Good day for GPWS
#21

Your sentence is not very clear, however, according to the article under discussion:
"A Skywest Canadair CRJ-900 on behalf of Delta Airlines, registration N162PQ performing flight OO-3567/DL-3567 from Salt Lake City,UT to Medford,OR (USA), was on approach to Medford's runway 32 cleared for the VOR/DME C via the arc approach with the additional instruction "cross CEGAN at or above 7800 feet". "
ATC cleared the flight to begin the arc "at or above 7,800." The arc begins at CEGAN.
The crew descended to the altitude in the clearance, which was the MVA, and had a GPWS terrain warning, to which they responded, hence the article.
"A Skywest Canadair CRJ-900 on behalf of Delta Airlines, registration N162PQ performing flight OO-3567/DL-3567 from Salt Lake City,UT to Medford,OR (USA), was on approach to Medford's runway 32 cleared for the VOR/DME C via the arc approach with the additional instruction "cross CEGAN at or above 7800 feet". "
ATC cleared the flight to begin the arc "at or above 7,800." The arc begins at CEGAN.
The crew descended to the altitude in the clearance, which was the MVA, and had a GPWS terrain warning, to which they responded, hence the article.

#22
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 94

Your sentence is not very clear, however, according to the article under discussion:
"A Skywest Canadair CRJ-900 on behalf of Delta Airlines, registration N162PQ performing flight OO-3567/DL-3567 from Salt Lake City,UT to Medford,OR (USA), was on approach to Medford's runway 32 cleared for the VOR/DME C via the arc approach with the additional instruction "cross CEGAN at or above 7800 feet". "
ATC cleared the flight to begin the arc "at or above 7,800." The arc begins at CEGAN.
The crew descended to the altitude in the clearance, which was the MVA, and had a GPWS terrain warning, to which they responded, hence the article.
"A Skywest Canadair CRJ-900 on behalf of Delta Airlines, registration N162PQ performing flight OO-3567/DL-3567 from Salt Lake City,UT to Medford,OR (USA), was on approach to Medford's runway 32 cleared for the VOR/DME C via the arc approach with the additional instruction "cross CEGAN at or above 7800 feet". "
ATC cleared the flight to begin the arc "at or above 7,800." The arc begins at CEGAN.
The crew descended to the altitude in the clearance, which was the MVA, and had a GPWS terrain warning, to which they responded, hence the article.
#23
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 59

I've noticed in southeast Florida, the ATC will generally instruct to cross at or above/descend maintain the minimum altitude for the fix or segment. We got a clearance today to cross at or above which was 500 feet lower than the minimum altitude for the segment. Student took the bait. Heck of an easy trap to fall into. The altitude he gave us was likely the MVA for that area, and the controller was getting his tail kicked due to saturation. Happens, but we're supposed to catch it.
#24

Why did the crew descend mindlessly to 7800' approximately 40 miles, by way of planned course, away from the airport? I think the international situation has changed but an ATC clearance would be given to a final altitude that would require you to still comply with enroute or terminal altitude restrictions. Even in the old days some "drivers" who had gotten by being hand hold by ATC in the US got some rude awakenings elseware.
Yes, mindless on their part. But many, many other US domestic pilots would have fallen for that, very common to get vectored below published step-down altitudes in the US. Getting vectored or cleared below published altitudes would not have automatically raised eyebrows. You would have to look at the actual terrain in that case.
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,645

At or above doesn't mean you have to start down right away. Studying that approach chart should show that high terrain goes all the way through the arc and through BRKET and SERTE. Some people are just wired to put the lowest cleared altitude and start down.
These approach plates are color coded now so telling terrain apart is really easy. Yikes on this approach! Glad EGPWS saved them.
These approach plates are color coded now so telling terrain apart is really easy. Yikes on this approach! Glad EGPWS saved them.
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,632

Yes, mindless on their part. But many, many other US domestic pilots would have fallen for that, very common to get vectored below published step-down altitudes in the US. Getting vectored or cleared below published altitudes would not have automatically raised eyebrows. You would have to look at the actual terrain in that case.
#28

FAA ATC is required to assign an altitude with the approach clearance when clearing an aircraft on an unpublished route. See FAAO 7110.65 4-8-1 Approach Clearances. This was very technically legal as the MVA was 7,800 from where the aircraft was located to CEGAN. It was erroneous due to the MVA later on the arc rose to 8,700’. The ATCO would have been better to say, “cross CEGAN at or above 10,000’”.
GF
GF
#29
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,817

FAA ATC is required to assign an altitude with the approach clearance when clearing an aircraft on an unpublished route. See FAAO 7110.65 4-8-1 Approach Clearances. This was very technically legal as the MVA was 7,800 from where the aircraft was located to CEGAN. It was erroneous due to the MVA later on the arc rose to 8,700’. The ATCO would have been better to say, “cross CEGAN at or above 10,000’”.
GF
GF
Unless ATC had every intention of continuing to use MVA throughout the flight progress to the airport in the form of vectors, it shouldn't have been given in the approach clearance.
#30

John,
I agree and the controller, if using MVA, had, by policy, to have the arc displayed on the video and monitored the flight progress. Certainly, the latter was not done. I’m not arguing the controller was correct, just a very narrow read of .65. Pilots always need to assume terrain clearance responsibility, if only, because they die if they’re wrong.
GF
I agree and the controller, if using MVA, had, by policy, to have the arc displayed on the video and monitored the flight progress. Certainly, the latter was not done. I’m not arguing the controller was correct, just a very narrow read of .65. Pilots always need to assume terrain clearance responsibility, if only, because they die if they’re wrong.
GF
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post