Narrative:

I was working east radar in the tracon. All other radar positions were combined to east at the time. This is normal procedure for the most part unless training is being conducted on the west or final positions. Weather conditions were marginal VFR at cha airport with ceilings around 2000 ft MSL. ILS approaches were in use. Traffic volume was slow to moderate for the existing conditions. Aircraft X called airborne off of fgu (collegedale; tn) which is a VFR satellite airport approximately 10NM east of cha airport. I saw that aircraft X had an IFR flight plan on file; so I issued the appropriate beacon code so that I could radar identify the aircraft. I identified aircraft X at 2000 ft MSL in the vicinity of fgu tracking northwest bound. I instructed the aircraft to maintain VFR. At the time; aircraft X was operating in a 2;700 ft MVA area; almost directly underneath an IFR arrival to cha on a northbound vector (020) for the downwind leg for the ILS to runway 20. The cha arrival was at 4000 ft MSL; soon to be descended to 3000 ft. The cha arrival was a sf-340 commuter with an estimated ground speed of approximately 180-200kts. Aircraft X was a BE35 with an estimated ground speed of approximately 140-150kts. Aircraft X filed routing was direct cqn (daisy radio beacon) then direct to destination northwest bound. Daisy NDB is directly on the final approach course for runway 20 approximately 3-4 NM north of the outer marker. I observed the targets for a sweep or two to determine if the courses would likely diverge in a timely manner. Because of the speed and headings involved; I judged that aircraft X would be in constant conflict with sf-340 had I issued the IFR clearance at that time. I could only assign 3000 ft MSL to aircraft X initially; which would eventually conflict with the sf-340 on the ILS even if I cleared the aircraft for the approach at 4000 MSL; the aircraft would still descend on the glide slope below 3000 ft MSL over daisy NDB. The other danger with assigning 3000ft to aircraft X was that the MVA increased from 2;700 MSL to 3;600 ft MSL approximately 2.5 NM west/northwest of daisy NDB. I could not ensure that aircraft X would reach the appropriate MVA altitude in time enough to be vectored clear of the higher MVA to the west and the ILS final approach course. I could not assign aircraft X an altitude higher than 3000ft MSL because of the proximity to the other IFR arrival operating at 4000ft MSL. I didn't feel I could safely vector aircraft X below the MVA knowing what the weather conditions were at the time. In an attempt to gain the appropriate lateral separation between aircraft X and the sf-340; I suggested to the pilot of aircraft X if he could fly northbound VFR I could issue the IFR clearance momentarily and told him about the conflicting traffic. The pilot complied; and began to fly northbound. I believe that I also stated VFR climb approved once I noticed the northbound track of aircraft X; but I am not certain. I descended the sf-340 to 3000 ft MSL; then turned the aircraft west bound for a base leg; and subsequently cleared the sf-340 for the ILS runway 20 approach into cha. At this point; I judged the proximity between aircraft X and the sf-340 to be no factor; and my next transmission was to issue aircraft X's IFR clearance. As I looked at the aircraft target on the radar; I noticed that the northbound heading had inadvertently taken aircraft X into a higher MVA area of 3;000 ft MSL. I observed aircraft X to still be at 2;000 ft MSL. Before issuing the IFR clearance to aircraft X; I asked the pilot of he could maintain his own terrain separation to 3;000 ft. The pilot responded 'no'; and stated the clouds were right at 2;000 ft. I paused for a brief moment to consider the best course of action. Fgu is a VFR satellite airport that has no IFR departure procedure. It is common practice at cha to issue satellite departures that request an IFR clearance on the ground short range clearances to nearby navaidsuntil radar identification can be established. Had the aircraft requested the IFR clearance on the ground; the pilot would have most likely been issued a short range clearance to either cqn (daisy); or hdi (cleveland NDB; cleveland; tn) or would have been cleared as filed; since cqn was already in the flight plan as the first fix after departure. Had the aircraft been issued the clearance on the ground; there is no guarantee that the flight path from fgu to cqn (daisy) would not traverse the same 3;000 ft MVA area prior to reaching cqn (daisy) because of the proximity between fgu and the depicted MVA boundary lines between the 2;700 ft MSL area and the 3;000 ft MSL area. A short range clearance to hdi would definitely have put the aircraft in same the 3;000 ft MSL MVA area. Judging that the aircraft would be no better off departing with an IFR clearance on the ground; I decided the best course of action was to issue the clearance and get the aircraft up to altitude as soon as possible. I issued the IFR clearance to aircraft X and observed the aircraft climb through 3;000 ft MSL and ultimately up to the requested altitude of 8;000 ft MSL without incident and in compliance with the subsequent higher MVA of 3;600 MSL west of the cha airport. I determined this situation an emergency because the pilot departed VFR; yet was not able to maintain his own terrain clearance up to the MVA. That being said; however; it reasonable to assume that the pilot does not know what our ATC MVA's are from area to area; nor does the pilot know the boundary lines that separate them. In hindsight; after the pilot informed me that he could not maintain terrain separation up to 3;000 ft MSL; I should have instructed the pilot to 'maintain VFR and state intentions'. I failed to do this; although I did instruct the aircraft to maintain VFR earlier. In accordance with FAA 7110.65 chapter 10; I issued the IFR clearance; judging that the pilot was capable and qualified for IFR flight since he had an IFR flight plan on file. It has taken me an hour or so to find the words to try and describe the events as closely as I can recall; yet all of the events and decision making that took place occurred in a matter of minutes. There was no supervisor in the TRACON at the time; so I used my best judgment to resolve the situation. Upon further reflection; another course of action would have been to climb the sf-340 on vectors for the ILS to 5;000 ft MSL; and issue aircraft X 4;000 ft MSL. Even in this scenario however; aircraft X is still below the 2;700 ft MSL MVA; and most likely unable to maintain terrain separation. Recommendation; find some way to inform pilots of various MVA altitudes and ATC restrictions for aircraft operating below the MVA for a particular area. Make it known that just because a pilot can depart VFR; it is still their responsibility to maintain terrain clearance up to the MVA before an IFR clearance can be issued. There is very little guidance in this area. The 7110.65 just has a note in chapter 4 that states that pop up aircraft are responsible for terrain separation up to the MVA. I cannot find any specific reference in the far or aim to clarify the issue for pilots so that they are aware of their responsibility beyond just able to maintain VFR. To further complicate matters; cha has had a string of MVA violations. As a result; the workforce has been briefed to be vigilant about MVA compliance. Unfortunately; each new briefing only seems to complicate matters; and no management personnel can really give a straight answer. For every two people that have the same MVA briefing there are at least two interpretations of that same briefing. Here are some examples of some of the briefings we have had. 1. After a circling approach resulted in an MVA violation by local control; the workforce was told not to vector below the MVA period. This meant that for a time; even IFR departures off of chattanooga could not be vectored on course prior to reaching the departure corridor MVA. 2. The workforce was told chattanooga IFR departures could be vectored below the MVA; but had to cross the next MVA boundary line at or above the altitude of the next higher MVA. 3. The workforce was told chattanooga IFR departures could be vectored below the MVA; but have to cross the 2;700 ft MVA boundary line to the east at 2;000 ft MSL; and the 3;600 ft MVA boundary line to the west at 2;600 MSL. 4. The workforce was told that VFR satellite departures requesting an airborne pick up of a filed IFR clearance must be at or above the MVA before an IFR clearance can be issued. 5. The workforce was told that VFR satellite departures requesting an airborne pick up of a filed IFR clearance can be issued the clearance below the MVA as long as the aircraft is not vectored prior to reaching the MVA. 6. The workforce was told that VFR satellite departures requesting an airborne pick up of a filed IFR clearance can be issued the clearance below the MVA; but once one MVA is met; all others must be met. So for example; imagine a satellite airport that lies within a 3;000 ft MVA. Now imagine another MVA area of 4;000 ft 5 miles to the east of the first area. Imagine another MVA area of 5;000 ft 5 miles east of the 4;000 ft area. Finally; imagine another MVA area of 6;000 ft 5 miles east of the 5;000 ft area. According to the logic of the most recent MVA briefing; a satellite departure from this airport could be issued an IFR clearance airborne below 3;000 ft and continue to the 4000 ft MVA below 4000 ft; the 5;000 ft MVA below 5000 ft etc. As long as the aircraft doesn't meet an MVA; it's all good. Now; imagine the same satellite departure that requests an IFR pickup at 3;500 ft within the 3;000 ft MVA but only 2-3 miles from the next higher MVA of 4;000 ft. You could either clear the aircraft and then vector clear of the next MVA; or withhold the clearance until aircraft reaches the higher MVA area. Neither option sounds acceptable to me; especially considering the previous example could fly IFR eastbound indefinitely below the MVA's until one is reached. 7. Some members of the workforce say that they were told in the case of satellite departures; it was ok to 'clip' an MVA; although a definition of 'clip' was never given. I asked my supervisor about this; and was told there could be no clipping of MVA's. In many cases; controllers have asked for specific references in the 7110.65 when these new MVA guidelines are briefed. Not one single time has a read and initial change to the 7110.65 been forthcoming after any one of these MVA briefings. Many controllers are frustrated because the only answer we get concerning these MVA briefings is that 'it's a directive or new interpretation of an existing rule by aov'. There is so much confusion now regarding MVA compliance for satellite departures that controllers are actually calling their buddies at different facilities to see if they have been told the same things. This only leads to more confusion and strife as you can imagine when management begins to hear remarks along the lines of 'they are not doing this at such and such facility; why do we have to do it'? The confusion also makes it quite challenging to train developmental's because of all the different interpretations they hear from controller to controller. Aov interpretations to existing 7110.65 rules should be in a written format and made accessible to the controller workforce so that we can understand and comply with them; or aov needs to issue a completely new handbook of air traffic control so that we are all on the same page.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CHA Controller described a likely MVA infraction when an IFR aircraft departed VFR and was unable to climb VFR clear of terrain. A detailed description of the event and a number of questions regarding MVA operations and interpretations were provided.

Narrative: I was working East RADAR in the Tracon. All other RADAR positions were combined to East at the time. This is normal procedure for the most part unless training is being conducted on the West or Final positions. Weather conditions were marginal VFR at CHA airport with ceilings around 2000 FT MSL. ILS approaches were in use. Traffic volume was slow to moderate for the existing conditions. Aircraft X called airborne off of FGU (Collegedale; TN) which is a VFR satellite airport approximately 10NM East of CHA airport. I saw that Aircraft X had an IFR flight plan on file; so I issued the appropriate beacon code so that I could RADAR identify the aircraft. I identified Aircraft X at 2000 ft MSL in the vicinity of FGU tracking Northwest bound. I instructed the aircraft to maintain VFR. At the time; Aircraft X was operating in a 2;700 FT MVA area; almost directly underneath an IFR arrival to CHA on a northbound vector (020) for the downwind leg for the ILS to Runway 20. The CHA arrival was at 4000 FT MSL; soon to be descended to 3000 FT. The CHA arrival was a SF-340 commuter with an estimated ground speed of approximately 180-200kts. Aircraft X was a BE35 with an estimated ground speed of approximately 140-150kts. Aircraft X filed routing was direct CQN (Daisy Radio Beacon) then direct to destination Northwest bound. Daisy NDB is directly on the final approach course for Runway 20 approximately 3-4 NM North of the Outer Marker. I observed the targets for a sweep or two to determine if the courses would likely diverge in a timely manner. Because of the speed and headings involved; I judged that Aircraft X would be in constant conflict with SF-340 had I issued the IFR clearance at that time. I could only assign 3000 FT MSL to Aircraft X initially; which would eventually conflict with the SF-340 on the ILS even if I cleared the aircraft for the approach at 4000 MSL; the aircraft would still descend on the glide slope below 3000 FT MSL over Daisy NDB. The other danger with assigning 3000ft to Aircraft X was that the MVA increased from 2;700 MSL to 3;600 FT MSL approximately 2.5 NM West/Northwest of Daisy NDB. I could not ensure that Aircraft X would reach the appropriate MVA altitude in time enough to be vectored clear of the higher MVA to the West and the ILS final approach course. I could not assign Aircraft X an altitude higher than 3000ft MSL because of the proximity to the other IFR arrival operating at 4000ft MSL. I didn't feel I could safely vector Aircraft X below the MVA knowing what the weather conditions were at the time. In an attempt to gain the appropriate lateral separation between Aircraft X and the SF-340; I suggested to the pilot of Aircraft X if he could fly Northbound VFR I could issue the IFR clearance momentarily and told him about the conflicting traffic. The pilot complied; and began to fly Northbound. I believe that I also stated VFR climb approved once I noticed the northbound track of Aircraft X; but I am not certain. I descended the SF-340 to 3000 ft MSL; then turned the aircraft West bound for a base leg; and subsequently cleared the SF-340 for the ILS Runway 20 approach into CHA. At this point; I judged the proximity between Aircraft X and the SF-340 to be no factor; and my next transmission was to issue Aircraft X's IFR clearance. As I looked at the aircraft target on the RADAR; I noticed that the northbound heading had inadvertently taken Aircraft X into a higher MVA area of 3;000 FT MSL. I observed Aircraft X to still be at 2;000 FT MSL. Before issuing the IFR clearance to Aircraft X; I asked the pilot of he could maintain his own terrain separation to 3;000 FT. The pilot responded 'no'; and stated the clouds were right at 2;000 FT. I paused for a brief moment to consider the best course of action. FGU is a VFR satellite airport that has no IFR departure procedure. It is common practice at CHA to issue satellite departures that request an IFR clearance on the ground short range clearances to nearby NAVAIDSuntil RADAR identification can be established. Had the aircraft requested the IFR clearance on the ground; the pilot would have most likely been issued a short range clearance to either CQN (Daisy); or HDI (Cleveland NDB; Cleveland; TN) or would have been cleared as filed; since CQN was already in the flight plan as the first fix after departure. Had the aircraft been issued the clearance on the ground; there is no guarantee that the flight path from FGU to CQN (Daisy) would not traverse the same 3;000 FT MVA area prior to reaching CQN (Daisy) because of the proximity between FGU and the depicted MVA boundary lines between the 2;700 FT MSL area and the 3;000 FT MSL area. A short range clearance to HDI would definitely have put the aircraft in same the 3;000 FT MSL MVA area. Judging that the aircraft would be no better off departing with an IFR clearance on the ground; I decided the best course of action was to issue the clearance and get the aircraft up to altitude as soon as possible. I issued the IFR clearance to Aircraft X and observed the aircraft climb through 3;000 FT MSL and ultimately up to the requested altitude of 8;000 FT MSL without incident and in compliance with the subsequent higher MVA of 3;600 MSL West of the CHA airport. I determined this situation an Emergency because the pilot departed VFR; yet was not able to maintain his own terrain clearance up to the MVA. That being said; however; it reasonable to assume that the pilot does not know what our ATC MVA's are from area to area; nor does the pilot know the boundary lines that separate them. In hindsight; after the pilot informed me that he could not maintain terrain separation up to 3;000 ft MSL; I should have instructed the pilot to 'maintain VFR and state intentions'. I failed to do this; although I did instruct the aircraft to maintain VFR earlier. In accordance with FAA 7110.65 Chapter 10; I issued the IFR clearance; judging that the pilot was capable and qualified for IFR flight since he had an IFR flight plan on file. It has taken me an hour or so to find the words to try and describe the events as closely as I can recall; yet all of the events and decision making that took place occurred in a matter of minutes. There was no supervisor in the TRACON at the time; so I used my best judgment to resolve the situation. Upon further reflection; another course of action would have been to climb the SF-340 on vectors for the ILS to 5;000 FT MSL; and issue Aircraft X 4;000 FT MSL. Even in this scenario however; Aircraft X is still below the 2;700 FT MSL MVA; and most likely unable to maintain terrain separation. Recommendation; find some way to inform pilots of various MVA altitudes and ATC restrictions for aircraft operating below the MVA for a particular area. Make it known that just because a pilot can depart VFR; it is still their responsibility to maintain terrain clearance up to the MVA before an IFR clearance can be issued. There is very little guidance in this area. The 7110.65 just has a note in Chapter 4 that states that pop up aircraft are responsible for terrain separation up to the MVA. I cannot find any specific reference in the FAR or AIM to clarify the issue for pilots so that they are aware of their responsibility beyond just able to maintain VFR. To further complicate matters; CHA has had a string of MVA violations. As a result; the workforce has been briefed to be vigilant about MVA compliance. Unfortunately; each new briefing only seems to complicate matters; and no management personnel can really give a straight answer. For every two people that have the same MVA briefing there are at least two interpretations of that same briefing. Here are some examples of some of the briefings we have had. 1. After a circling approach resulted in an MVA violation by Local Control; the workforce was told not to vector below the MVA period. This meant that for a time; even IFR departures off of Chattanooga could NOT be vectored on course prior to reaching the departure corridor MVA. 2. The workforce was told Chattanooga IFR departures could be vectored below the MVA; but had to cross the next MVA boundary line at or above the altitude of the next higher MVA. 3. The workforce was told Chattanooga IFR departures could be vectored below the MVA; but have to cross the 2;700 FT MVA boundary line to the east at 2;000 FT MSL; and the 3;600 FT MVA boundary line to the west at 2;600 MSL. 4. The workforce was told that VFR satellite departures requesting an airborne pick up of a filed IFR clearance must be at or above the MVA before an IFR clearance can be issued. 5. The workforce was told that VFR satellite departures requesting an airborne pick up of a filed IFR clearance can be issued the clearance below the MVA as long as the aircraft is not vectored prior to reaching the MVA. 6. The workforce was told that VFR satellite departures requesting an airborne pick up of a filed IFR clearance can be issued the clearance below the MVA; but once one MVA is met; all others must be met. So for example; imagine a satellite airport that lies within a 3;000 FT MVA. Now imagine another MVA area of 4;000 FT 5 miles to the east of the first area. Imagine another MVA area of 5;000 FT 5 miles east of the 4;000 FT area. Finally; imagine another MVA area of 6;000 FT 5 miles east of the 5;000 FT area. According to the logic of the most recent MVA briefing; a satellite departure from this airport could be issued an IFR clearance airborne below 3;000 FT and continue to the 4000 FT MVA below 4000 FT; the 5;000 FT MVA below 5000 FT etc. As long as the aircraft doesn't meet an MVA; it's all good. Now; imagine the same satellite departure that requests an IFR pickup at 3;500 FT within the 3;000 FT MVA but only 2-3 miles from the next higher MVA of 4;000 FT. You could either clear the aircraft and then vector clear of the next MVA; or withhold the clearance until aircraft reaches the higher MVA area. Neither option sounds acceptable to me; especially considering the previous example could fly IFR Eastbound indefinitely below the MVA's until one is reached. 7. Some members of the workforce say that they were told in the case of satellite departures; it was OK to 'clip' an MVA; although a definition of 'clip' was never given. I asked my supervisor about this; and was told there could be no clipping of MVA's. In many cases; controllers have asked for specific references in the 7110.65 when these new MVA guidelines are briefed. Not one single time has a read and initial change to the 7110.65 been forthcoming after any one of these MVA briefings. Many controllers are frustrated because the only answer we get concerning these MVA briefings is that 'it's a directive or new interpretation of an existing rule by AOV'. There is so much confusion now regarding MVA compliance for satellite departures that controllers are actually calling their buddies at different facilities to see if they have been told the same things. This only leads to more confusion and strife as you can imagine when management begins to hear remarks along the lines of 'they are not doing this at such and such facility; why do we have to do it'? The confusion also makes it quite challenging to train Developmental's because of all the different interpretations they hear from controller to controller. AOV interpretations to existing 7110.65 rules should be in a written format and made accessible to the controller workforce so that we can understand and comply with them; or AOV needs to issue a completely new Handbook of Air Traffic Control so that we are all on the same page.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.