A319
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Confusion; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General None Reported / Taken
Human Factors; Procedure
I was working CIC on the mid shift. An A319 was handed off from ZSE to P80 via other-than-coordinated routing and altitude. I became aware of the unusual event when the Hood Controller said the A319 was level at 13;000 FT in a 13;400 FT MVA. Hood verified the aircraft's assigned altitude and the pilot confirmed they were assigned 13;000 FT and cleared direct BONVL; which is a fix on the BONVL6 STAR. The A319; by the ZSE/P80 LOA; should have been cleared via the BONVL6 arrival landing west which involves crossing BONVL at 10;000 FT at 250 KIAS. The routing assigned by the Center Controller appeared to not be on the arrival routing but rather a RADAR vector. Once the Hood Controller verified the A319's altitude he asked the pilot to maintain separation from terrain and obstructions; and the pilot concurred. Once the aircraft was over the next lowest MVA; 6;200 FT; the Hood Controller vectored and descended the A319 for a visual approach at PDX. I called ZSE several minutes later to inquire about the A319's clearance. The Controller responded with direct BONVL and assigned 13;200 FT. I told them the A319 had descended to 13;000 FT and that our MVA was 13;400 FT. I am not sure of what the Center actually gave the A319 for altitude or routing; all I know is he was going direct BONVL off the arrival and descended below our MVA. Without pointing fingers this appears to be a case of 'Mid Rules' where the Center has a common practice of clearing arrival aircraft; especially those landing PDX; via other than LOA routing without coordination. Most of the time this is not a problem; but in this case even if the A319 had been issued 13;200 FT; they would still be below P80's MVA and on other than expected routing. This put the Hood Controller in a stressful and uncertain situation and the aircraft in unsafe proximity to terrain. My recommendation is for ZSE to follow the LOA regardless of what time of day it is; and if aircraft are routed otherwise to coordinate it; because we almost NEVER unable their requests. APPREQ's are fine with me all the time but aircraft below MVA's is not.
First time [we were] flying this route for both pilots. Shortly after take off received clearance direct PDX airport from DFW Center. We read back clearance and verified new routing on Navigation Display's (ND's) as well as consulting with our Dispatcher. Flight [was] uneventful up until check on with PDX Approach. I have flown into PDX 2-3 times but always from LAS. At some point Salt Lake Center or Seattle Center cleared us direct to BONVL and the BONVL 6 STAR to PDX. We proceeded direct as instructed with abeam points. We completed approach briefing and noted terrain issues in vicinity. Terrain on ND was selected and used until landing. Per STAR BONVL was constrained at 250 and 10;000 FT. We received descent clearance to 13;000 FT at some point. I don't remember if it was pilot's discretion or not. Pilot flying initiated descent using descent mode. Due to our routing and being aware of the terrain I researched just how close we would come to Mt Hood which sits east of the airport by about 35 miles. I again reviewed the Commercial Chart special pages; the secondary Flight Plan (which provided complete STAR); and our ND with Terrain mode. That review proved we would pass north of Mt Hood; a few miles south of the routing on the STAR; and at least 1;800 FT vertically above the peak. (Mt Hood 11;225 MSL). Further; due to the clear weather to the east and moonlight we had a good visual of the snow capped peak as we approached and passed remarking how cool it was to see it. All of this information and the fact that the MEA on the arrival in our vicinity of level off was 13;000 FT with lower altitudes east validated the fact that 13;000 FT was a safe clearance and that there was no reason to challenge it. When we contacted PDX Approach; I checked in with our altitude and ATIS information. I believe the controller read back the altimeter setting only. After a brief pause he asked our altitude and last clearance. I read back both. He then inquired again with something we did not catch. He again asked if we could maintain our own terrain separation. I stated yes or affirmative. There was again a pause and then a back and forth regarding our clearance and that normally their minimum altitude is 14;000 FT. We looked at each other puzzled and somewhat worried but the Controller reassured us all was well and that it was not a problem. Terrain was never a factor in our minds due to the aforementioned review; ND mode on terrain; and visual contact with mountain. The only other pieces of data we could have looked at would have been the Commercial Chart page which shows BONVL on the line between 13;500 and 5;900 FT as well as delve deeper into the raw data; inbound radials; etc. The only reason I didn't was the other data verified the correctness of our ATC instructions with safe terrain clearances. In the end; there was nothing further from the Controller and we landed uneventfully. I'm not sure if after review by ATC they will find a problem with this or not. We believe we read back all clearances correctly and proceeded safely. I also thought it would help educate and remind everyone that we have some new routes with new arrivals at all hours of the night and that it would behoove us all to always review all available information whether proceeding off airways or not and to always remain vigilant. A minor but somewhat related issue involves the fact that this pairing involves flying backside of the clock flying after having a pairing with early morning flights. We landed [but we] were not our sharpest.
P80 Controller described a below MVA event during late night operations involving an arrival routed via an non-standard clearance. The reporter suggested all routing be pre-approved if other than LOA standards.