On-airway vector below MEA via GPS Nav / NORDO (Title edited to match 7110 change.)

Maybe this is a dumb question, educate me. If you have an MEA, you're on an airway. If you're being vectored, aren't you off airway, and you don't know the MVA? What MEA applies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Maybe this is a dumb question, educate me. If you have an MEA, you're on an airway. If you're being vectored, aren't you off airway, and you don't know the MVA? What MEA applies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

MORA
 
Cooter said:
MORA
Click to expand...

That makes sense, just that Denver said MEA. I'd sure be looking at those if I lost comms off airway and were low!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
denverpilot said:
The document doesn't say that. Is it because of which paragraphs it's replacing in the 7110? I haven't looked to see which ones it replaces.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say or imply anything about vectors or off-airways flight. It amends a portion of paragraph 4-5-6, Minimum En Route Altitudes. Here is that portion as it is at present:

NOTE−
Controllers must be aware that in the event of radio
communications failure, a pilot will climb to the MEA for
the route segment being flown.

1. Nonradar procedures are used only within
22 miles of a VOR, VORTAC, or TACAN.

2. Radar procedures are used only when an
operational advantage is realized and the following
actions are taken:

(a) Radar navigational guidance is provided
until the aircraft is within 22 miles of the NAVAID,
and

(b) Lost communications instructions are
issued.
 
roncachamp said:
It doesn't say or imply anything about vectors or off-airways flight. It amends a portion of paragraph 4-5-6, Minimum En Route Altitudes. Here is that portion as it is at present:

NOTE−
Controllers must be aware that in the event of radio
communications failure, a pilot will climb to the MEA for
the route segment being flown.

1. Nonradar procedures are used only within
22 miles of a VOR, VORTAC, or TACAN.

2. Radar procedures are used only when an
operational advantage is realized and the following
actions are taken:

(a) Radar navigational guidance is provided
until the aircraft is within 22 miles of the NAVAID,
and

(b) Lost communications instructions are
issued.
Click to expand...

And adds a #3 to that that simply says the aircraft has GNSS.

That looks like a list of places where it can be used... if I'm reading that section correctly.

#1 is when the aircraft is in a position to self-navigate with VOR. #2 makes the controller provide navigation outside that area. The added #3 is literally "anywhere" as long as the aircraft has GNSS.

Off airway, on airway... doesn't matter... #3 says if the aircraft can navigate by itself, #1 and #2 don't have to apply.
 
denverpilot said:
And adds a #3 to that that simply says the aircraft has GNSS.

That looks like a list of places where it can be used... if I'm reading that section correctly.

#1 is when the aircraft is in a position to self-navigate with VOR. #2 makes the controller provide navigation outside that area. The added #3 is literally "anywhere" as long as the aircraft has GNSS.

Off airway, on airway... doesn't matter... #3 says if the aircraft can navigate by itself, #1 and #2 don't have to apply.
Click to expand...

Right but if you're off airway, there is no MEA, no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Anyway, where ever it happens... we all know to fly the highest of these...
MEA
Expected
Assigned

So yeah... I say their admonition is right to the controller to remind them that the aircraft is going to "pop up" to MEA if the controller vectored them below it... but... do people REALLY remember to climb?

Assigned an altitude, and no obstacles between you and destination and you're BELOW MEA because the controller put you at a lower altitude (MVA or higher)...

I just figured it'd be interesting to share the page change from the 7110 showing that controllers are supposed to know you're going to pop back up and not stay where they assigned you... below MEA...

(The document is obviously being updated to handle GPS direct stuff... what's interesting is it expires again in October... so I assume that's when it gets rolled permanently into the 7110... but I don't know the publication cycle on the thing.)
 
gsengle said:
Right but if you're off airway, there is no MEA, no?
Click to expand...

Dang it... hahaha... you figured it out... and I was just posting to see if I could trap someone into agreeing... :) :) :)

(All of the rest of the above post is accurate, I just "neglected" to mention you'll have a hard time figuring out the MEA off-airway/off-published-GPS-route.. :) :) :)
 
roncachamp said:
How would that apply on an airway?
Click to expand...

That's my point, if you're being vectored, you're not on an airway. If you're not on an airway, there is no MEA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
denverpilot said:
Dang it... hahaha... you figured it out... and I was just posting to see if I could trap someone into agreeing... :) :) :)

(All of the rest of the above post is accurate, I just "neglected" to mention you'll have a hard time figuring out the MEA off-airway/off-published-GPS-route.. :) :) :)
Click to expand...

Now if only it came with a cash prize :)

And here I was thinking it was a dumb question!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Still... a fascinating update. It removes the controller's responsibility to issue loss comm instructions if below MEA if someone has a GNSS system to navigate with when they're outside of 22nm from a VOR (or equivalent) nav source. It's like someone read the thing and went... "oh... there's is a glaring logic hole there... many GNSS aircraft don't even have a VOR receiver in them..." :)
 
denverpilot said:
And adds a #3 to that that simply says the aircraft has GNSS.
Click to expand...

That's part of the amendment.

That looks like a list of places where it can be used... if I'm reading that section correctly.

#1 is when the aircraft is in a position to self-navigate with VOR. #2 makes the controller provide navigation outside that area. The added #3 is literally "anywhere" as long as the aircraft has GNSS.

Off airway, on airway... doesn't matter... #3 says if the aircraft can navigate by itself, #1 and #2 don't have to apply.
Click to expand...

Paragraph 4−5−6. MINIMUM EN ROUTE ALTITUDES applies only to airways.
 
denverpilot said:
Anyway, where ever it happens... we all know to fly the highest of these...
MEA
Expected
Assigned

So yeah... I say their admonition is right to the controller to remind them that the aircraft is going to "pop up" to MEA if the controller vectored them below it... but... do people REALLY remember to climb?

Assigned an altitude, and no obstacles between you and destination and you're BELOW MEA because the controller put you at a lower altitude (MVA or higher)...

I just figured it'd be interesting to share the page change from the 7110 showing that controllers are supposed to know you're going to pop back up and not stay where they assigned you... below MEA...

(The document is obviously being updated to handle GPS direct stuff... what's interesting is it expires again in October... so I assume that's when it gets rolled permanently into the 7110... but I don't know the publication cycle on the thing.)
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with vectors or GPS direct stuff. It's about using GPS for flight on airways below the MEA down to the MOCA, if there is one.
 
roncachamp said:
That's part of the amendment.



Paragraph 4−5−6. MINIMUM EN ROUTE ALTITUDES applies only to airways.
Click to expand...

Yup. Noted above.

So controller gives you an altitude below MEA on an airway and your putting along fat dumb and happy with your GPS nav, but don't know where then MVA boundaries are. You go lost comm so you pop back up to MEA and motor forth...

I'm ultra bored waiting for a maintenance window at work to reboot all the switches in the server room so I'm poking through recent FAA rule updates. Sick I know.

Looks like they just realized there was no need for the 22nm rule for GPS folks an no need to give them lost comm procedures beyond 22nm from a VOR (or VOR like Thing) because "who cares"?

I bet someone called someone else out on it and they realized it was dumb.
 
denverpilot said:
Yup. Noted above.

So controller gives you an altitude below MEA on an airway and your putting along fat dumb and happy with your GPS nav, but don't know where then MVA boundaries are. You go lost comm so you pop back up to MEA and motor forth...

I'm ultra bored waiting for a maintenance window at work to reboot all the switches in the server room so I'm poking through recent FAA rule updates. Sick I know.

Looks like they just realized there was no need for the 22nm rule for GPS folks an no need to give them lost comm procedures beyond 22nm from a VOR (or VOR like Thing) because "who cares"?

I bet someone called someone else out on it and they realized it was dumb.
Click to expand...

That's some extreme boredom :p


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
denverpilot said:
Still... a fascinating update. It removes the controller's responsibility to issue loss comm instructions if below MEA if someone has a GNSS system to navigate with when they're outside of 22nm from a VOR (or equivalent) nav source. It's like someone read the thing and went... "oh... there's is a glaring logic hole there... many GNSS aircraft don't even have a VOR receiver in them..." :)
Click to expand...

It does not change the lost communications requirement at all.
 
roncachamp said:
It does not change the lost communications requirement at all.
Click to expand...

That seems only required for #2. Or so they "add up"? I guess that makes sense too.

So what's the point of #3 then? What really changed? The first two never said the aircraft was navigating by the VOR.
 
denverpilot said:
So controller gives you an altitude below MEA on an airway and your putting along fat dumb and happy with your GPS nav, but don't know where then MVA boundaries are. You go lost comm so you pop back up to MEA and motor forth...
Click to expand...

You're on an airway, MVA is irrelevant.
 
gsengle said:
Been there... enjoy the reboot!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm just hoping the little bastards come back up and work. A couple of them are going up a major release number. The others it's just dot-releases.

Only doing it because of a FEW complaints of voice quality issues on certain VoIP phones. Already flashed all the phones up and the main phone system, had the upstream vendor look for problems and they added a packet out-of-order filter to an Adtran that didn't have it... and tonight is flash-all-the-switches night.

Unfortunately this is the once-every-few-years "shotgun" approach to troubleshooting which just adds a crap-ton of risk, but makes people "feel" better that "something was done".
 
denverpilot said:
That seems only required for #2. Or so they "add up"? I guess that makes sense too.

So what's the point of #3 then? What really changed? The first two never said the aircraft was navigating by the VOR.
Click to expand...

When radar guidance is being used loss of radio communications is loss of guidance, so lost communications instructions must be issued.

I don't think this amendment will have much impact in practice. It allows GNSS equipped aircraft to operate on airways below the MEA, down to the MOCA or MIA. Big deal. That's not particularly useful unless there's a significant difference between the MEA and the MOCA and if there is then there should be a GNSS MEA established.
 
roncachamp said:
When radar guidance is being used loss of radio communications is loss of guidance, so lost communications instructions must be issued.

I don't think this amendment will have much impact in practice. It allows GNSS equipped aircraft to operate on airways below the MEA, down to the MOCA or MIA. Big deal. That's not particularly useful unless there's a significant difference between the MEA and the MOCA and if there is then there should be a GNSS MEA established.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out what about #1 and #2 limited GNSS aircraft from operating down there anyway... just because they're worded like the aircraft was using VOR for Nav, it's an assumption... and nothing said it was. So, there doesn't appear there was any limitation there at all to begin with...
 
denverpilot said:
I'm trying to figure out what about #1 and #2 limited GNSS aircraft from operating down there anyway... just because they're worded like the aircraft was using VOR for Nav, it's an assumption... and nothing said it was. So, there doesn't appear there was any limitation there at all to begin with...
Click to expand...

Since it applied to all aircraft it limited GNSS aircraft because it had no exception for them. The amendment brings that exception.
 
roncachamp said:
Since it applied to all aircraft it limited GNSS aircraft because it had no exception for them. The amendment brings that exception.
Click to expand...
Ahh, I see... #1 only called out VOR aircraft, #2 was radar... so GNSS was left out... I get it now.

By the way, since I'm typing this @gsengle ... the switches rebooted and upgraded successfully it appears... or I'd be tethered to my cell phone to get to PoA now. :)
 
denverpilot said:
So here's some fun for y'all...

Controller vectors you below MEA (they're certainly allowed to do that) and your primary nav source is GPS, enroute.

You lose comm.

Do you climb to MEA?

This update to the controller's 7110 says you will... Heh...

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary...s_to_GNSS_Equipped_Aircraft_Below_the_MEA.pdf
Click to expand...
Nah. I wouldn't climb unless I had a GNSS failure. Lost comm doesn't require it. The controller damn well better be protecting the MEA though because he don't be knowin if my GNSS is still workin or not. Oops, you said got vectored. Disregard. What did he say when he vectored me? Around traffic? To a fix or airway down the road on my clearance? I gotta know that before I can answer.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
Nah. I wouldn't climb unless I had a GNSS failure. Lost comm doesn't require it. The controller damn well better be protecting the MEA though because he don't be knowin if my GNSS is still workin or not. Oops, you said got vectored. Disregard. What did he say when he vectored me? Around traffic? To a fix or airway down the road on my clearance? I gotta know that before I can answer.
Click to expand...

Let's go with what this rule just allowed. On-airway vectoring below MEA. You're flying it with your GPS. :) Controller just cleared you below MEA with no explanation. "Descend and maintain X" where X is below MEA... let's say they forgot to issue the lost comm procedure required by this section of the 7110.
 
denverpilot said:
Let's go with what this rule just allowed. On-airway vectoring below MEA. You're flying it with your GPS. :) Controller just cleared you below MEA with no explanation. "Descend and maintain X" where X is below MEA... let's say they forgot to issue the lost comm procedure required by this section of the 7110.
Click to expand...
Using radar procedures doesn't necessarily mean being vectored. Using MVA and MIA to determine altitude is 'radar procedure.' I'm throwing 'vectored' out of the discussion. The change makes it "legal" for a controller to use MVA or MIA for altitude assignment to a GNSS aircraft on an airway even if it's below the published minimum altitude for that airway.
 
luvflyin said:
Using radar procedures doesn't necessarily mean being vectored.
Click to expand...

Providing radar guidance to follow an airway is similar to surveillance approaches. If not vectors, what would you call the headings issued to an aircraft to provide navigational guidance by radar?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top