Seneca down at Avalon

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

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message thlink.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