ATC tried to kill me!!!!

[j41driver]

This all reminds me of the TWA 727 that went down while trying to get on the approach to DCA or IAD...

It was IAD (Rwy 12, I think) and the crash is the reason that ATC tells you something like, "3000 feet until established, cleared for the ILS 12", instead of just "Cleared for the ILS 12" The TWA guys were just cleared for the approach with no altitude and descended too early.

 

[EagleRJ]

On the enroute screens we get a MSAW (Minimum Safe Altitude Warning) that flashes if someone descends below a published MEA or MVA.

It's not just enroute radar that has MSAW protection, right? Do terminal controllers have it too? I know of several non-precision approaches that have a point where you will set off the MSAW alarm on the radar if you fly the step-down altitudes exactly.

I think the phraseology for that came about from post-accident investigation too. Now the controller always says, "ABC123, low altitude alert- check your altitude immediately. The MEA in your area is XXXX", instead of "and Eastern 401 Heavy, how are things going out there?".

Hopefully with airliners being equipped with EGPWS/TAWS and ATC MSAW, we'll see an end to CFIT accidents, even in foreign countries!

 

[Vector4fun]

Terminal controllers with ARTS or STARS systems have MSAW capability. Be aware though, that some small VFR (no approach control) facilities have tower displays which are for "informational" use only. Those controllers are allowed to use the tower display as an aid to the eyes, and for issuing safety alerts, but not allowed to vector etc. These facilities may not have MSAW capability or aural alarms.

ATC is indeed responsible for separation from terrain. However, it is a shared responsibility. Always be aware of your altitude reference terrain and obstructions. I used to work in a mountainous area, and daily descended aircraft for ILS turn-ons at an altitude which was below terrain just a dozen miles beyond the localizer. Had an aircraft gone NORDO at just the wrong time, could have been exciting. In fact, it DID happen several times, but always when WX was good.

I also vividly recall many pilots reporting the field in sight from many miles out at night, issuing a visual approach clearance, and then having to issue an urgent terrain warning to aircraft descending below safe altitude 20-25 miles from the airport. Likewise, many pilots scared themselves silly when they got a GPWS alert from unseen ridges and rocks a few miles from the airport. These were not just amatuers, but some Air Carrier Pilots as well. Apparently some folks just descend right down to the FAF/GS intercept altitude 20 miles out if they've been cleared for a visual. Not a good idea in many places.

In fact, if any of you are familiar with the Loc Rwy 4 approach to ELP, you know it's a fairly steep approach beginning over the Juarez mountains, and continuing closely parallel to the south edge of the Franklin Mountains just west of the airport. In very bad WX, it was NOT unusual for every third or fourth aircraft so equipped to get a GPWS alarm and abandon the approach as they crossed the Rio Grande and descended near the ridge. It was also not unusual for our own MSAW to go off on nearly EVERY approach. We seldom broadcast the advisory, but checked the course and altitude of the inbound to make sure it appeared normal. Still, and alarm that goes off on nearly every approach is a nusance alarm, and detrimental to safety. The alarm was usually set off by the aircraft's rate of descent, (dive and drive?) and not the actual altitude for the approach segment.

Back to the matter that began the thread, it's impossible to say without knowing more, but quite possible the controller issued a descent to MVA for the area the aircraft was IN, (which in mountainous areas can be several thousand feet below MEA, depending on radar coverage), and then realised that altitude was not appropriate to the route further along. Or perhaps just screwed up. But that's what pilots and controllers are SUPPOSED to do, watch each other's backs. FSDO and NTSB get to assign blame and responsibility after the fact. We're supposed to be PREVENTING/CORRECTING errors before they get noticed by FSDO or NTSB.

 

[JediNein]

ATC is indeed responsible for separation from terrain. However, it is a shared responsibility. Always be aware of your altitude reference terrain and obstructions. I used to work in a mountainous area, and daily descended aircraft for ILS turn-ons at an altitude which was below terrain just a dozen miles beyond the localizer.

A while ago I had an experience where I was below MVA in 1/4 sm visability and was issued several low altitude alerts. Due to the nature of the situation, all I could do was acknowledge, the plane wasn't climbing. Lucky me I knew the terrain and obstacles very well and was able to pick my way back to the airport. The MVA for that area was set due to some tall buildings 1/2 mile away from my location.

Would that controller have known the last time the MVA was updated? In other words, if someone built a new skyscraper or cell phone antenna, would the MVA be updated, even if it was still the same result? If the MVA has risen from its previous value, do controllers generally know that that has occurred?

It would have been very helpful to get that info. I wasn't worried about the powerlines or overpasses, but a cell phone tower on the overpass would have been taken out of service.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[THE Flying Ace]

Summer of '03 we were heading from southern IL to just south of Newark, and there was a monster t-storm in Indiana. We were being vectored for traffic at FL310 (wrong way for east bound) as everybody was going around this thing. He kept turning us more and more towards the storm until we were about 10 miles from it and we said that we needed to turn. He wanted to keep us on the heading for a little longer for traffic. I waited 10 seconds and then keyed the mic and said we are turning. We were no closer that 5 miles from any target on TCAS.

Just remember, his seat isn't going 400mph. If you don't like what ATC gives you, don't do it. You, the PIC, is in charge of the safe operation of the aircraft.

In Canada, they will clear you for an aproach many miles away. You have to look at your chart to know what altitude is safe and at what distance.

 

[Vector4fun]

Would that controller have known the last time the MVA was updated? In other words, if someone built a new skyscraper or cell phone antenna, would the MVA be updated, even if it was still the same result? If the MVA has risen from its previous value, do controllers generally know that that has occurred?

I would feel pretty confident regarding the MVA. We get updates from time to time. Rarely does an antenna actually change an MVA. Most are not high enough to impact that. Cell towers are rarely over 200'. More common is wrangling over a 100-200' cell tower near a final approach course. The companies that erect those things know the notification requirements, and are usually pretty good, though not perfect, at doing all the paperwork. Plus it would be hard to erect a 1000' antenna within 30 miles of an airport an not have somebody associated with the airport or ATC notice.

What every pilot should be aware of is, ATC has no idea where, or the status of the hundreds of 100'-200' cell and microwave towers out there. For the most part, the only obstructions on my video map are those controlling the MVAs, those are a dozen or so 1000-1500' TV towers and such. If you were flying right at a 200' cell tower, there's a very good chance I wouldn't even know it was there unless it's within a few miles of the airport. So I couldn't issue any warning. Very good reason not to "scud run". It was bad enough when I occasionally did it in the '70s. Wouldn't even consider it nowadays, with a few million more of those suckers out there......

Oh by the way, last I knew, Mexico didn't have any reliable, up-to-date obstruction data. Therefore our MSAW was basically worthless south of the border when I worked in ELP. Doubt anything's changed. Be VERY careful operating in Mexico.....

 

[3GreenNoRed]

Okay, so for the ARTCC sector you were flying in he cleared you down to the lowest altitude of his sector most likely. Could be the moca for that LAT/LON grid. He probably wasnt even controlling your airplane when you reached that mountain, it was the guys sitting next to him on a different sector. So the next controller would have then asked you to climb.

First priority of ATC, issue saftey alerts and traffic alerts...hence, if he cleared you down below the mea, or the moca and the bells and whistles didn't go off on his scope then he didnt' try to kill you. The center airspace isnt owned by one controller. He gets a flight strip, he reads where your entering his airspace, where you leaving his airspace, he couldn't give two **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**s for where your going. So 100miles down the road your probably already 50 nm off his scope. ATC tried to kill you huh? Why the hell did you ask for that altitude? Or if you were in the FL and starting down and he cleared you down to an altitude PD, then its your responsibiltiy to adhear to mea/moca **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**. The word pilots descretion pretty much rids ATC of any responsibility!

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

I remember once transitioning through class Bravo in SLC, they had heavy departures and arrivals and vectored us right into the ridge to the east of Ogden. They do make mistake keep your head on a swivel.

 

[A Squared]

Okay, so for the ARTCC sector you were flying in he cleared you down to the lowest altitude of his sector most likely.

Nope, it was 3000 feet below the MEA As I've already stated, an MVA wouldn't be available as there is no radar coverage at those altitudes.

Originally posted by 3GreenNoRed
Could be the moca for that LAT/LON grid.

Nope, of the route in question, there is only a 25 mile segment which has a MOCA lower than the MEA. The cleared altitude is still 2300 feet lower than the MOCA. Furthermore, the altitude was more than 3000 feet lower than the lowest MORA for the 3 lat/ long quads that route segment traverses.

Originally posted by 3GreenNoRed
He probably wasnt even controlling your airplane when you reached that mountain, it was the guys sitting next to him on a different sector.

Nope, wrong again, it was the same sector.

Originally posted by 3GreenNoRed
Why the hell did you ask for that altitude?

Nope still wrong, I didn't ask for that altitude, I asked for "lower", This was stated in my first post. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension a bit.

Look buddy, this is a route I've flown many times, I've flown it up high in large airplanes, I've flown it in small airplanes down in the passes and along the valleys. I am quite familiar with the terrain, there just isn't any way that was a legal altitude. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, but you are speaking from a position of ignorance.



As for this:

Originally posted by 3GreenNoRed

The word pilots descretion pretty much rids ATC of any responsibility!

Uhhh, you aparently don't read very well. I would direct your attention to the post by made by the Air traffic Controller who says that "pilot's discretion" does *not* protect the controller should an accident result in a situation like this.

 

[TonyC]

Nope still wrong, I didn't ask for that altitude, I asked for "lower", This was stated in my first post. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension a bit.

Look buddy, this is a route I've flown many times, I've flown it up high in large airplanes, I've flown it in small airplanes down in the passes and along the valleys. I am quite familiar with the terrain, there just isn't any way that was a legal altitude. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, but you are speaking from a position of ignorance.



As for this:

Originally posted by 3GreenNoRed
The word pilots descretion pretty much rids ATC of any responsibility!

Uhhh, you aparently don't read very well. I would direct your attention to the post by made by the Air traffic Controller who says that "pilot's discretion" does *not* protect the controller should an accident result in a situation like this.


Last edited by A Squared on 02-13-2004 at 14:29

I must say, A Squared, your response to that IDIOTIC post was much more diplomatic than I would have offered.