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

[luvflyin]

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?

Yeah. A surveillance or PAR approach is like vectors on steroids. One heading after another, again and again. Unless of course the controller and the pilot get it nailed. Using GCA to 'monitor' instrument approaches is more like the comparison here. If a guy was straying off of the airway I'd probably just say something like "you're a mile off of victor whatever and diverging." Then give him a heading to rejoin if he doesn't say "oops" thanks, I'm getting back. Probably wouldn't even use the word "vector" in this case.

 

[roncachamp]

Yeah. A surveillance or PAR approach is like vectors on steroids. One heading after another, again and again. Unless of course the controller and the pilot get it nailed. Using GCA to 'monitor' instrument approaches is more like the comparison here. If a guy was straying off of the airway I'd probably just say something like "you're a mile off of victor whatever and diverging." Then give him a heading to rejoin if he doesn't say "oops" thanks, I'm getting back. Probably wouldn't even use the word "vector" in this case.

No, because when using radar to monitor an IAP the pilot is providing the navigation.

 

[luvflyin]

No, because when using radar to monitor an IAP the pilot is providing the navigation.

 

[denverpilot]

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.

Understand. So if you're at MIA and go lost Comm, why does this 7110 document tell the controller you're *going* to climb to MEA? It's written as a flat statement that you will. Will everyone truly climb? MEA. Expected. Assigned. Highest of those three.

But I bet lots of people don't think to climb in that scenario... "vectored" (I put it in quotes to make everyone happy...) below MEA on an airway...

I don't have an MVA chart for this area but I think I've heard vectors at 9000' in the area of V81 here from HOHUM to BRK. I bet the MVA there is 9000, while the MEA is 10000 (and requires a GPS since the VOR signals are mangled by the ridgeline.)

Being from around here if I were told "descend and maintain Niner-thousand" while navigating with a GPS along V-81 there and then went lost comm, I doubt I would think to climb back up to 10000.

But I also know the terrain and fly with a moving map... and maybe even know in the back of my head that DEN TRACON doesn't want me popping back up to 10000 if I was told to expect an approach at KAPA north of HOHUM there...

It's a good scenario to mess with people's brains with. Ha. Better hope it wasn't electrical failure and your 7600 is seen if you decide to pop back up to 10000 there.

 

[luvflyin]

Understand. So if you're at MIA and go lost Comm, why does this 7110 document tell the controller you're *going* to climb to MEA? It's written as a flat statement that you will. Will everyone truly climb? MEA. Expected. Assigned. Highest of those three.

But I bet lots of people don't think to climb in that scenario... "vectored" (I put it in quotes to make everyone happy...) below MEA on an airway...

I don't have an MVA chart for this area but I think I've heard vectors at 9000' in the area of V81 here from HOHUM to BRK. I bet the MVA there is 9000, while the MEA is 10000 (and requires a GPS since the VOR signals are mangled by the ridgeline.)

Being from around here if I were told "descend and maintain Niner-thousand" while navigating with a GPS along V-81 there and then went lost comm, I doubt I would think to climb back up to 10000.

But I also know the terrain and fly with a moving map... and maybe even know in the back of my head that DEN TRACON doesn't want me popping back up to 10000 if I was told to expect an approach at KAPA north of HOHUM there...

It's a good scenario to mess with people's brains with. Ha. Better hope it wasn't electrical failure and your 7600 is seen if you decide to pop back up to 10000 there.

Saying the pilot will climb to the MEA is a lack of attention to detail in my opinion. 91.77 (a) (1) is pretty clear that MOCA is authorized as a minimum altitude provide the applicable navigation signals are available and the 22 mile limit is for VOR. GNSS, you're good to go for the entire segement. Lost Comm? 91.185 (c) (2) (i) (ii) (iii), in particular (ii), It's not last assigned, MEA, expected. It's last assigned, minimum altitude for IFR operations, expected. They better be protecting the MEA because in addition to lost comm you may be lost GNSS. The more I think about it may not be a lack of attention to detail. While you may not necessarily have to climb above the MOCA to the MEA its best they assume you will.