![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seneca V vs. Navajo operating costs | Jarema | Owning | 1 | February 12th 05 10:30 PM |
Insuring a C310 vs. Piper Seneca | Dave | Owning | 17 | October 27th 04 03:29 PM |
Want to purchase PA34-200 Seneca | Grasshopper | General Aviation | 11 | July 7th 04 05:09 PM |
Seneca down at Avalon | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | January 8th 04 02:10 PM |
I am going to do it again! A Piper Seneca? | Michelle P | Owning | 5 | August 20th 03 01:59 AM |