ATC RADAR VECTOR MAPS The Case for Including MVA Charts in the Electronic Flight Bag Descent to the MVA How many of you have accepted a clearance and descended to the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA)? (Below the MSA altitude listed on your Jeppesen chart.) How many of you would descend to the MVA if there was a possibility that an obstacle penetrated that MVA? How many of you have accepted radar vectors towards higher terrain at an airport with mountains close by? The Las Vegas Case Because Sectional charts are used to draw up MVA charts, the opportunity exists for the local ATC designer to make errors. Because local ATC designers have no formal TERPs training, MVA charts reflect local interpretations and “spin.” MVA charts are supposed to have a minimum of 3 miles lateral separation from higher terrain, and 2,000 feet of vertical clearance at airports with mountains except when a lower altitude is necessary to blend with the descent requirements of approach procedures. An Overview of the Southwest Area of the Las Vegas MVA Chart: This is a closer view of the previous slide. The red dashed line is a vector to the airport from the southwest at 5,000 feet. Because of errors the ATC designer made in reading the fuzzy terrain contours on the Sectional, the aircraft passes within a mile (instead of the required 3-mile minimum) of terrain higher than 5,000 and is pointed directly at terrain only 600 feet lower than the aircraft. The Phoenix Case The local designers failed to provide mountainous-area 2,000 feet of terrain clearance over a steep peak The distance of this peak from the airport does not justify or require a reduction in obstacle clearance for orderly transition to an approach procedure. During storm conditions, significant altimeter errors and up-and-down drafts can occur over such a mountain peak. Overview of PHX MVA Chart Note “X” Marks the Spot 3-D view over Humboldt Peak Note steep gradients of terrain, which is favorable to altimeter errors and up-and-down drafts during storm conditions. The Los Angeles Case Los Angeles area MVA charts have complex design, to the extent that in some areas sectors are compressed against steeply rising terrain. When LAX is in an east configuration, terrain to the northeast can pose a significant CFIT risk. The GABRE DP Example The red dashed line is the GABRE runway heading track to intercept the SLI radial track to fly north to, and over, the San Gabriel Mountains. Aircraft are often leveled-off at 3,000 while flying runway heading to the northeast. If climb resumption is delayed until aircraft intercepts SLI radial and turns north, then a series of tightly squeezed MVA sectors are encountered, and a climb gradient of as high as 865 feet per mile is faced, all without any indication of the situation on the flight deck. Are there similar problems elsewhere in our national airspace system? The Reno MVA vs. MSA Example A vector towards the airport from the northwest. Just as the aircraft enters the 11,100’ MSA sector, the flight is cleared to descend to 8,200. Where is the check-and-balance? What if the controller or crew erred and caused a descent to some altitude lower than 8,200? The Asheville MVA vs. MSA Case The Asheville Primary Area Terrain Violations These terrain points likely contain trees. The ridgeline was missed because only the 4,260’ terrain point is on the Sectional Chart for the area. Absent verification, 200 feet of assumed adverse obstacle (AAO) additive should be applied to all these points. The Asheville Blanket Disregard of DMA 2,000’ Required Obstacle Clearance The obstacle points shown are beyond the distance required for orderly transition onto instrument approach procedures, thus they all should have 2,000 feet of DMA vertical ROC. (The ZTL MIAC for this area also has blanket reductions of required DMA vertical ROC.) The Roanoke Buffer Violations (The Asheville MVAC has numerous similar buffer violations, some of which have been forwarded to AAT-200 at their request.) The Roanoke Buffer Violations, Closer View Like the Asheville case, these terrain points likely have trees and, without verification, should have 200 feet of AAO additive. The “Missing” SFO/SJC Radio Antenna Towers on SNA/LGB’s Highest Mountain Because these towers are less than 200 feet in height (they are about 150’ high), the FAA had no knowledge of their existence until ALPA sent them the following photos: The Case Against Using Sectional Charts to Design MVA Charts is Compelling Sectionals are designed as an aid to VFR navigation. Sectionals are at a scale of 1:500,000, and lack the accuracy or resolution to be used to design terminal IFR altitudes and sectors. Computer-aided design programs exist today that make it easy to design MVA charts with U.S. Geological 1:24,000 topographical charts, all corrected to WGS84. Selected Text Info Contained on All Sectional Charts The Salt Lake City Errant Vector Towards Higher Terrain Hypothetical FAA MVA charts are more complex than most nations’ charts, especially in designated mountainous areas (“DMAs”). Does this make them too complex for use on the modern flight deck? The “big picture” view is misleading because the typical TRACON (approach control) controls airspace far smaller than its MVA chart suggests: The red box approximates Salt Lake City TRACON’s airspace. Clipping the chart to the airspace used by the TRACON scales in to show just the entire airspace of concern: Scaling in closer still to the working area of interest (for example, being vectored to the ILS final) makes the chart very readable: ALPA’s Objective for MVA (and MIA) Charts: Present MVA/MIA charts MVA/MIA altitudes need are internal ATC ad hoc to become regulatory IFR charts. altitudes, like all other IFR altitudes. Present MVA/MIA charts MVA/MIA charts must be are hand-drawn on VFR designed to appropriate Sectional Charts with RNP values, using best inconsistency and are available terrain/obstacle prone to errors. data, and designed using computer-aided design software. CONCLUSIONS The CHIPs Program needs the Operations Committee’s support to move this effort forward. This project will succeed only if it is pursued across FAA services at the associate administrator level. Modernization of MVA/MIA charts is a fundamental element of moving the national airspace to the concept of RNP. Causing MVA/MIA charts to become public IFR altitudes will provide the process to make them available to industry electronic chart vendors and all other interested parties. A Flight Safety Foundation Task Force Recommended Electronic MVA Charts on the Flight Deck Almost Four Years Ago Excerpt From the Flight Safety Foundation’s “Flight Safety Digest,” Page 117, November 1998-February 1999: Discussion “Currently there is a hazardous disconnect between the vectoring charts used by the air traffic controller and those available in the cockpit. The pilot has minimum-sector-altitude (MSA) charts that provide the lowest usable altitude in a sector surrounding an airport. The air traffic controller has MVA charts designed and maintained by air traffic control. These charts are centered around radar-antenna sites, which in most cases are different from the center point of the MSA charts. As the MSA and MVA charts are based on different criteria, a pilot can become confused when vectored at an altitude that is below the MSA charted altitude. The pilot is not sure whether he is being vectored at an approved MVA altitude or whether a mistake has been made concerning the MSA. This is especially critical in high-density traffic areas where radio congestion may preclude further and immediate clarification with ATC. This is a classic "latent situation" or "enabling factor" in the potential error chain.” Conclusion “With the implementation of the global positioning system (GPS) and flight management system (FMS), it is now possible to display MVA information in an electronic form on the flight deck. The one missing action is for ATC to make this information available to pilots who want or need it.” Recommendation “The ATC/AFWG strongly recommends that MVA information be made available for use.” Addendum – NASA ASRS Reports The follow pages summarize our analysis of NASA ASRS reports over an approximate 10-year period, which pertain to safety-of-flight incidents involving radar vectors. Our Search of NASA ASRS Database We searched the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System Database for a 10 year period, ending in mid-2000, the latest period for which they have reports compiled. We found 90 incidents, which we considered to be pertinent to the issue of MVA/MIA charts. This represents over 8 reported incidents per year, all of which have moderate to serious safety implications. It is reasonable to infer that the reported incidents represent no more than 50% of such occurrences. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that 15-20 such incidents occur each year in U.S. airspace. Most of the reporters are Part 121 flight crews. The Reports Fall Into the Following Major Categories Vectors towards higher terrain. Vectors below the MVA during terminal-arrival operations. Misunderstood clearance resulting in either descent below the MVA or flight into an area of higher MVA. GPWS warning because of likely inadequate mountainous-area terrain clearance. Synopsis : GPWS WARNING (DESCENT BELOW THE MVA) -- FINAL APCH VECTOR DURING THE APCH PHASE, WE EXPERIENCED A 'TERRAIN WARNING' JUST AFTER LEVELING OFF AT ATC ASSIGNED ALT (2800 FT MSL). THE ACFT WAS APPROX 14.5 DME ON THE SAN 110.9 LOC. (JUST OUTSIDE OF 'SWAFT' INTXN.) AFTER HEARING THE AUDIO PORTION OF THE TERRAIN WARNING 'PULL UP' 'PULL UP' WE CLBED THE ACFT IMMEDIATELY TO APPROX 5300 FT PLUS OR MINUS 100 FT AND ADVISED ATC OF THE DEV.