One of the things that was taught in my IR training is to have the minimum vectoring altitudes available with the approach chart, and briefing expected and minimum vectoring altitudes, e.g., “expect to be vectored to the ILS at 2,500, but not below 1,800ft”.
MVA are often overkill when it comes to terrain clearance, since terrain clearance is just one factor in the definition of MVAs. All you need for terrain clearance is the MSA, which is often quite a bit lower.
Yes, but sector safe altitudes are also briefed.
The point of briefing expected vectors and altitudes is to pick up when something unexpected happens so I can query it, even if it is safe.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Unless on radar vectors, terrain avoidance is the responsibility of the pilot. At least in civil aviation. Swiss military may have other rules.
Except he was on radar vectors in IMC.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Except he was on radar vectors in IMC.
No information yet referred to in this thread says he was on radar vectors. Yes, the title of the thread says that, but the German report referenced in the first posting makes no mention of radar vectors, only levels.
I put “vectored” into the title because a German pilot confirmed the word.
If the consensus from German pilots here is that this is wrong, I will happily change it.
Obviously this is relevant because you are responsible for obstacle clearance except when vectored.
Airborne_Again wrote:
No information yet referred to in this thread says he was on radar vectors.
Is there a SID for Meiringen?
In the original article, the wording – translated into English phraseology – is that the pilot requested an altitude (“Der Pilot forderte darauf […] die Freigabe einer Flughöhe an, auf der er weiterfliegen kann.” – “the pilot requested clearance for an altitude on which he could continue”) and that he received an instruction to fly at 10,000 ft. (“Der Flugverkehrsleiter ordnete darauf eine Flughöhe von 10‘000 Fuss [..] an” – “the controller instructed [to fly at] an altitude of 10,000ft”).
The terminology is a bit strange, (the literal translation is that the pilot requested clearance OF an altitude, not FOR an altitude) but I would put this down to “sub-editor induced noise”, or swiss military terminology.
So the report mentions explicit clearance to an altitude (the controller wasn’t merely passing information), but no lateral instructions such as vectors.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Is there a SID for Meiringen?
No idea. Meiringen is not in the civil AIP.
Peter, the article in German language does not mention radar vectors. Just the altitude the F18 was cleared to.
What is the ICAO code?
