Vector Below MVA

SweatPants

Lurker
Messages
1
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.
 
Solution
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...
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.
First of all, you technically can’t restrict VFR aircraft below any MVA so their argument is invalid, radar vectors play no factor in that, it’s a hard rule. This also goes for terrain/obstruction MVA “bubbles” depicted on the scope which obviously means they need to be assigned a higher altitude restriction in those areas. I.e. “Maintain VFR at or below 3500” instead of 2500 or whatever that obstruction MVA altitude is etc. Instructing someone to “Maintain VFR at or below” your MVA allows you to still vector them because you’ve given them discretion to operate AT the MVA altitude. If they choose to go below it then anything resulting negatively (other than hitting other aircraft) is on them.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
Yes, upon looking you are correct in a general sense.

You however still cannot restrict VFR aircraft below an obstruction MVA altitude specifically per 14 CFR Section 91.119. An assigned altitude must be at least 1000 feet above the highest obstacle period. There are no exceptions unless an emergency exists.
 
Last edited:
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.
I’d say no. “At our below” is considered an assigned altitude to me. You can’t cap someone below the MVA and then vector them right into some terrain…
 
I’d say no. “At our below” is considered an assigned altitude to me. You can’t cap someone below the MVA and then vector them right into some terrain…
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom