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

Not contrary to TERPs at all. A missed approach must be capable of supporting
holding or en route flight, not return to fly another approach. In this case, the
terrain over the airport and in all quadrants except the NW area is flat as a
pancake. The MEA for the airway where the missed approach hold is located is
3,000 feet.

If someone wants to leave the area, they are all set. If they want to fly another
IAP they have a lot of room to crank back on up to 5500.