Vector Below MVA

[SweatPants]

There is a debate going on at my facility about vectoring VFR aircraft below the MVA. We restrict all VFR aircraft below the MVA because of our LOA with approach. We don’t give a hard altitude to maintain but say at or below 2000/2500. I believe that we cannot give vectors since we are restricting them below the MVA. Their argument is that 5-6-1 says you can vector below the MVA if the aircraft isn’t assigned an altitude. My coworkers believe that since we say at or below this is not an assigned altitude therefore we can give vectors. Who’s right? The .65 seems a bit unclear on this.

 

[ehmeye]

There is a debate going on at my facility about vectoring VFR aircraft below the MVA. We restrict all VFR aircraft below the MVA because of our LOA with approach. We don’t give a hard altitude to maintain but say at or below 2000/2500. I believe that we cannot give vectors since we are restricting them below the MVA. Their argument is that 5-6-1 says you can vector below the MVA if the aircraft isn’t assigned an altitude. My coworkers believe that since we say at or below this is not an assigned altitude therefore we can give vectors. Who’s right? The .65 seems a bit unclear on this.

If the MVA is 2500 and you tell them to maintain VFR at or below 2500, you can vector to your heart's content no matter what altitude they're cruising at. If they are claiming that you can restrict them below the MVA and then vector, no. A restriction is just assigning a range of altitudes.

 

[Atcbrownie]

You can do "at or below" but that alt must meet mva requirements. So if mva is 2000, "at or below 2000" is legal even if that aircraft never climbs to 2000. The point is to give the pilot the ability to avoid terrain by allowing them to climb to the mva if they need.

 

[Termine]

How I understand it:

• You can tell a VFR pilot to maintain a hard altitude and assign them a vector at the same time, if the vector is above the MVA.
• You can tell a VFR pilot to maintain "at or below" the MVA and assign them a vector at the same time. (This gives them the option of climbing to the MVA if they feel it's necessary.)
• You can assign a vector to a VFR pilot, even if they're below the MVA, but you can't assign them an altitude below the MVA [at the same time].

Some facilities assign vectors and hard altitudes below the MVA. That doesn't sound right to me but do what your career can handle I guess.

 

[Lemonhead]

He said they rescrict all ac below the MVA. At least thats how I am reading it.

aob 2000/2500 and the MVA is say 2700.

no vectors

 

[jamisjockey]

Because it allows them to change their altitude to maintain VFR cloud clearance.

Doesn’t matter. It’s below the MVA you can’t vector VFR.

At or below is a restriction which is an altitude assignment.

Your facility is wrong.

 

[yup]

you technically can’t restrict VFR aircraft below any MVA so their argument is invalid

Sections 7-7, 7-8, and 7-9 provide for assigning VFR aircraft the MSA (from Part 91) instead of the MVA/MIA. That altitude can be a fair bit lower than the MVA.

 

[GulfBravoPapa]

Lots of misinformation here. MVA doesn't apply to VFR aircraft ever. You can assign a vector to VFR aircraft at any altitude (even if you assign them at-or-below your MVA) and don't need a "suggested heading" ever. VFR in and of itself means the pilot is always responsible for terrain and obstruction clearance.

This is incorrect

 

[DADDYSbabyBIRD]

This thread is a great example of why training sucks... Trainer A says one thing is true, is 100% sure and you better do it that way working with them. Trainer B thinks another thing is true, 100% sure about it, you better do it their way.... then your OS has their way... all three have .65 stuff backing their claim.

In all reality, how many times has this vector below the MVA been in yearly briefings? At least a few in the past decade, but people still don't understand or agree on it.

 

[Shikaka]

How is at or below not an altitude assignment?

 

[Shikaka]

Ok sorry so I was half right - you can vector VFR aircraft below the MVA as long as they aren't assigned an altitude. I would agree that "at or below" is an altitude assignment, so they can't be done in conjunction with one another.

Correct, essentially if it removes the ability of a VFR aircraft to maintain their own terrain separation then you can't do it.

 

[AB19]

People are saying that you need to give them at least the MVA in order to vector. Can we dig into that some more?

This is what 5-6-1 says:


So a surface-level reading would imply that julietoscar above is correct, right? MVA doesn't apply to VFRs.

I have two counterarguments, though:
1) it says "except as authorized." What "authorizes" such a below-MVA vector? Is it this line in the .65 itself? Local SOP? LOA? Does anyone know?
2) The very next line in the book is the note:

They specifically say that if the aircraft is NOT assigned an altitude, they may be vectored at any altitude. Doesn't that mean if they ARE assigned an altitude, they may NOT be vectored at any altitude? Or else what is the point of the note?

I really have no idea what the right answer is here.

If you give someone an altitude below the mva you can’t vector them

 

[DankVectorz]

You can do that, hence the “AT or below” part. If the pilot chooses to descend below and something terrain/obstruction related happens it’s on the pilot. You’re giving them the option to operate at the MVA, even then, you can still vector VFR below the MVA as long as they can stay above the appropriate MSA.

The one he replied to they restrict them below the MVA. The “at” is still below the MVA.

 

[boots]

Dumbest thread of the year has risen from the dead

 

[Shikaka]

Because it allows them to change their altitude to maintain VFR cloud clearance.

It's below the MVA which restricts their ability to maintain terrain separation

 

[jamisjockey]

It's below the MVA which restricts their ability to maintain terrain separation

Ignore those pesky rocks and trees man...

 

[yup]

If you give someone an altitude below the mva you can’t vector them

Yes, that is one possible reading. The other possible reading is that you can still vector them. What evidence do you have to back up your argument?

For the record, I agree with you... but I want to be unambiguously correct, and I find 5-6-1c to be ambiguous. What makes you so sure?

 

[AB19]

Yes, that is one possible reading. The other possible reading is that you can still vector them. What evidence do you have to back up your argument?

For the record, I agree with you... but I want to be unambiguously correct, and I find 5-6-1c to be ambiguous. What makes you so sure?

the .65 is ambiguous, you can get it defined by upper management if you’re this worried lol

 

[mAiTaInVFRaToRbElOw]

Even when it’s explicitly written out, people will say it’s ambiguous 😂. Is this what it’s like to work at a lower level facility 🤣.

 

[CoffeeIV]

True but you can't give an altitude below the mva in the first place

Yes you can. We did it daily to remain under the class Charlie and the FAA inspectors didn't say a word.