I know it's not considered good form to discuss or speculate on accidents
before the factual reports are released - however I'll bet I'm not the only
one who pulls up an approach plate when hearing about an accident on an IFR
approach. In my opinion, as long as the interest remains technical, and the
discussion respectful, we should not be held to any specious rule of silence
about accidents. Afer all, they are one of our best sources of learning, and
the primary source for rule-making - so it should be both natural and wise to
take an interest.

Looking at the RNAV approach plate for Martinsville, I notice that the missed
approach altitude is lower than the obstacle clearance altitude required to
make another approach. This means, after a missed, you would have to climb out
of the holding altitude to reach a safe altitude to make a second try on the
same approach. I thought that was contrary to TERPS procedures.

G Faris

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:33:29 +0000 (UTC), (G Farris)
wrote:

>I know it's not considered good form to discuss or speculate on accidents
>before the factual reports are released - however I'll bet I'm not the only
>one who pulls up an approach plate when hearing about an accident on an IFR
>approach. In my opinion, as long as the interest remains technical, and the
>discussion respectful, we should not be held to any specious rule of silence
>about accidents. Afer all, they are one of our best sources of learning, and
>the primary source for rule-making - so it should be both natural and wise to
>take an interest.
>
>Looking at the RNAV approach plate for Martinsville, I notice that the missed
>approach altitude is lower than the obstacle clearance altitude required to
>make another approach. This means, after a missed, you would have to climb out
>of the holding altitude to reach a safe altitude to make a second try on the
>same approach. I thought that was contrary to TERPS procedures.
>
>G Faris

There are a number of airports in the country related to the name
"Martinsville". It would be helpful if you would post the ID for that
airport.
--ron

G Farris wrote:

>
> Looking at the RNAV approach plate for Martinsville, I notice that the missed
> approach altitude is lower than the obstacle clearance altitude required to
> make another approach. This means, after a missed, you would have to climb out
> of the holding altitude to reach a safe altitude to make a second try on the
> same approach. I thought that was contrary to TERPS procedures.
>
I assume we're talking the RNAV 12 approach. Where the missed is to go to
ULAKE at 3000 but the initial is 5500.

The missed approach altitude is only necessary to provide safe transit from
the final approach segment to the holding fix (and to hold there). There's
no requirement to get from the holding fix back to an IAF to "have another
go". The vagaries in designing the missed approach involve the slop in the
pilots flying to follow the missed approach procedure.

What is telling is that if you start on the approach and don't make it to the
final segment, you're kind of in limbo when below the MSA if you need to bail.
Of course in this approach, that's sort of a moot point as the FAF is above the
missed approach altitude and everything is on a staight line from the IAF to the
holding fix.

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
: There are a number of airports in the country related to the name
: "Martinsville". It would be helpful if you would post the ID for that
: airport.
: --ron

KMTV. It's about 50 miles south of where I'm sitting right now. It's right
on the edge of where the ridges of SW-VA fall off into the flatlands of NC. I flew
into BCB the day before to 500' OVC... pretty crappy weather and lots of rocks in the
clouds around here. No overt speculation, but I'm very interested to hear what the
investigation discovers.

-Cory
--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>>G Faris
>
>
> There are a number of airports in the country related to the name
> "Martinsville". It would be helpful if you would post the ID for that
> airport.
> --ron

I believe he is referring to the MTV RNAV rwy 12 approach.
I think the airport is Blue Ridge or something like that.

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...

> What is telling is that if you start on the approach and don't make it to
the
> final segment, you're kind of in limbo when below the MSA if you need to
bail.

I was taught to not initiate the missed approach procedure until reaching
the missed approach point for just this reason. The missed approach
procedure assumes you're starting from the MAP and provides obstacle
clearance accordingly.

-cwk.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:33:29 +0000 (UTC), (G Farris)
wrote:

>I thought that was contrary to TERPS procedures.

What makes you think that?

What I see in TERPS is that the altitude needs to be sufficient to allow
*holding* or *enroute flight*.

Where do you see a requirement for an altitude high enough to start another
approach?


--ron

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:26:07 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

>KMTV.

Thank you.
--ron

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:26:49 -0400, Ron Natalie > wrote:


>
>I believe he is referring to the MTV RNAV rwy 12 approach.
>I think the airport is Blue Ridge or something like that.

Thank you.
--ron

In article >,
says...


My apologies for being vague about the approach in question.
I didn't correct it because others cleared it up immediately.



>>I thought that was contrary to TERPS procedures.
>
>What makes you think that?
>
>What I see in TERPS is that the altitude needs to be sufficient to allow
>*holding* or *enroute flight*.
>
>Where do you see a requirement for an altitude high enough to start another
>approach?
>


You're certainly right - It was the "en-route flight" phrase that made me
think the missed approach procedure had to take you above MSA. In practice,
I've seen missed approach holds that are slightly lower than the published
IAF's, but I can't remember seeing one where they hold you at an altitude that
does not provide terrain clearance in the immediate (10nm) vicinity of the
airport.

G Faris

G Farris wrote:

> I know it's not considered good form to discuss or speculate on accidents
> before the factual reports are released - however I'll bet I'm not the only
> one who pulls up an approach plate when hearing about an accident on an IFR
> approach. In my opinion, as long as the interest remains technical, and the
> discussion respectful, we should not be held to any specious rule of silence
> about accidents. Afer all, they are one of our best sources of learning, and
> the primary source for rule-making - so it should be both natural and wise to
> take an interest.
>
> Looking at the RNAV approach plate for Martinsville, I notice that the missed
> approach altitude is lower than the obstacle clearance altitude required to
> make another approach. This means, after a missed, you would have to climb out
> of the holding altitude to reach a safe altitude to make a second try on the
> same approach. I thought that was contrary to TERPS procedures.
>
> G Faris

Not contrary to TERPs at all. A missed approach must be capable of supporting
holding or en route flight, not return to fly another approach. In this case, the
terrain over the airport and in all quadrants except the NW area is flat as a
pancake. The MEA for the airway where the missed approach hold is located is
3,000 feet.

If someone wants to leave the area, they are all set. If they want to fly another
IAP they have a lot of room to crank back on up to 5500.

This is the airport where the NASCAR Hendricks King Air crashed. But,
they had missed off the LOC RWY 30 IAP and, for some reason, went
straight ahead.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:26:07 +0000 (UTC),
> wrote:
>
> >KMTV.
>
> Thank you.
> --ron

C Kingsbury wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>
>>What is telling is that if you start on the approach and don't make it to
>
> the
>
>>final segment, you're kind of in limbo when below the MSA if you need to
>
> bail.
>
> I was taught to not initiate the missed approach procedure until reaching
> the missed approach point for just this reason. The missed approach
> procedure assumes you're starting from the MAP and provides obstacle
> clearance accordingly.
>
Precisely, that's the reason, I was just pointing out that it's unlikely
to have been an issue in this approach.

Didn't realize they were missed off the LOC RWY 30.
This almost precludes a misreading of the chart, as the missed for this
approach is a climbing right turn back to the LOM at 2600.
Presumably, they knew the airport, so they would have been aware of terrain
issues in the NW quadrant - we'll have to await more factual information to
know whether they had an airplane problem or a major distraction to cause them
to fly straight ahead. Condolances to all of them, and their loved ones.

G Faris

I have flown this approach into Martinsville, VA at night in low (under
1000 ft). in a twin. You are flying at the mountains into a "box" canyon
type area. If you do the missed in-correctly you will hit the mountains.
The pucker factor was high.
Michelle

G Farris wrote:

>I know it's not considered good form to discuss or speculate on accidents
>before the factual reports are released - however I'll bet I'm not the only
>one who pulls up an approach plate when hearing about an accident on an IFR
>approach. In my opinion, as long as the interest remains technical, and the
>discussion respectful, we should not be held to any specious rule of silence
>about accidents. Afer all, they are one of our best sources of learning, and
>the primary source for rule-making - so it should be both natural and wise to
>take an interest.
>
>Looking at the RNAV approach plate for Martinsville, I notice that the missed
>approach altitude is lower than the obstacle clearance altitude required to
>make another approach. This means, after a missed, you would have to climb out
>of the holding altitude to reach a safe altitude to make a second try on the
>same approach. I thought that was contrary to TERPS procedures.
>
>G Faris
>
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

>I have flown this approach into Martinsville, VA at night in low (under
>1000 ft). in a twin

I have flown into MTV visual approach.
My first encounter with hills.
I fooled me sinec I have only flown in Florida and Georgia.

They went missed off the approach to rwy 30 according to the FAA report.



"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>>>G Faris
>>
>>
>> There are a number of airports in the country related to the name
>> "Martinsville". It would be helpful if you would post the ID for that
>> airport.
>> --ron
>
> I believe he is referring to the MTV RNAV rwy 12 approach.
> I think the airport is Blue Ridge or something like that.

Michelle P wrote:

> I have flown this approach into Martinsville, VA at night in low (under
> 1000 ft). in a twin. You are flying at the mountains into a "box" canyon
> type area. If you do the missed in-correctly you will hit the mountains.
> The pucker factor was high.
> Michelle

If you get a pucker factor with hills 8 miles away from the airport, you better not
come out west. ;-)

According to the FAA report, the were on the miss for the LOC 30 approach.

Kevin Chandler wrote:
> According to the FAA report, the were on the miss for the LOC 30 approach.

Where could I see that report? Thanks.

"Kevin Chandler" > wrote in message
...
> According to the FAA report, the were on the miss for the LOC 30 approach.
>
>

Plate from AirNav: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0410/05648L30.PDF

This looks ugly in some ways but sitting idly here on my butt at home this
doesn't strike me as a "gotcha" approach. If you can manage any kind of
climb and don't start the miss too soon, it would seem like you have plenty
of clearance.

There are 2 obstacles higher than MDA (assuming DME which a King Air would
likely have): one 150' above about 3nm away and one 300' higher 5nm away.
Assuming worst possible winds and failure to correct it's easy to see you
getting blown towards the obstacles. But so long as you keep climbing at any
kind of rate you should have no problem clearing them, right? Let's say
you're in a 172 near gross and climbing 150fpm, you'll still outclimb them
both, the second quite comfortably.

Am I missing something here?

-cwk.

Is there a good reason that the RNAV(GPS) approach's MAP is LEFT turn and
the LOC approach's MAP is RIGHT turn?

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message ...
> Kevin Chandler wrote:
>> According to the FAA report, the were on the miss for the LOC 30 approach.
>
> Where could I see that report? Thanks.
>

FAA's reports of recent accidents is easily accessible through www.faa.gov. Specifically
http://faa.gov/avr/aai/B_1025_N.txt.

But maybe he's talking about something else, because this report did not specify that it was the localizer
approach (only that he was inbound to runway 30, and made a missed approach).

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
link.net...
>I have flown this approach into Martinsville, VA at night in low (under
>1000 ft). in a twin. You are flying at the mountains into a "box" canyon
>type area. If you do the missed in-correctly you will hit the mountains.
> The pucker factor was high.
> Michelle

If that approach gives a pucker factor then I suggest you get some more
training.

>
> G Farris wrote:
>
>>I know it's not considered good form to discuss or speculate on accidents
>>before the factual reports are released - however I'll bet I'm not the
>>only one who pulls up an approach plate when hearing about an accident on
>>an IFR approach. In my opinion, as long as the interest remains technical,
>>and the discussion respectful, we should not be held to any specious rule
>>of silence about accidents. Afer all, they are one of our best sources of
>>learning, and the primary source for rule-making - so it should be both
>>natural and wise to take an interest.
>>Looking at the RNAV approach plate for Martinsville, I notice that the
>>missed approach altitude is lower than the obstacle clearance altitude
>>required to make another approach. This means, after a missed, you would
>>have to climb out of the holding altitude to reach a safe altitude to make
>>a second try on the same approach. I thought that was contrary to TERPS
>>procedures.
>>G Faris
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P
>
> "Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)
>
> Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic
>
> Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity
>

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is there a good reason that the RNAV(GPS) approach's MAP is LEFT turn and
> the LOC approach's MAP is RIGHT turn?
>
>

I had trouble figuring that out as well. I could come up with no good
answer.

In article >,
"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote:

> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Is there a good reason that the RNAV(GPS) approach's MAP is LEFT turn and
> > the LOC approach's MAP is RIGHT turn?
> >
> >
>
> I had trouble figuring that out as well. I could come up with no good
> answer.

It's also odd that the GPS, NDB, and LOC plates all show a different
assortment of towers in the area of the airport:

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05648R30.PDF
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05648L30.PDF
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05648N30.PDF

Flying the approach seems so basic .. especially with 2 pilots .. that it
sure makes you wonder about a failure of some sort that distracted the
crew.


"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
> Didn't realize they were missed off the LOC RWY 30.
> This almost precludes a misreading of the chart, as the missed for this
> approach is a climbing right turn back to the LOM at 2600.
> Presumably, they knew the airport, so they would have been aware of
> terrain
> issues in the NW quadrant - we'll have to await more factual information
> to
> know whether they had an airplane problem or a major distraction to cause
> them
> to fly straight ahead. Condolances to all of them, and their loved ones.
>
> G Faris
>

Or perhaps no failure was involved. The reported ceiling was 100 below MDA
and rising according to the sequence reports. Two pilots searching for
visual contact with an airport they had gone into many times....

What I'm reminded of once again is if you fly the procedure to standard with
discipline and not too much judgement, it all works.

We'll just have to wait to hopefully find out. But that may never happen.

"OtisWinslow" >
> Flying the approach seems so basic .. especially with 2 pilots .. that it
> sure makes you wonder about a failure of some sort that distracted the
> crew.
>

In article >, OtisWinslow
> wrote:

> Flying the approach seems so basic .. especially with 2 pilots .. that it
> sure makes you wonder about a failure of some sort that distracted the
> crew.

That's what I'm wondering, too. I flew many an hour with Dick when he
worked for my airline, and I can't see him simply not following the
MAP; it just doesn't make sense. (Of course, isn't that usually the
way with accidents?) I'm sure something else was diverting their
attention, but who knows...

He'll be missed; he was a lot of fun to fly with.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Manchester, CT =USA=

Garner Miller wrote:

> In article >, OtisWinslow
> > wrote:
>
> > Flying the approach seems so basic .. especially with 2 pilots .. that it
> > sure makes you wonder about a failure of some sort that distracted the
> > crew.
>
> That's what I'm wondering, too. I flew many an hour with Dick when he
> worked for my airline, and I can't see him simply not following the
> MAP; it just doesn't make sense. (Of course, isn't that usually the
> way with accidents?) I'm sure something else was diverting their
> attention, but who knows...
>
> He'll be missed; he was a lot of fun to fly with.

We need to learn what intervention, if any, on the part of ATC. Perhaps a
vector?

In article >, > wrote:

> We need to learn what intervention, if any, on the part of ATC. Perhaps a
> vector?

Good question. I don't know the area, but they may not have had radar
service available. I know when we go into KSLK (Saranac Lake, NY),
Boston center tells us radar service is terminated, and we're going
stricly by navaids. No radar vectors available because of the
mountains; we have to do the full procedure. Perhaps this airport's
the same; I don't know.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

Garner Miller > wrote:
: Good question. I don't know the area, but they may not have had radar
: service available. I know when we go into KSLK (Saranac Lake, NY),
: Boston center tells us radar service is terminated, and we're going
: stricly by navaids. No radar vectors available because of the
: mountains; we have to do the full procedure. Perhaps this airport's
: the same; I don't know.

It most likely is. A number of approaches in this area (like my home base)
are negative radar below 5000' MSA because of the mountains. Greensboro might have
had them from the flatlands there, but we'll have to wait and see.

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Garner Miller wrote:

> In article >, > wrote:
>
> > We need to learn what intervention, if any, on the part of ATC. Perhaps a
> > vector?
>
> Good question. I don't know the area, but they may not have had radar
> service available. I know when we go into KSLK (Saranac Lake, NY),
> Boston center tells us radar service is terminated, and we're going
> stricly by navaids. No radar vectors available because of the
> mountains; we have to do the full procedure. Perhaps this airport's
> the same; I don't know.
>

I've seen the Greensboro TRACON MVA chart. The MVA over the airport is 3600.
To the west and northwest it is 4400; except for a circle around the Bull
Mountain area where the MVA is 5200. It's 31 miles from the ASR antenna to
KMTV.

So, I doubt they can see them down low but probably 2,000 feet, or so, above
field elevation. That would be good enough for limited vectoring but it
wouldn't seem good enough for a departure or missed approach vector.

If this were a major airline accident we would probably already know a lot about
the ATC handling. But, like any government agency, the NTSB doesn't talk during
an investigation unless politics force them to.

In article >, says...
>

>
>We need to learn what intervention, if any, on the part of ATC. Perhaps a
>vector?
>


Good suggestion. In fact, it reminds me is some ways of another KingAir
accident a few years back at North Adams Mass (AQW). The flight crew
apparently got their departure clearance mixed up - they read it back
correctly, but later transmissions indicated they had mixed it up. Had we not
known this, we would have difficulty understanding how they flew into a
mountain, which they certainly knew was there, and which they easily had the
performance capability to avoid.

Similar kind of circumstances - night (dawn)IMC - mountains only 2800ft high,
5 or 6 nm away from the airport. They were cleared to 5000, expecting higher
in ten minutes, but they somehow thought they were cleared to only 2300.


I'm not trying to "guess" that the causes are similar - but the line of
thinking is certainly rational.

G Faris

Actually the WX was
WEATHER: KMTV 241620Z AUTO 00000KT 5SM OVC006 14/13 A2998 RMK A01

LOC30 minimums with DME are 400-1, however approximately 20 aircraft,
probably most with two man professional crews, had missed the approach and
diverted so the weather might not have been as good on approach as it was at
the airport.



Ernie
BE36 (E-160)
KDVO





"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
om...
> Or perhaps no failure was involved. The reported ceiling was 100 below
> MDA
> and rising according to the sequence reports. Two pilots searching for
> visual contact with an airport they had gone into many times....
>
> What I'm reminded of once again is if you fly the procedure to standard
> with
> discipline and not too much judgement, it all works.
>
> We'll just have to wait to hopefully find out. But that may never happen.
>
> "OtisWinslow" >
>> Flying the approach seems so basic .. especially with 2 pilots .. that it
>> sure makes you wonder about a failure of some sort that distracted the
>> crew.
>>
>
>

Richard Hertz wrote:

>"Michelle P" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
>>I have flown this approach into Martinsville, VA at night in low (under
>>1000 ft). in a twin. You are flying at the mountains into a "box" canyon
>>type area. If you do the missed in-correctly you will hit the mountains.
>>The pucker factor was high.
>>Michelle
>>
>>
>
>If that approach gives a pucker factor then I suggest you get some more
>training.
>
>
Me thinks you were not there that night, so keep your degrading opinions
to your self.
Michelle
--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>>"Michelle P" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>>>I have flown this approach into Martinsville, VA at night in low (under
>>>1000 ft). in a twin. You are flying at the mountains into a "box" canyon
>>>type area. If you do the missed in-correctly you will hit the mountains.
>>>The pucker factor was high.
>>>Michelle
>>>
>>
>>If that approach gives a pucker factor then I suggest you get some more
>>training.
>>
> Me thinks you were not there that night, so keep your degrading opinions
> to your self.
> Michelle

And methinks that if you have trouble with that approach then there is a
problem. Why is there a problem with that approach? It is not difficult.
Are you saying it is? I did not intend to be degrading, just that it is a
simple approach and if it gives someone reason to pucker then perhaps they
need more training to get confidence.

If perhaps you meant the puckering to be from other circumstances then I
cannot be held responsible as that was not stated in the original post. The
pucker statement immediately followed the part about flying the missed
incorectly. I can't see how it is difficult to follow the instructions on
that chart. That is all. if you choose to be offended that is not my
problem.


> --
>
> Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P
>
> "Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)
>
> Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic
>
> Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity
>