Seneca down at Avalon

[R. Hubbell]

I hadn't heard anything about this and was surprised when someone
asked if I had.

My condolences to the families and friends, a tragic accident.

http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20031231X02110


Seems like with 5 souls that they were probably heading out for a
buffalo burger and a visit to Avalon.

I wonder about having pax when shooting approaches. Seems like a pretty big
distraction while learning. Do the FARs prohibit pax while IFR training?


R. Hubbell

[Larry Dighera]

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

[BTIZ]

> I wonder about having pax when shooting approaches. Seems like a pretty
big
> distraction while learning. Do the FARs prohibit pax while IFR training?

No. It is entirely at the discretion of the instructor.

BT

[R. Hubbell]

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


R. Hubbell

[Maule Driver]

That is a tricky approach. VOR behind and above the airport.

For those of you familiar with it, would I be right in guessing that
familiarity with VFR flight there might not make the need to climb as
obvious as it is when IMC?

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:pMLKb.102181$pY.83466@fed1read04...
>
> I hadn't heard anything about this and was surprised when someone
> asked if I had.
>
> My condolences to the families and friends, a tragic accident.
>
> http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20031231X02110
>
>
> Seems like with 5 souls that they were probably heading out for a
> buffalo burger and a visit to Avalon.
>
> I wonder about having pax when shooting approaches. Seems like a pretty
big
> distraction while learning. Do the FARs prohibit pax while IFR training?
>
>
> R. Hubbell

[Larry Dighera]

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]

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:05:08 GMT, "Maule Driver"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>That is a tricky approach. VOR behind and above the airport.

What is it about those circumstances that causes you to characterize
the Avalon VOR/DME-B approach as tricky?

>For those of you familiar with it, would I be right in guessing that
>familiarity with VFR flight there might not make the need to climb as
>obvious as it is when IMC?

I would guess the opposite. The mountain is clearly visible in VMC,
and apparently was not immediately visible when this accident
occurred.

[Maule Driver]

"Larry Dighera" > >
> >That is a tricky approach. VOR behind and above the airport.
>
> What is it about those circumstances that causes you to characterize
> the Avalon VOR/DME-B approach as tricky?

Thanks for taking the bait. On one hand, nothing is tricky about it if
flown as published (obvious and self-evident). But a bunch of folks died
here by not doing so. So what's tricky?

One way of describing what's tricky is that you can fly the approach as
published laterally, never descend below MDA, and crash.

The fact that the MAP is a DME reading is perhaps trickier than having a
flag flip, needle spin,beacon sound, timer zero-out, or an intersection
passed. GPS helps. But such is the nature of many VOR/DME approaches.
I've *never* flown a VOR/DME approach using a DME so this is a bit of
conjecture on my part.
>
> >For those of you familiar with it, would I be right in guessing that
> >familiarity with VFR flight there might not make the need to climb as
> >obvious as it is when IMC?
>
> I would guess the opposite. The mountain is clearly visible in VMC,
> and apparently was not immediately visible when this accident
> occurred.

Have you flown there? I was thinking of a place like Roanoke where it is
obvious after flying there VFR that there is a MOUNTAIN behind one of the
runways. The mountain remains in this pilot's mindseye even when in IMC.
Looking at the approach plate for AVX, it seems like the airport and the
location of the VOR are about 500' different. I'm guessing that the VOR may
be on a highpoint. Flying there VFR I was trying to imagine whether one
would tend not to be aware that there is a critical rise in terrain in some
directions. Especially sinced the rise is not obviously aligned with a
runway. But I've never flown there nor do I have a sectional.

So here's the trick. We're on an instructional flight, the student has done
everything right but and is flying at MDA. We're looking for the airport
but the student has missed the DME indication for the MAP. The instructor
sees the error or not, but may decide to wait to see the student catch it
(very wrong in IMC). They proceed at MDA into the only navigational aid on
the entire approach. The (possible) fact that in the pilots' minds eye,
they are flying to a hilltop airport surrounded by water may suggest that
flying 2100 feet above the water and 500 feet above the airport is not going
to result in hitting terrain.

Flying it as published without error of variation would of course eliminate
this speculation.

[Snowbird]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message news:<pMLKb.102181$pY.83466@fed1read04>...

> I wonder about having pax when shooting approaches. Seems like a pretty big
> distraction while learning. Do the FARs prohibit pax while IFR training?

No, not at all, and in fact some viewpoints think it's a good
idea to take flight students of various flavors along, esp.
instrument students, both for learning by observation and as
an extra set of safety-pilot eyes.

Something strange about this, though -- are the TERPS really
right on this approach? Climb from 2,100 ft to 3,200 ft to
clear a 2,090 ft mountain -- shouldn't there be 2000 ft of
obstacle clearance over a mountain? Also is there an obstacle
DP for departure from that runway? Seems like going missed
after the MAP would require a non-standard climb gradient,
as would a departure?

Very sad accident

Cheers,
Sydney

[Maule Driver]

"Snowbird" > >
> Something strange about this, though -- are the TERPS really
> right on this approach? Climb from 2,100 ft to 3,200 ft to
> clear a 2,090 ft mountain -- shouldn't there be 2000 ft of
> obstacle clearance over a mountain? Also is there an obstacle
> DP for departure from that runway? Seems like going missed
> after the MAP would require a non-standard climb gradient,
> as would a departure?
>
I don't know the TERPS standards but that does seem weird. I can see where
a DP may not be required because the obstructions may not be aligned with
the runway. Can't see the 2,090 mountain on the plate. Only the 2150'
obstacle seemingly co-located with the VOR.

I get more confused the longer I look at this.

[Mike Rapoport]

There isn't 2000' obstacle clearance on an approach. Terrain actually
slopes down from both ends of the runway. You have to screw this one up
pretty bad to hit anything.

Mike
MU-2


"Snowbird" > wrote in message
m...
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:<pMLKb.102181$pY.83466@fed1read04>...
>
> > I wonder about having pax when shooting approaches. Seems like a pretty
big
> > distraction while learning. Do the FARs prohibit pax while IFR
training?
>
> No, not at all, and in fact some viewpoints think it's a good
> idea to take flight students of various flavors along, esp.
> instrument students, both for learning by observation and as
> an extra set of safety-pilot eyes.
>
> Something strange about this, though -- are the TERPS really
> right on this approach? Climb from 2,100 ft to 3,200 ft to
> clear a 2,090 ft mountain -- shouldn't there be 2000 ft of
> obstacle clearance over a mountain? Also is there an obstacle
> DP for departure from that runway? Seems like going missed
> after the MAP would require a non-standard climb gradient,
> as would a departure?
>
> Very sad accident
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

[R. Hubbell]

On 7 Jan 2004 12:33:57 -0800 (Snowbird) wrote:

> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message news:<pMLKb.102181$pY.83466@fed1read04>...
>
> > I wonder about having pax when shooting approaches. Seems like a pretty big
> > distraction while learning. Do the FARs prohibit pax while IFR training?
>
> No, not at all, and in fact some viewpoints think it's a good
> idea to take flight students of various flavors along, esp.
> instrument students, both for learning by observation and as
> an extra set of safety-pilot eyes.

That makes sense.

>
> Something strange about this, though -- are the TERPS really
> right on this approach? Climb from 2,100 ft to 3,200 ft to
> clear a 2,090 ft mountain -- shouldn't there be 2000 ft of
> obstacle clearance over a mountain? Also is there an obstacle
> DP for departure from that runway? Seems like going missed
> after the MAP would require a non-standard climb gradient,
> as would a departure?
>
> Very sad accident

Yes, for sure.


R. Hubbell

>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

[R. Hubbell]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:43:31 -0800 "BTIZ" > wrote:

> > I wonder about having pax when shooting approaches. Seems like a pretty
> big
> > distraction while learning. Do the FARs prohibit pax while IFR training?
>
> No. It is entirely at the discretion of the instructor.

And as someone else pointed out there might be some value
in having them along as that may be the case once you're
on your own after you get the ticket.


I will guess that the final report will mention the intent of the flight.

R. Hubbell
>
> BT
>
>

[Richard Hertz]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
r.com...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > >
> > >That is a tricky approach. VOR behind and above the airport.
> >
> > What is it about those circumstances that causes you to characterize
> > the Avalon VOR/DME-B approach as tricky?
>
> Thanks for taking the bait. On one hand, nothing is tricky about it if
> flown as published (obvious and self-evident). But a bunch of folks died
> here by not doing so. So what's tricky?
>
> One way of describing what's tricky is that you can fly the approach as
> published laterally, never descend below MDA, and crash.

I would not describe it that way - rather, more acurately, you fly the
approach and fail to execute the missed as published. That will get you
dead in many places and this is aout as "trickless" as they come. The
approach is named VOR/DME - so what is the trickiness?

All the information is on the approach chart. There is not much to do on
the final segment - just remain at 2100, keep a heading and then make sure
you know when to go missed. There is no timing on the approach chart and it
seems fairly clear that the approach uses DME fixes.



>
> The fact that the MAP is a DME reading is perhaps trickier than having a
> flag flip, needle spin,beacon sound, timer zero-out, or an intersection
> passed. GPS helps. But such is the nature of many VOR/DME approaches.
> I've *never* flown a VOR/DME approach using a DME so this is a bit of
> conjecture on my part.
> >
> > >For those of you familiar with it, would I be right in guessing that
> > >familiarity with VFR flight there might not make the need to climb as
> > >obvious as it is when IMC?
> >
> > I would guess the opposite. The mountain is clearly visible in VMC,
> > and apparently was not immediately visible when this accident
> > occurred.
>
> Have you flown there? I was thinking of a place like Roanoke where it is
> obvious after flying there VFR that there is a MOUNTAIN behind one of the
> runways. The mountain remains in this pilot's mindseye even when in IMC.
> Looking at the approach plate for AVX, it seems like the airport and the
> location of the VOR are about 500' different. I'm guessing that the VOR
may
> be on a highpoint. Flying there VFR I was trying to imagine whether one
> would tend not to be aware that there is a critical rise in terrain in
some
> directions. Especially sinced the rise is not obviously aligned with a
> runway. But I've never flown there nor do I have a sectional.
>
> So here's the trick. We're on an instructional flight, the student has
done
> everything right but and is flying at MDA. We're looking for the airport
> but the student has missed the DME indication for the MAP. The instructor
> sees the error or not, but may decide to wait to see the student catch it
> (very wrong in IMC). They proceed at MDA into the only navigational aid
on
> the entire approach. The (possible) fact that in the pilots' minds eye,
> they are flying to a hilltop airport surrounded by water may suggest that
> flying 2100 feet above the water and 500 feet above the airport is not
going
> to result in hitting terrain.
>
> Flying it as published without error of variation would of course
eliminate
> this speculation.
>
>

[Maule Driver]

"Richard Hertz" > > >
> > Thanks for taking the bait. On one hand, nothing is tricky about it if
> > flown as published (obvious and self-evident). But a bunch of folks
died
> > here by not doing so. So what's tricky?
> >
> > One way of describing what's tricky is that you can fly the approach as
> > published laterally, never descend below MDA, and crash.
>
> I would not describe it that way - rather, more acurately, you fly the
> approach and fail to execute the missed as published. That will get you
> dead in many places and this is aout as "trickless" as they come. The
> approach is named VOR/DME - so what is the trickiness?
>
> All the information is on the approach chart. There is not much to do on
> the final segment - just remain at 2100, keep a heading and then make sure
> you know when to go missed. There is no timing on the approach chart and
it
> seems fairly clear that the approach uses DME fixes.
>
Well, I have to agree that it's all there and if you fly it as published, no
problem. But this approach seems a little different than the 'typical'
non-precision approach.

I took a quick look at the first 111 approaches inf SE 2 of 4 NC & SC. I
looked at at all non-precision, non-GPS-only approaches. There were 38 such
approaches.32 of them had a missed approach point that was over the runway.
Of the six that had MAPs short of the runway threshold, 4 of those were
TACAN (military?) only approaches. Only 2 were similiar in this way to AVX.

Nothing wrong with different. Not necessarily tricky but I can see how a
careless pilot might continue on at MDA past a MAP short of the runway while
'searching' for a view of the runway. Thinking perhaps that I can see
straight down at the MAP so I'll just proceed along another mile (45 secs)
until I see the runway below then I'll rack it around and circle to land.

I'm not saying these folks were careless, just trying to learn something
from the accident.

On second thought, I'll stick with tricky.

[[email protected]]

I'm an IFR student working on my Rating.
(Check ride scheduled in 12 days)

Early on I used microsoft flight simulator to fly an approach to
almost every airport in So Cal.

AXV is the only one where I crashed.
I caught a glimpse of the runway out of the "virtual" window,
while trying to circle ito land I hit the same mountain in about the
same place.

It got my attention.








On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:25:04 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
> wrote:

>On 7 Jan 2004 12:33:57 -0800 (Snowbird) wrote:
>
>> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message news:<pMLKb.102181$pY.83466@fed1read04>...
>>
>> > I wonder about having pax when shooting approaches. Seems like a pretty big
>> > distraction while learning. Do the FARs prohibit pax while IFR training?
>>
>> No, not at all, and in fact some viewpoints think it's a good
>> idea to take flight students of various flavors along, esp.
>> instrument students, both for learning by observation and as
>> an extra set of safety-pilot eyes.
>
>That makes sense.
>
>>
>> Something strange about this, though -- are the TERPS really
>> right on this approach? Climb from 2,100 ft to 3,200 ft to
>> clear a 2,090 ft mountain -- shouldn't there be 2000 ft of
>> obstacle clearance over a mountain? Also is there an obstacle
>> DP for departure from that runway? Seems like going missed
>> after the MAP would require a non-standard climb gradient,
>> as would a departure?
>>
>> Very sad accident
>
>Yes, for sure.
>
>
>R. Hubbell
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Sydney

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:31:00 -0800 wrote:

> I'm an IFR student working on my Rating.
> (Check ride scheduled in 12 days)
>
> Early on I used microsoft flight simulator to fly an approach to
> almost every airport in So Cal.
>
> AXV is the only one where I crashed.
> I caught a glimpse of the runway out of the "virtual" window,
> while trying to circle ito land I hit the same mountain in about the
> same place.
>
> It got my attention.


What caused you to crash? What were the factors that led to your
"virtual crash"?

I wonder if the NTSB ever fires up a simulator to try to answer
questions in an investgation?

R. Hubbell

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:25:04 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >On 7 Jan 2004 12:33:57 -0800 (Snowbird) wrote:
> >
> >> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message news:<pMLKb.102181$pY.83466@fed1read04>...
> >>
> >> > I wonder about having pax when shooting approaches. Seems like a pretty big
> >> > distraction while learning. Do the FARs prohibit pax while IFR training?
> >>
> >> No, not at all, and in fact some viewpoints think it's a good
> >> idea to take flight students of various flavors along, esp.
> >> instrument students, both for learning by observation and as
> >> an extra set of safety-pilot eyes.
> >
> >That makes sense.
> >
> >>
> >> Something strange about this, though -- are the TERPS really
> >> right on this approach? Climb from 2,100 ft to 3,200 ft to
> >> clear a 2,090 ft mountain -- shouldn't there be 2000 ft of
> >> obstacle clearance over a mountain? Also is there an obstacle
> >> DP for departure from that runway? Seems like going missed
> >> after the MAP would require a non-standard climb gradient,
> >> as would a departure?
> >>
> >> Very sad accident
> >
> >Yes, for sure.
> >
> >
> >R. Hubbell
> >
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Sydney
>

[R. Hubbell]

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]
>

[[email protected]]

>What caused you to crash? What were the factors that led to your
>"virtual crash"?

Circled the wrong way.
Started down as soon as I saw the airport.
Lost sight of the Airporrt in the descent and did not immediatly start
the missed.

Started the missed late and too low.

[Ron Lee]

Reported ceiling at 100' AGL. My limited understanding of VOR type
approaches is that the MDA is in the order of 400-500' AGL.

Why even attempt the approach or at least be ready to execute the
missed approach.

Ron Lee

[Larry Dighera]

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]

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 05:44:14 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Reported ceiling at 100' AGL. My limited understanding of VOR type
>approaches is that the MDA is in the order of 400-500' AGL.

In this case, it's 498'.

>Why even attempt the approach or at least be ready to execute the
>missed approach.

Exactly. I would presume that the pilot would have contacted AVX
UNICOM near RIGLI, the FAF. If s/he knew MDH was 498' and the
reported ceiling was 100', it would be apparent that a missed approach
would be a virtual certainty.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 18:25:15 GMT, "Maule Driver"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > >
>> >That is a tricky approach. VOR behind and above the airport.
>>
>> What is it about those circumstances that causes you to characterize
>> the Avalon VOR/DME-B approach as tricky?
>
>Thanks for taking the bait. On one hand, nothing is tricky about it if
>flown as published (obvious and self-evident).

That's been my experience.

>But a bunch of folks died here by not doing so.

I would expect that to be an issue with many IAPs.

>So what's tricky?
>
>One way of describing what's tricky is that you can fly the approach as
>published laterally, never descend below MDA, and crash.

I see.

>The fact that the MAP is a DME reading is perhaps trickier than having a
>flag flip, needle spin,beacon sound, timer zero-out, or an intersection
>passed.

I was taught to time all my approaches despite the lack of necessity
to do so on the approach plate.

>GPS helps. But such is the nature of many VOR/DME approaches.
>I've *never* flown a VOR/DME approach using a DME so this is a bit of
>conjecture on my part.

Granted, it's convenient if ATC has radar coverage, and can call the
MAP; that's not available at AVX, IIRC. Otherwise, the pilot just
includes the DME readout in his scan.

>>
>> >For those of you familiar with it, would I be right in guessing that
>> >familiarity with VFR flight there might not make the need to climb as
>> >obvious as it is when IMC?
>>
>> I would guess the opposite. The mountain is clearly visible in VMC,
>> and apparently was not immediately visible when this accident
>> occurred.
>
>Have you flown there?

Yes.

>I was thinking of a place like Roanoke where it is
>obvious after flying there VFR that there is a MOUNTAIN behind one of the
>runways. The mountain remains in this pilot's mindseye even when in IMC.

In the case of AVX, the mountain is a bit distant and not aligned with
the runway, so it doesn't have the same mental impact you describe.

>Looking at the approach plate for AVX, it seems like the airport and the
>location of the VOR are about 500' different. I'm guessing that the VOR may
>be on a highpoint. Flying there VFR I was trying to imagine whether one
>would tend not to be aware that there is a critical rise in terrain in some
>directions. Especially sinced the rise is not obviously aligned with a
>runway. But I've never flown there nor do I have a sectional.

See above.

>So here's the trick. We're on an instructional flight, the student has done
>everything right but and is flying at MDA. We're looking for the airport
>but the student has missed the DME indication for the MAP. The instructor
>sees the error or not, but may decide to wait to see the student catch it
>(very wrong in IMC). They proceed at MDA into the only navigational aid on
>the entire approach. The (possible) fact that in the pilots' minds eye,
>they are flying to a hilltop airport surrounded by water may suggest that
>flying 2100 feet above the water and 500 feet above the airport is not going
>to result in hitting terrain.

Umm. I see your reasoning, but it assumes that the pilot deliberately
and/or erroneously chooses not to comply with the climb portion of the
MAP. Either case is obviously fatal.

>Flying it as published without error of variation would of course eliminate
>this speculation.

Flying any approach other than as published is inviting disaster, IMO.

[lance smith]

Even though I'm just VFR I've been there many times and 100 OVC is
dangerously low. AVX is on the top of two mountains (they chopped of
both tops and filled in the gap between) and cloud conditions can
change minute by minute. No runway lighting, a cliff on each end, and
mountains to the south.

airnav has a nice picture of 22 on final AVX:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KAVX

A tragedy, but they should have known better.

-lance smith

(Ron Lee) wrote in message >...
> Reported ceiling at 100' AGL. My limited understanding of VOR type
> approaches is that the MDA is in the order of 400-500' AGL.
>
> Why even attempt the approach or at least be ready to execute the
> missed approach.
>
> Ron Lee

[Maule Driver]

"Larry Dighera" > > >
> >Thanks for taking the bait. On one hand, nothing is tricky about it if
> >flown as published (obvious and self-evident).
>
> That's been my experience.

Mine too :-)
>
> >The fact that the MAP is a DME reading is perhaps trickier than having a
> >flag flip, needle spin,beacon sound, timer zero-out, or an intersection
> >passed.
>
> I was taught to time all my approaches despite the lack of necessity
> to do so on the approach plate.

But do you do it? (no need to answer) I do remember from discussions here
about timing ILS's so that the LOC only can be flown if needed, that many
people don't. I don't time consistently. More workload and distractions
versus value of having backup information.
>
> Granted, it's convenient if ATC has radar coverage, and can call the
> MAP; that's not available at AVX, IIRC. Otherwise, the pilot just
> includes the DME readout in his scan.
>
I didn't know that ATC does that. I've never had the MAP called for me
perhaps because I've never done a non-precision with radar coverage at the
altitude. Another gap in my experience.

> >> >For those of you familiar with it, would I be right in guessing that
> >> >familiarity with VFR flight there might not make the need to climb as
> >> >obvious as it is when IMC?
> >>
> >> I would guess the opposite. The mountain is clearly visible in VMC,
> >> and apparently was not immediately visible when this accident
> >> occurred.
> >
> >Have you flown there?
>
> Yes.
>
> >I was thinking of a place like Roanoke where it is
> >obvious after flying there VFR that there is a MOUNTAIN behind one of the
> >runways. The mountain remains in this pilot's mindseye even when in IMC.
>
> In the case of AVX, the mountain is a bit distant and not aligned with
> the runway, so it doesn't have the same mental impact you describe.

That's what I was thinking. Part of our spatial awareness picture I think
includes our VFR experience at a given airport. Usually that's a good thing
as in, "don't let the controller vector me thru the final for more than 15
seconds because thar be mountains there". But here I was thinking it might
actually be deceptive as in, "as long as I don't descend below MDA, even if
I get a little sloppy out there, I won't hit anything". Clearly not the
case if you read the plate but even the graphics on the NOS plate tend to
hide the fact that the VOR is also co-located with an above MDA obstacle.
>
> >Looking at the approach plate for AVX, it seems like the airport and the
> >location of the VOR are about 500' different. I'm guessing that the VOR
may
> >be on a highpoint. Flying there VFR I was trying to imagine whether one
> >would tend not to be aware that there is a critical rise in terrain in
some
> >directions. Especially sinced the rise is not obviously aligned with a
> >runway. But I've never flown there nor do I have a sectional.
>
> See above.
>
> >So here's the trick. We're on an instructional flight, the student has
done
> >everything right but and is flying at MDA. We're looking for the airport
> >but the student has missed the DME indication for the MAP. The
instructor
> >sees the error or not, but may decide to wait to see the student catch it
> >(very wrong in IMC). They proceed at MDA into the only navigational aid
on
> >the entire approach. The (possible) fact that in the pilots' minds eye,
> >they are flying to a hilltop airport surrounded by water may suggest that
> >flying 2100 feet above the water and 500 feet above the airport is not
going
> >to result in hitting terrain.
>
> Umm. I see your reasoning, but it assumes that the pilot deliberately
> and/or erroneously chooses not to comply with the climb portion of the
> MAP. Either case is obviously fatal.
>
That's the gotcha. You could make a similar mistake at 10 different
airports and live. Here, you die.

> >Flying it as published without error of variation would of course
eliminate
> >this speculation.
>
> Flying any approach other than as published is inviting disaster, IMO.
>
Yep. And I guess that is the bottom line. Almost always is in approach
accidents. Microbursts/thunderstorms being one of the very few exceptions.

[Maule Driver]

"lance smith" >
> Even though I'm just VFR I've been there many times and 100 OVC is
> dangerously low. AVX is on the top of two mountains (they chopped of
> both tops and filled in the gap between) and cloud conditions can
> change minute by minute.

It's low but "cloud conditions can change minute by minute" could be a
reason to give a try. But one would *expect* the miss.

> No runway lighting, a cliff on each end, and
> mountains to the south.

It's worse than that. The instrument approach is aimed directly at the
mountains to the south. It is not aligned with the runway.

> airnav has a nice picture of 22 on final AVX:
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/KAVX
>
Thanks for the pic. I was wondering what it looked like. I see why so many
like to go there.

[S Narayan]

I have put up a Topo image on my website which shows the terrain. The red
arrow is the VOR/DME approach path pointing away from the VOR (which is at
top of Mt Orizaba). The altitudes/distances are close to what I see on the
approach plate (see myairplane.com KAVX VOR/DME). It makes sense to turn
right to the north-west on circling (and the approach prohibits circling to
the south-east). Continuing on without climbing on the missed approach will
send you into the VOR. One has about 2.1 miles to make the climb to 3200ft
(from the airport) and about 3.2 miles from the MAP. One presumes here that
the pilot did not attempt to climb. It is unfortunate here that the the
final step down is at the same elevation as the top of the mountain give or
take 100ft.

http://snarayan.home.comcast.net/aviation/kavx_vor_dme1.jpg


"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
r.com...
> That is a tricky approach. VOR behind and above the airport.
>
> For those of you familiar with it, would I be right in guessing that
> familiarity with VFR flight there might not make the need to climb as
> obvious as it is when IMC?
>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:pMLKb.102181$pY.83466@fed1read04...
> >
> > I hadn't heard anything about this and was surprised when someone
> > asked if I had.
> >
> > My condolences to the families and friends, a tragic accident.
> >
> > http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20031231X02110
> >
> >
> > Seems like with 5 souls that they were probably heading out for a
> > buffalo burger and a visit to Avalon.
> >
> > I wonder about having pax when shooting approaches. Seems like a pretty
> big
> > distraction while learning. Do the FARs prohibit pax while IFR
training?
> >
> >
> > R. Hubbell
>
>

[Richard Hertz]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
r.com...
> "Richard Hertz" > > >
> > > Thanks for taking the bait. On one hand, nothing is tricky about it
if
> > > flown as published (obvious and self-evident). But a bunch of folks
> died
> > > here by not doing so. So what's tricky?
> > >
> > > One way of describing what's tricky is that you can fly the approach
as
> > > published laterally, never descend below MDA, and crash.
> >
> > I would not describe it that way - rather, more acurately, you fly the
> > approach and fail to execute the missed as published. That will get you
> > dead in many places and this is aout as "trickless" as they come. The
> > approach is named VOR/DME - so what is the trickiness?
> >
> > All the information is on the approach chart. There is not much to do
on
> > the final segment - just remain at 2100, keep a heading and then make
sure
> > you know when to go missed. There is no timing on the approach chart
and
> it
> > seems fairly clear that the approach uses DME fixes.
> >
> Well, I have to agree that it's all there and if you fly it as published,
no
> problem. But this approach seems a little different than the 'typical'
> non-precision approach.
>
> I took a quick look at the first 111 approaches inf SE 2 of 4 NC & SC. I
> looked at at all non-precision, non-GPS-only approaches. There were 38
such
> approaches.32 of them had a missed approach point that was over the
runway.
> Of the six that had MAPs short of the runway threshold, 4 of those were
> TACAN (military?) only approaches. Only 2 were similiar in this way to
AVX.

Why does it matter where the MAP is? The MAP is the MAP - if you don't have
the required visual element(s), go missed. What is so tricky?
What is different on this approach. It can't get any easier.


>
> Nothing wrong with different. Not necessarily tricky but I can see how a
> careless pilot might continue on at MDA past a MAP short of the runway
while
> 'searching' for a view of the runway. Thinking perhaps that I can see
> straight down at the MAP so I'll just proceed along another mile (45
secs)
> until I see the runway below then I'll rack it around and circle to land.
>
> I'm not saying these folks were careless, just trying to learn something
> from the accident.

I would say they were careless. Especially the CFII.

>
> On second thought, I'll stick with tricky.
>
>

[Maule Driver]

"Richard Hertz" >
> Why does it matter where the MAP is? The MAP is the MAP - if you don't
have
> the required visual element(s), go missed. What is so tricky?
> What is different on this approach. It can't get any easier.
>
You are right, it can't be any easier. Maybe more forgiving but that's not
a requirement
> >
> > Nothing wrong with different. Not necessarily tricky but I can see how
a
> > careless pilot might continue on at MDA past a MAP short of the runway
> while
> > 'searching' for a view of the runway. Thinking perhaps that I can see
> > straight down at the MAP so I'll just proceed along another mile (45
> secs)
> > until I see the runway below then I'll rack it around and circle to
land.
> >
> > I'm not saying these folks were careless, just trying to learn something
> > from the accident.
>
> I would say they were careless. Especially the CFII.
>
Yep.

[lance smith]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message >...
> "lance smith" >
> > Even though I'm just VFR I've been there many times and 100 OVC is
> > dangerously low. AVX is on the top of two mountains (they chopped of
> > both tops and filled in the gap between) and cloud conditions can
> > change minute by minute.
>
> It's low but "cloud conditions can change minute by minute" could be a
> reason to give a try. But one would *expect* the miss.

That's a good point. The runway is at 1600 (and surrounding area 0
MSL) I'm sure the temtation is there to scud run it at 1000 and then
pop up for a straight in. I've seen people do this run, 30 miles over
open water.


> > No runway lighting, a cliff on each end, and
> > mountains to the south.
>
> It's worse than that. The instrument approach is aimed directly at the
> mountains to the south. It is not aligned with the runway.

Wow, didn't know that. It's hard enough to find VFR. I fly the VOR in
and several miles out I look two peaks over to find the airport.
Usually I still can't find it but point the airplane that direction. A
couple of miles out it's often eaiser to see the airplanes in the
pattern than the runway.

It's one of two SoCal airports that local FBO's require a checkout
before allowing you to go there with their planes. Interestingly
enough there are no higher mountains nearby to the north....


> > airnav has a nice picture of 22 on final AVX:
> > http://www.airnav.com/airport/KAVX
> >
> Thanks for the pic. I was wondering what it looked like. I see why so many
> like to go there.

Get the buffalo burger when there. The taste pretty much like dead cow
but it's a local tradition. (secret- the burgers aren't made with the
local buffalo. There aren't enough around and if they were made into
burgers they would be wiped out in a few months. They are also
miniature buffalo.)

-lance smith

[R.Hubbell]

On 8 Jan 2004 08:21:53 -0800 (lance smith) wrote:

> Even though I'm just VFR I've been there many times and 100 OVC is
> dangerously low. AVX is on the top of two mountains (they chopped of
> both tops and filled in the gap between) and cloud conditions can
> change minute by minute. No runway lighting, a cliff on each end, and
> mountains to the south.
>
> airnav has a nice picture of 22 on final AVX:
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/KAVX

An interesting depiction looking east:

http://www.micheloud.com/FXM/Flying/Catalina.htm


>
> A tragedy, but they should have known better.

It's tempting to reach a conclusion without all the data but
I think it's possible that something else went wrong.


R. Hubbell

>
> -lance smith
>
> (Ron Lee) wrote in message >...
> > Reported ceiling at 100' AGL. My limited understanding of VOR type
> > approaches is that the MDA is in the order of 400-500' AGL.
> >
> > Why even attempt the approach or at least be ready to execute the
> > missed approach.
> >
> > Ron Lee

[running with scissors]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message .net>...
> There isn't 2000' obstacle clearance on an approach. Terrain actually
> slopes down from both ends of the runway. You have to screw this one up
> pretty bad to hit anything.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

correct mike. flown in there many a time. IFR and VFR.

landing on 22 does present some problems to people due to the visual
as the threshold is at the top off the cliff face and there is a
slight hump to the runway.

landing on 04 tends to make people a little heavy on the breaks, due
to the over-run possibilities.



>
>
> "Snowbird" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:<pMLKb.102181$pY.83466@fed1read04>...
> >
> > > I wonder about having pax when shooting approaches. Seems like a pretty
> big
> > > distraction while learning. Do the FARs prohibit pax while IFR
> training?
> >
> > No, not at all, and in fact some viewpoints think it's a good
> > idea to take flight students of various flavors along, esp.
> > instrument students, both for learning by observation and as
> > an extra set of safety-pilot eyes.
> >
> > Something strange about this, though -- are the TERPS really
> > right on this approach? Climb from 2,100 ft to 3,200 ft to
> > clear a 2,090 ft mountain -- shouldn't there be 2000 ft of
> > obstacle clearance over a mountain? Also is there an obstacle
> > DP for departure from that runway? Seems like going missed
> > after the MAP would require a non-standard climb gradient,
> > as would a departure?
> >
> > Very sad accident
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Sydney