Responsibility for Terrain Separation

Post Reply
Mark Hargrove
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:42 pm
Location: Longmont, CO

Responsibility for Terrain Separation

Post by Mark Hargrove »

Not related to PE, but a general ATC question:

You're on an IFR flight plan in IMC, flying a planned element of your route. ATC issues a heading change (i.e., a vector) and a descent. Who is responsible for terrain separation?

-M.
Mark Hargrove
Longmont, CO
PE: N757SL (Cessna 182T 'Skylane'), N757SM (Cessna 337 'Skymaster'), N757BD (Beech Duke Turbine)
Mudhen
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:45 pm

Re: Responsibility for Terrain Separation

Post by Mudhen »

Both. (Well kind of.)
ATC must guarantee that assigned altitudes will not violate Minimum Vectoring Altitude. (Unless an emergency exists, then not below Emergency Obstruction Video Map altitudes. EOVM)
Pilots should maintain situational awareness and be mindful of surrounding obstacles/terrain.
https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/lib ... px?id=6583
Particularly:
9. GA IFR Operations in IMC Conditions on an IFR Flight.
c. Having the proper charts and approach plates for the intended flight. VFR charts, although not required, should be onboard because they can provide important obstacle and terrain data for an IFR flight.
This space intentionally left blank
HRutila
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:06 pm

Re: Responsibility for Terrain Separation

Post by HRutila »

I guess the question I pose is why would ATC not be responsible for this? The IFR pilot is not in a position to audit the legality of an ATC-assigned altitude.
Harold Rutila
COMM-MEL/CFII
jx_
Posts: 526
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:15 am

Re: Responsibility for Terrain Separation

Post by jx_ »

HRutila wrote:I guess the question I pose is why would ATC not be responsible for this? The IFR pilot is not in a position to audit the legality of an ATC-assigned altitude.
because FAR says pilots should operate in a safe manner and above the MIA at all times...etc.... That doesn't mean ATC won't get busted...but if you fly for a company that has a snitch installed you'll get it too.
HRutila
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:06 pm

Re: Responsibility for Terrain Separation

Post by HRutila »

jx_ wrote:
HRutila wrote:I guess the question I pose is why would ATC not be responsible for this? The IFR pilot is not in a position to audit the legality of an ATC-assigned altitude.
because FAR says pilots should operate in a safe manner and above the MIA at all times...etc.... That doesn't mean ATC won't get busted...but if you fly for a company that has a snitch installed you'll get it too.
I'm saying there is no situation in which ATC is permitted to suddenly discontinue providing terrain and obstruction clearance to an IFR pilot.
Harold Rutila
COMM-MEL/CFII
Ryan B
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Responsibility for Terrain Separation

Post by Ryan B »

We kinda do if we issue a cruise clearance. I use that sometimes for airports without dod approaches. Though I'm honestly not sure what the pilot can do... go down to the MEA?
PE ID: 29
FAA ATCS
FAA PPL ASEL
jx_
Posts: 526
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:15 am

Re: Responsibility for Terrain Separation

Post by jx_ »

He didn't say "ATC is permitted to suddenly discontinue providing terrain and obstruction clearance to an IFR pilot"...he said 'both'.


However, here are 3 times ATC can discontinue providing terrain and obstruction clearance to an IFR pilot:

1) radar contact not yet established
2) radar service terminated/lost
3) aircraft established on published procedure with altitude guidance and ATC clearance to follow the procedure.

These are cases where ATC only has the obligation of spacing for traffic and MSAW alerts. ATC can terminate radar if non-radar spacing is used. (Assuming the controller has met all the coordination rules for every downstream sector)
Post Reply