HVN VOR-A -- why such a high MDA?

In fact, the VOR-A is almost perfectly lined up with runway 32;

In addition to the runway alignment issue, there are two other
criteria used for issuing straight in minimums: descent gradients
cannot exceed 400 ft/nm and the course must intersect the runway
center line within a certain distance of the of the runway threshold,
3000-5200 ft in this instance.

The descent gradients seem OK here, so my guess would be the point of
course intersection was out of tolerance.

In article ,
Greg Esres wrote:

In fact, the VOR-A is almost perfectly lined up with runway 32;

In addition to the runway alignment issue, there are two other
criteria used for issuing straight in minimums: descent gradients
cannot exceed 400 ft/nm and the course must intersect the runway
center line within a certain distance of the of the runway threshold,
3000-5200 ft in this instance.

The descent gradients seem OK here, so my guess would be the point of
course intersection was out of tolerance.

The FAC is based on a VOR radial; by picking a radial up or down a
couple of degrees, they can make the FAC intersect the extended
centerline anywhere they want. The approach is over water and the VOR
is on the field, so neither terrain or signal quality should be an issue
for which radial they use.

they can make the FAC intersect the extended centerline anywhere
they want.

In theory, yes.

However, I have called Flight Procedures to ask about approaches
similar to this, and the reason was the one I gave.

There are sometimes obstacles that can be avoided by aiming the FAC
towards the center of the airport, rather than the runway itself, and
the placement of the intersection becomes limited.

Unsatisfying, I know, because of its vagueness.