On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:48:11 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 05:13:14 GMT Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:18:54 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
>> > wrote in Message-Id:
>> <pMLKb.102181$pY.83466@fed1read04>:
>>
>> >http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20031231X02110
>>
>> That link only produced an error message, but this one seems to be
>> functional: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20031231X02110
>>
>> This midair collision of two Long Beach Flying Club & Flight Academy
>> aircraft appears to be the same operation (but obviously different
>> flight instructor) as the AVX failure to climb on the missed approach
>> accident you mention above:
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010228X00524&key=1
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010228X00524&key=2
>
>
>Well the planes are all from the Flying Club. I remember the midair,
>very sad as well.

It was not only sad, but it points out the flaw in the FAA's airspace
strategy. When the majority of aircraft are forced to remain outside
the majority of available airspace (for lack of a Class B clearance,
etc), they are crowded into the resulting congested bits of airspace
remaining where it is significantly more likely that a MAC may occur.
As the size of the Class B keeps increasing over time, I would expect
MACs to increase also.

>Strange that the occupants of the 172 were not recovered until 73 days later.

Yes. It would be interesting to hear the explanation for that.

With regard to the AVX mishap, given the radar information disclosed
in the NTSB preliminary report, it's pretty evident that the
instructor failed to assure that the student complied with climb
associated with the Missed Approach Procedure if indeed the student
was controlling the aircraft at the time. While most instrument
approaches in the Los Angeles area are flown with ATC monitoring the
flight on radar, as I recall, radar coverage isn't available for the
VOR/NDB-B approach to AVX, so the instructor may not have realized it
was _solely_ his responsibility and duty to assure the safety of the
flight.

With AVX UNICOM reporting "ceiling 100 feet overcast; and visibility
1.25 statute miles" and the charted MDA of about 1,000' above the
runway elevation, the instructor should have known immediately that he
would be executing the Missed Approach Procedure, and had time to
review it while the student flew the descent. But after the fact
analysis fails to include the unknowable actual circumstances of the
flight (who was at the controls, the mechanical state of the
equipment, ...), so it is necessarily flawed.

However, there is no mistake that 9 fatalities and loss of three
aircraft within 3 years by the same flying club is truly tragic. It
would be interesting to read firsthand reports of pilots familiar with
the decorum and professionalism within the Long Beach Flying Club &
Flight Academy: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lbflyingclub/

As a Part 141 flying school, their prices are about the lowest I've
seen:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lbflyingclub/source4.htm

The only other interesting information I could find on their web site
was contained in their monthly bulletin:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lbflyingclub/bulletin.htm

[newsgroup rec.aviation.ifr added]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:18:23 GMT Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:48:11 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 05:13:14 GMT Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:18:54 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
> >> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >> <pMLKb.102181$pY.83466@fed1read04>:
> >>
> >> >http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20031231X02110
> >>
> >> That link only produced an error message, but this one seems to be
> >> functional: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20031231X02110
> >>
> >> This midair collision of two Long Beach Flying Club & Flight Academy
> >> aircraft appears to be the same operation (but obviously different
> >> flight instructor) as the AVX failure to climb on the missed approach
> >> accident you mention above:
> >> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010228X00524&key=1
> >> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010228X00524&key=2
> >
> >
> >Well the planes are all from the Flying Club. I remember the midair,
> >very sad as well.
>
> It was not only sad, but it points out the flaw in the FAA's airspace
> strategy. When the majority of aircraft are forced to remain outside
> the majority of available airspace (for lack of a Class B clearance,
> etc), they are crowded into the resulting congested bits of airspace
> remaining where it is significantly more likely that a MAC may occur.
> As the size of the Class B keeps increasing over time, I would expect
> MACs to increase also.


Hopefully the problem can be solved with technology. Maybe more accurate
xponders or the like. The class bravo is pretty messy and getting dangerous.
I wonder if someday all traffic will be under ATC control in that airspace.



>
> >Strange that the occupants of the 172 were not recovered until 73 days later.
>
> Yes. It would be interesting to hear the explanation for that.

Maybe weather and money?? If they were famous of course no problem.


>
> With regard to the AVX mishap, given the radar information disclosed
> in the NTSB preliminary report, it's pretty evident that the
> instructor failed to assure that the student complied with climb
> associated with the Missed Approach Procedure if indeed the student
> was controlling the aircraft at the time. While most instrument
> approaches in the Los Angeles area are flown with ATC monitoring the
> flight on radar, as I recall, radar coverage isn't available for the
> VOR/NDB-B approach to AVX, so the instructor may not have realized it
> was _solely_ his responsibility and duty to assure the safety of the
> flight.


But it always is the instructor that's in charge and responsible.
I suppose it's still possible that he didn't realize it at the time.


R. Hubbell

>
> With AVX UNICOM reporting "ceiling 100 feet overcast; and visibility
> 1.25 statute miles" and the charted MDA of about 1,000' above the
> runway elevation, the instructor should have known immediately that he
> would be executing the Missed Approach Procedure, and had time to
> review it while the student flew the descent. But after the fact
> analysis fails to include the unknowable actual circumstances of the
> flight (who was at the controls, the mechanical state of the
> equipment, ...), so it is necessarily flawed.
>
> However, there is no mistake that 9 fatalities and loss of three
> aircraft within 3 years by the same flying club is truly tragic. It
> would be interesting to read firsthand reports of pilots familiar with
> the decorum and professionalism within the Long Beach Flying Club &
> Flight Academy: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lbflyingclub/
>
> As a Part 141 flying school, their prices are about the lowest I've
> seen:
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lbflyingclub/source4.htm
>
> The only other interesting information I could find on their web site
> was contained in their monthly bulletin:
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lbflyingclub/bulletin.htm
>
> [newsgroup rec.aviation.ifr added]
>

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 21:40:38 -0800, wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>
>>What caused you to crash? What were the factors that led to your
>>"virtual crash"?
>
>Circled the wrong way.

Which way would have been the right way? Circling approaches
southeast of runway 4-22 are specifically prohibited in that approach
procedure.

>Started down as soon as I saw the airport.

What was your position relative to the MAP when you sighted the
runway?

>Lost sight of the Airporrt in the descent and did not immediatly start
>the missed.

Did you start your descent from 2,100'? How low did you get?

>Started the missed late and too low.

I can see where that would not be a good thing on this approach.

[rec.aviation.ifr added]