Seneca down at Avalon

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

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?e...28X00524&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...28X00524&key=2

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?e...28X00524&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...28X00524&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

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?e...28X00524&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...28X00524&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/homep...ub/source4.htm

The only other interesting information I could find on their web site
was contained in their monthly bulletin:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...b/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?e...28X00524&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...28X00524&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/homep...ub/source4.htm

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

[newsgroup rec.aviation.ifr added]

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

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

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
newsMLKb.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

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

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.

"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.