Seneca down at Avalon

I'm an IFR student working on my Rating.
(Check ride scheduled in 12 days)

Early on I used microsoft flight simulator to fly an approach to
almost every airport in So Cal.

AXV is the only one where I crashed.
I caught a glimpse of the runway out of the "virtual" window,
while trying to circle ito land I hit the same mountain in about the
same place.

It got my attention.








On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:25:04 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
wrote:

On 7 Jan 2004 12:33:57 -0800 (Snowbird) wrote:

"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.

That makes sense.


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

Yes, for sure.


R. Hubbell


Cheers,
Sydney

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:31:00 -0800 wrote:

I'm an IFR student working on my Rating.
(Check ride scheduled in 12 days)

Early on I used microsoft flight simulator to fly an approach to
almost every airport in So Cal.

AXV is the only one where I crashed.
I caught a glimpse of the runway out of the "virtual" window,
while trying to circle ito land I hit the same mountain in about the
same place.

It got my attention.


What caused you to crash? What were the factors that led to your
"virtual crash"?

I wonder if the NTSB ever fires up a simulator to try to answer
questions in an investgation?

R. Hubbell









On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:25:04 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
wrote:

On 7 Jan 2004 12:33:57 -0800 (Snowbird) wrote:

"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.

That makes sense.


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

Yes, for sure.


R. Hubbell


Cheers,
Sydney

What caused you to crash? What were the factors that led to your
"virtual crash"?

Circled the wrong way.
Started down as soon as I saw the airport.
Lost sight of the Airporrt in the descent and did not immediatly start
the missed.

Started the missed late and too low.

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

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 05:44:14 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in Message-Id: :

Reported ceiling at 100' AGL. My limited understanding of VOR type
approaches is that the MDA is in the order of 400-500' AGL.

In this case, it's 498'.

Why even attempt the approach or at least be ready to execute the
missed approach.

Exactly. I would presume that the pilot would have contacted AVX
UNICOM near RIGLI, the FAF. If s/he knew MDH was 498' and the
reported ceiling was 100', it would be apparent that a missed approach
would be a virtual certainty.

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

A tragedy, but they should have known better.

-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

"lance smith"
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.

It's low but "cloud conditions can change minute by minute" could be a
reason to give a try. But one would *expect* the miss.

No runway lighting, a cliff on each end, and
mountains to the south.

It's worse than that. The instrument approach is aimed directly at the
mountains to the south. It is not aligned with the runway.

airnav has a nice picture of 22 on final AVX:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KAVX

Thanks for the pic. I was wondering what it looked like. I see why so many
like to go there.

"Maule Driver" wrote in message . rr.com...
"lance smith"
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.

It's low but "cloud conditions can change minute by minute" could be a
reason to give a try. But one would *expect* the miss.

That's a good point. The runway is at 1600 (and surrounding area 0
MSL) I'm sure the temtation is there to scud run it at 1000 and then
pop up for a straight in. I've seen people do this run, 30 miles over
open water.


No runway lighting, a cliff on each end, and
mountains to the south.

It's worse than that. The instrument approach is aimed directly at the
mountains to the south. It is not aligned with the runway.

Wow, didn't know that. It's hard enough to find VFR. I fly the VOR in
and several miles out I look two peaks over to find the airport.
Usually I still can't find it but point the airplane that direction. A
couple of miles out it's often eaiser to see the airplanes in the
pattern than the runway.

It's one of two SoCal airports that local FBO's require a checkout
before allowing you to go there with their planes. Interestingly
enough there are no higher mountains nearby to the north....


airnav has a nice picture of 22 on final AVX:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KAVX

Thanks for the pic. I was wondering what it looked like. I see why so many
like to go there.

Get the buffalo burger when there. The taste pretty much like dead cow
but it's a local tradition. (secret- the burgers aren't made with the
local buffalo. There aren't enough around and if they were made into
burgers they would be wiped out in a few months. They are also
miniature buffalo.)

-lance smith

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