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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Martinsville Approach
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
G Farris wrote:
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. I assume we're talking the RNAV 12 approach. Where the missed is to go to ULAKE at 3000 but the initial is 5500. The missed approach altitude is only necessary to provide safe transit from the final approach segment to the holding fix (and to hold there). There's no requirement to get from the holding fix back to an IAF to "have another go". The vagaries in designing the missed approach involve the slop in the pilots flying to follow the missed approach procedure. What is telling is that if you start on the approach and don't make it to the final segment, you're kind of in limbo when below the MSA if you need to bail. Of course in this approach, that's sort of a moot point as the FAF is above the missed approach altitude and everything is on a staight line from the IAF to the holding fix. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
: There are a number of airports in the country related to the name : "Martinsville". It would be helpful if you would post the ID for that : airport. : --ron KMTV. It's about 50 miles south of where I'm sitting right now. It's right on the edge of where the ridges of SW-VA fall off into the flatlands of NC. I flew into BCB the day before to 500' OVC... pretty crappy weather and lots of rocks in the clouds around here. No overt speculation, but I'm very interested to hear what the investigation discovers. -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
G Faris There are a number of airports in the country related to the name "Martinsville". It would be helpful if you would post the ID for that airport. --ron I believe he is referring to the MTV RNAV rwy 12 approach. I think the airport is Blue Ridge or something like that. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... What is telling is that if you start on the approach and don't make it to the final segment, you're kind of in limbo when below the MSA if you need to bail. I was taught to not initiate the missed approach procedure until reaching the missed approach point for just this reason. The missed approach procedure assumes you're starting from the MAP and provides obstacle clearance accordingly. -cwk. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:33:29 +0000 (UTC), (G Farris)
wrote: I thought that was contrary to TERPS procedures. What makes you think that? What I see in TERPS is that the altitude needs to be sufficient to allow *holding* or *enroute flight*. Where do you see a requirement for an altitude high enough to start another approach? --ron |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:26:07 +0000 (UTC),
wrote: KMTV. Thank you. --ron |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:26:49 -0400, Ron Natalie wrote:
I believe he is referring to the MTV RNAV rwy 12 approach. I think the airport is Blue Ridge or something like that. Thank you. --ron |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Approach Question- Published Missed Can't be flown? | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | May 6th 04 04:19 AM |
Procedure Turn | Bravo8500 | Instrument Flight Rules | 65 | April 22nd 04 03:27 AM |
Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate? | S. Ramirez | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | April 2nd 04 11:13 AM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |