Caravan Undifferentiated
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 19
Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Aircraft X contacted me on departure on a 120 heading. I turned him to a 090 heading after confirming his mode C readout and seeing that he was above the prominent obstructions depicted on my radar scope. He was already in a 4;000 ft. MVA before he started his turn while on his departure heading. I am being told that this was a significant event because there are no obstructions depicted for the 4;000 ft. MVA. I believe that I was following the 7110.65 5-6-3. The introduction to this section discusses missing prominent obstacles depicted on the radar scope. It does not say that each individual MVA needs to have a prominent obstacle depicted. Since I can only use this rule for a departure; my assumption is that management would depict obstacles that are prominent from the airport out. If the first obstacle depicted east of the airport is 1;188 ft. (and I was well above that obstacle before turning); I would hope that; regardless of the MVA; if there were a higher obstacle before that; then management would do their job and depict it. I work with the understanding that we are all doing our jobs. If they choose not to depict other obstacles; then there must be nothing higher from the airport out. I have to trust that they are doing their jobs and giving me tools needed to do my job correctly and safely. I asked the question that; if it is wrong to turn someone below the MVA because there is no obstacle depicted; then why is it ok to have an aircraft depart on a 120 heading; reaching the 4000 MVA well below it.I was previously briefed during our DVA briefing that the rule we are using for the 120 heading is vectors below the MVA since our DVA heading starts at 130. I was told that years and years ago; when our staff specialist was doing the MVA's it was determined that the 120 heading missed prominent obstructions for the MVA. When I asked what rule they were using since there appears to be a contradiction in the application of the rule (can't turn because you're below versus we said it's ok because we just know it is) they were unable to tell me the rule. We also have a 2;000 ft. MVA that is totally offshore. I was told years ago that the prominent obstruction that determined that MVA was a mountain which is actually in a different MVA; possibly a 2;700 ft. MVA. Using the rational that the prominent obstruction actually needs to be in that particular MVA area only doesn't even make sense; especially when this 2;000 ft. MVA is totally over the ocean with absolutely NO obstructions within the confines of it. Using this as an example; then the prominent obstruction triggering the 4;000 ft. MVA could feasibly be in another MVA sector. I was also given a copy of the briefing when the interpretation came out about the vectors below the MVA and that you could always vector below the MVA for a departure as long as you were 900 ft. or less below the MVA because that guaranteed that you were clear of any obstruction that triggered that MVA. Nowhere in the FAAH 7110.65 does it say I can vector below an MVA even if no obstacles are depicted anywhere. The FAAH 7110.65 says that there needs to be a prominent obstacle depicted to apply that rule. Although; again; it doesn't specify that each MVA needs its own prominent obstacle. That is management's job to determine what obstacles are prominent that we would need to avoid to properly apply the FAAH 7110.65. Our office is calling this the 900 ft. below the MVA 'rule.' My understanding is that a rule actually needs to be in the .65 to be considered a rule. This particular interpretation came out three and a half years ago and is not easily found anywhere. If this is still in effect after the one year mark then we should be able to locate it so we have something to show our developmentals as they are training; instead of only being able to say well that's just how it is; take my word for it; versus actually having a rule in the FAAH 7110.65 that is worded so dramatically different from this 'rule/interpretation.' I am not the only one at this facility applying the rule according to how the FAAH 7110.65 is worded. I believe that if this is a misapplication of the 5-6-3 then either the .65 needs to be reworded; or at the very least; our SOP should include something to say that the facility is going above and beyond what the FAAH 7110.65 actually says. For now; I will be turning aircraft to totally avoid the 4;000 ft. MVA or waiting until they are 4;000 ft. or above before turning into the MVA. My recommendation is that; if the 900 ft. below 'rule/interpretation' is still in effect FAA wide; then the FAAH 7110.65 needs to be reworded to reflect that. At the very least our SOP should be changed to reflect that; as a facility; we are interpreting 5-6-3 more strictly and differently than what is actually worded so that everyone is on the same page.
Approach Controller reported a disagreement with another controller over rules for vectoring aircraft below the MVA.