in this case the question was if it was possible to safely proceed to MT505 at the assigned altitude – FL70 – and the TAAs show that it was.
In that scenario, flying at FL70 direct MT505 one is effectively flying on TAA and nothing else, the aircraft was off route under Airway base (FL75) and bellow Radar vectoring (7700ft), to put it simply: according to Airway MEA and Radar MVA proceed direct FL70 to MT504 is not safe !!
SERA now prohibits ATC to assign off-route direct under Radar MVA when off an Airway, I am not sure if there is an exception for “direct to IAF at TAA or MSA altitude bellow MVA or MEA altitude”? (I asked one ATC to check this in their unit mannual)
The flight would be safe at FL70 of course (according to TAA), I assume flying on TAA/MSA bellow MVA/MEA is always PIC responsiblity? this explains why ATC asks to “confirm VMC”…
If the aircraft was at FL80 on Airway or Radar we would not have this discussion at all, it’s controlled airspace (you get serious approche clearance with proper ATC service not some FIS service 
)
How can it be that in a certified GPS vital data such as intermediate waypoints are missing in an approach? For me, that would disqualify the unit for flying that approach.
Just “(magnetic) course to (VOR) fix” that are missing from GPS, track segment between two database waypoints is always available
I recall this was not an issue for ADF legs as they are not CF but TF: NDB station has no idea of magnetic variation unlike VOR station and when you track an NDB course you are flying on RBI (using wet compass, even the cockpit RMI is nice to have)
Why some legs are designed as “VOR course” rather than “track to follow”, I have no idea?
I personally, don’t think it’s an issue, it’s like grounding an aircraft because it is missing compass card or closing a runway because the numbers are not freshly painted due to magnetic variations…there are other segments that are missing in database of old units, my G430 does not have “base leg turn” as it can’t calculate “rate1 turn” from aircraft speed
Ibra wrote:
SERA now prohibits ATC to assign off-route direct under Radar MVA when off an Airway, I am not sure if there is an exception for “direct to IAF at TAA or MSA altitude bellow MVA or MEA altitude”? (I asked one ATC to check this in their unit mannual)
Where do you find that in SERA? I can only find that the controller “shall issue clearances such that the prescribed obstacle clearance exists at all times” with no specific mention of MVA.
We have discussed this many of times…
I get cleared direct destination while on ground for Rennes-Dinard
I fly very low these days (FL30-FL40), when I ask/get direct IFR (or start IFR) it’s request ‘to climb to xxxx’ or ‘confirm ground in sight’
Airborne_Again wrote:
the prescribed obstacle clearance
And what does that mean? anyway, it’s not what you said the other time regarding this new SERA.8015?
Airborne_Again wrote:
In Sweden they use the MVA
We all know that in practice, MVA/MEA will apply to direct ABC when the aircraft is cruising en-route, besides, ATC don’t let me fly MSA +/-5nm unless I tell him I have ‘ground in sight’ even when flying OCAS
My question is very simple, does MVA/MEA apply to direct IAF during approach?
Mooney_Driver wr__Italic__ote:
Quote So if you have an approach chart which shows segment altitudes but TAA below those, then you’d descend below the segment altitude?
In US, the TAA segment altitude can never be below the IAF it serves, so this is not possible. An approach clearance authorizes the pilot to descend to the minimum altitude for a charted segment of the procedure once they are established on that segment. This includes any feeder routes. A TAA segment us considered an RNAV feeder route, so once inside a TAA segment, the aircraft is established on the Feeder route and may descend to the charted segment altitude.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Quote How can it be that in a certified GPS vital data such as intermediate waypoints are missing in an approach? For me, that would disqualify the unit for flying that approach.
I would always expect that an IF would be part of the procedure, but not necessarily selectable as one of the points that the GPS select procedure dialog would offer. To select an IF within a procedure that is not an IAF, you select the IAF first and then scroll thru the procedure flight plan entry and set the cursor to the IF followed by Direct-To.
NCYankee wrote:
To select an IF within a procedure that is not an IAF, you select the IAF first and then scroll thru the procedure flight plan entry and set the cursor to the IF followed by Direct-To.
I know that should work in my GPS: direct IAF (activate approach & load missed) and later scroll and direct IF or any other points (as long as it’s not close to FAF), still I was always told you should not do that and rather activate legs
Ibra wrote:
it’s not what you said the other time regarding this new SERA.8015?
There’s no contradiction. SERA requires ATC to ensure obstacle clearance. It doesn’t specify what procedures they should use.
Yes it’s grey without clear procedure on what they should use to ensure that
When you are cruising IFR in IMC at MSA (+/-1000ft to +/-5nm obstacles), you will have a tough time getting any ATC clearance, they can’t ensure anything
In the other hand, ATC may issue clearances in that scenario by asking pilot to ‘confirm ground in-sight?’ or ‘confirm visual or VMC?’ before issuing vector or direct bellow MVA or MEA (or even bellow MSA sometimes), if I hit a mountain on direct bellow radar while off route after an ‘Affirm, Victor Mike Charlie’, it’s not ATC problem, it’s fully compliant with SERA.8015 !
SERA requires ATC to ensure obstacle clearance
Vectored or not, and exactly in what circumstances? That’s an astonishing one-liner.
When you are cruising IFR in IMC at MSA (+/-1000ft to +/-5nm obstacles), you will have a tough time getting any ATC clearance, they can’t ensure anything
I suggest sticking to the topic, please. Actually the topic has been pretty well done to death, intellectually if not practically since so few people who actually fly IFR in Europe have posted, and most posts are off topic anyway.
Peter wrote:
Vectored or not, and exactly in what circumstances? That’s an astonishing one-liner.
We were discussing vectoring and directs. (I really do think that the moderator feed that you use to read posts is not good since you lose context.)
