Martinsville Approach

"Kevin Chandler" wrote in message
...
According to the FAA report, the were on the miss for the LOC 30 approach.



Plate from AirNav: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0410/05648L30.PDF

This looks ugly in some ways but sitting idly here on my butt at home this
doesn't strike me as a "gotcha" approach. If you can manage any kind of
climb and don't start the miss too soon, it would seem like you have plenty
of clearance.

There are 2 obstacles higher than MDA (assuming DME which a King Air would
likely have): one 150' above about 3nm away and one 300' higher 5nm away.
Assuming worst possible winds and failure to correct it's easy to see you
getting blown towards the obstacles. But so long as you keep climbing at any
kind of rate you should have no problem clearing them, right? Let's say
you're in a 172 near gross and climbing 150fpm, you'll still outclimb them
both, the second quite comfortably.

Am I missing something here?

-cwk.

Is there a good reason that the RNAV(GPS) approach's MAP is LEFT turn and
the LOC approach's MAP is RIGHT turn?

"Dave Butler" wrote in message ...
Kevin Chandler wrote:
According to the FAA report, the were on the miss for the LOC 30 approach.

Where could I see that report? Thanks.


FAA's reports of recent accidents is easily accessible through www.faa.gov. Specifically
http://faa.gov/avr/aai/B_1025_N.txt.

But maybe he's talking about something else, because this report did not specify that it was the localizer
approach (only that he was inbound to runway 30, and made a missed approach).

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"Michelle P" wrote in message
link.net...
I have flown this approach into Martinsville, VA at night in low (under
1000 ft). in a twin. You are flying at the mountains into a "box" canyon
type area. If you do the missed in-correctly you will hit the mountains.
The pucker factor was high.
Michelle

If that approach gives a pucker factor then I suggest you get some more
training.


G Farris wrote:

I know it's not considered good form to discuss or speculate on accidents
before the factual reports are released - however I'll bet I'm not the
only one who pulls up an approach plate when hearing about an accident on
an IFR approach. In my opinion, as long as the interest remains technical,
and the discussion respectful, we should not be held to any specious rule
of silence about accidents. Afer all, they are one of our best sources of
learning, and the primary source for rule-making - so it should be both
natural and wise to take an interest.
Looking at the RNAV approach plate for Martinsville, I notice that the
missed approach altitude is lower than the obstacle clearance altitude
required to make another approach. This means, after a missed, you would
have to climb out of the holding altitude to reach a safe altitude to make
a second try on the same approach. I thought that was contrary to TERPS
procedures.
G Faris



--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

"Icebound" wrote in message
...

Is there a good reason that the RNAV(GPS) approach's MAP is LEFT turn and
the LOC approach's MAP is RIGHT turn?



I had trouble figuring that out as well. I could come up with no good
answer.

In article ,
"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote:

"Icebound" wrote in message
...

Is there a good reason that the RNAV(GPS) approach's MAP is LEFT turn and
the LOC approach's MAP is RIGHT turn?



I had trouble figuring that out as well. I could come up with no good
answer.

It's also odd that the GPS, NDB, and LOC plates all show a different
assortment of towers in the area of the airport:

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/05648R30.PDF
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/05648L30.PDF
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/05648N30.PDF

Flying the approach seems so basic .. especially with 2 pilots .. that it
sure makes you wonder about a failure of some sort that distracted the
crew.


"G Farris" wrote in message
...
Didn't realize they were missed off the LOC RWY 30.
This almost precludes a misreading of the chart, as the missed for this
approach is a climbing right turn back to the LOM at 2600.
Presumably, they knew the airport, so they would have been aware of
terrain
issues in the NW quadrant - we'll have to await more factual information
to
know whether they had an airplane problem or a major distraction to cause
them
to fly straight ahead. Condolances to all of them, and their loved ones.

G Faris

Or perhaps no failure was involved. The reported ceiling was 100 below MDA
and rising according to the sequence reports. Two pilots searching for
visual contact with an airport they had gone into many times....

What I'm reminded of once again is if you fly the procedure to standard with
discipline and not too much judgement, it all works.

We'll just have to wait to hopefully find out. But that may never happen.

"OtisWinslow"
Flying the approach seems so basic .. especially with 2 pilots .. that it
sure makes you wonder about a failure of some sort that distracted the
crew.

In article , OtisWinslow
wrote:

Flying the approach seems so basic .. especially with 2 pilots .. that it
sure makes you wonder about a failure of some sort that distracted the
crew.

That's what I'm wondering, too. I flew many an hour with Dick when he
worked for my airline, and I can't see him simply not following the
MAP; it just doesn't make sense. (Of course, isn't that usually the
way with accidents?) I'm sure something else was diverting their
attention, but who knows...

He'll be missed; he was a lot of fun to fly with.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Manchester, CT =USA=

Garner Miller wrote:

In article , OtisWinslow
wrote:

Flying the approach seems so basic .. especially with 2 pilots .. that it
sure makes you wonder about a failure of some sort that distracted the
crew.

That's what I'm wondering, too. I flew many an hour with Dick when he
worked for my airline, and I can't see him simply not following the
MAP; it just doesn't make sense. (Of course, isn't that usually the
way with accidents?) I'm sure something else was diverting their
attention, but who knows...

He'll be missed; he was a lot of fun to fly with.

We need to learn what intervention, if any, on the part of ATC. Perhaps a
vector?