Minimum Vectoring Altitude Charts

Landis

Landis

Well-Known Member
I'm looking for a copy of the Minimum Vectoring Altitude Charts for the SF Bay Area. Anyone have any ideas of where I could find this information?

Thanks!
 
Landis said:
I'm looking for a copy of the Minimum Vectoring Altitude Charts for the SF Bay Area. Anyone have any ideas of where I could find this information?
Click to expand...

Historically they have not been available to the public. The people I know who have gotten ahold of one have used the Freedom of Information Act to force ATC to cough it up. There has been a movement over the last few years to push ATC to make these available to the navigation data people so that they could be included on moving maps and such, which would allow the pilot to verify the altitudes they are given. It's speculated that this is the reason that ATC doesn't really want to give out this info. ;) The last thing I read was that ATC management had finally agreed in principle to do this, but I don't know the current status.

It's possible that a friendly someone within ATC might give you a copy, if they have a hard copy available. Someone from our local facility gave one to me.
 
There is no set "MVA" chart for any given area. It depends on the sensor/radar the controller is using and short of asking there is no way of knowing. In my facility I can use any one of 12 different sensors and all have different MVA's. There is typically a primary sensor but depending on configurations, outages, and time of day the mva's can be different. For example you can be going to an uncontrolled airport with a ceiling of 3500 and the controller you're talking to can only descend you to 4000. He can hand you off to another controller in the same facility working off of a different radar and he can take you down to 2500 in the same area.
 
^^ This.

My former facility had a single sensor MVA map and a multi-sensor MVA map which was radically different. Everything said above was spot on especially about different facilities having different altitudes for the same geographical area. Maybe when NextGen goes into works we'll see common MVA's :dunno:
 
In the Seattle area we have an mva southeast of PAE of 3000msl. In that same area whidbey approach has an mva of 6500msl. So as someone said before there is no set mva charts for the entire country,
 
same in Chicago we have 3 main radar sites two for ORD and one for South Sat (MDW) with different MVAs in same areas.
 
Though this is not always the case, if you look at the minimum altitude to maintain at the FAF for a given approach into an airport, that is *usually* the MIA for the area. Otherwise they are calculated by adding either 1000' or 2000' (depending if the area in question is classified as mountainous) to the maximum elevation figure found on VFR sectionals, albeit the actual chart will likely be more segmented than the quadrants found on the sectional chart so that an MIA is not excessively high due to a tower, etc. In that instance, they'll create circular areas around the highest obstacle instead.

I agree it would be great if they were available to pilots for SA. It may also cut down on the "why can't we get lower" questions because there's a tower between the aircraft and airport.
 
boondr said:
There is no set "MVA" chart for any given area. It depends on the sensor/radar the controller is using and short of asking there is no way of knowing.
Click to expand...

Wow. I had no idea. Thanks for the info on that.

It looks like I'll have to make some friends at NorCal and see if I can get some ideas of what they look like in my area.

Thanks all!
 
Barty said:
Though this is not always the case, if you look at the minimum altitude to maintain at the FAF for a given approach into an airport, that is *usually* the MIA for the area. Otherwise they are calculated by adding either 1000' or 2000' (depending if the area in question is classified as mountainous) to the maximum elevation figure found on VFR sectionals, albeit the actual chart will likely be more segmented than the quadrants found on the sectional chart so that an MIA is not excessively high due to a tower, etc. In that instance, they'll create circular areas around the highest obstacle instead.

I agree it would be great if they were available to pilots for SA. It may also cut down on the "why can't we get lower" questions because there's a tower between the aircraft and airport.
Click to expand...


MIA is not the same as MVA. MIA's are available to pilots through charts and the above described method. MVA's are based off of radar coverage. I'll say it again MVA's are based off sensor. You start vectoring aircraft around at the FAF altitude when it is below the MVA (I can show you countless examples) and see how long you keep your ticket (if you have one yet).
 
boondr said:
MIA is not the same as MVA. MIA's are available to pilots through charts and the above described method. MVA's are based off of radar coverage. I'll say it again MVA's are based off sensor. You start vectoring aircraft around at the FAF altitude when it is below the MVA (I can show you countless examples) and see how long you keep your ticket (if you have one yet).
Click to expand...

MIA charts aren't available to the public, the altitudes depicted on IFR charts are OROCAs. They are almost always higher than the MIAs we can use en route, as they are based on a 1x1 latitude/longitude square, whereas our MIAs are based only on 5nm separation from the highest terrain.

I haven't personally seen a precision FAF that is below a MIA in our area, but we don't have any terrain or unusual obstacles to speak of. However, that's why I said *usually* and not *always*. I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions out there.
 
Barty said:
MIA charts aren't available to the public, the altitudes depicted on IFR charts are OROCAs. They are almost always higher than the MIAs we can use en route, as they are based on a 1x1 latitude/longitude square, whereas our MIAs are based only on 5nm separation from the highest terrain.

I haven't personally seen a precision FAF that is below a MIA in our area, but we don't have any terrain or unusual obstacles to speak of. However, that's why I said *usually* and not *always*. I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions out there.
Click to expand...


MINIMUM IFR ALTITUDES (MIA)- Minimum altitudes for IFR operations as prescribed in 14 CFR Part 91. These altitudes are published on aeronautical charts and prescribed in 14 CFR Part 95 for airways and routes, and in 14 CFR Part 97 for standard instrument approach procedures. If no applicable minimum altitude is prescribed in 14 CFR Part 95 or 14 CFR Part 97, the following minimum IFR altitude applies: .......
a. In designated mountainous areas, 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown; or
b. Other than mountainous areas, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown; or
c. As otherwise authorized by the Administrator or assigned by ATC.
Click to expand...
 
I can assure you, as a pilot, that the MIA charts we have at the center look nothing like the "MIAs" printed on charts. Sub-paragraphs a and b (and probably to some lesser extent, c) are basically how the MIA charts we have are created, but they're far more detailed than anything I've ever seen on a IFR low altitude chart or approach plate.

IMHO, MIA in that reg is being used as a catch all phrase for the MEA, MOCA, OROCA, etc..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top