID/STAR. On approaches, the charted altitudes are minimums.

I like something along the lines of "standard altitude". "Default" sounds too geeky.

 

[flyingron]

Located on the Northern coast of Africa.

Everyone comes to Rick's.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I would drop the term "minimum", "default" might be more appropriate or just "procedural altitude" for SID/STAR. On approaches, the charted altitudes are minimums.

"Procedure altitude" works, although the altitudes on the SID and STAR charts are at least defaulted to being minimums.

Not all charted altitudes on approaches are minimums. For example, the LOC 25 at KORL where there are "hard" altitudes (both minimum and maximum) at certain fixes. And the underline convention is used for the approach while transition routes use a minimum-unless-stated-otherwise convention — that's more like what we're seeing in SIDs and STARs.

No reason to create something new; it's just that the use of the term MEA is not accurate.

 

[Clip4]

I'd go with "minimum procedure altitude" which would cover, all terminal procedures, including approaches.

Would a change of name change how you fly the chart?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Would a change of name change how you fly the chart?

No. Not in the least.

But the change of name would help with the educational/understanding confusion of calling something that is not really an MEA an MEA. I've seen the discrepancy raised in questions a number of times.