Recently, on a long cross country from Portland, OR to Wisconsin, we stopped
at Helena, MT for a gas and pit stop.

Coming from the West with the winds calm, I chose the loc DME BC approach to
runway 9. Even though it's the capitol (is it capital?) of the state, there
is no radar coverage.

First, I had to descend and intercept the DME arc. Once on the arc, we were
in turbulence and IMC, and started picking up ice (my Baron had KI
certification).

Once on the loc BC, there are several step down fixes, but since we were
given the approach clearance several thousand feet high, I had a hard time
reaching the DME fixes at a low enough altitude.

Of course, without radar, the tower was asking us to report position, and I
had to keep telling him I was unable to reach the desired altitudes due to
the excessive descent rate required.

Finally, before the last fix we broke out into VMC, with the valley below
and the airport in sight, still several thousand feet high. We circled once,
and then landed without difficulty.

It was a great learning experience, but I'm not sure what to have done
differently. I already had the approach flaps out, and contemplated putting
down the gear to help the descent, but hesitated doing this in icing
conditions (what if I needed to pull up the gear again for some reason
during the approach covered in ice?)

I could have chopped the power (was already at 15 inches) and descending at
over 1,000 fpm near Va, but I felt a stabilized approach in ice and in
mountainous terrain was safer than making even more radical pitch and power
changes.

I felt like I was behind the eight ball from the start. Is there a better
way to have handled the approach?

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> I felt like I was behind the eight ball from the start. Is there a better
> way to have handled the approach?

Given your judgement, you did the best you could. I haven't looked at the
approach, but based on your statement that you were put on the approach
several thousand feet high, maybe you could have asked for a loop in a hold
or descent to MEA before getting there. Did you go into the approach knowing
that you would break out at an altitude that would allow comfortable
circling? Otherwise, doing the necessary dive is what it takes. If the
circumstances don't allow it, go somewhere else.

You descended at a rate and configuration you were comfortable with - ready
to go missed, if necessary. Sounds like you did all the right things (other
than asking for lower before the approach) and you landed safely.

Were you using the eFB?
--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

No EFB- paper all the way. The surrounding terrain is pretty intimidating,
with lots of red areas on the Garmin terrain page on either side of the
approach. I was given the slam dunk approach by Center, but it certainly
added a lot to the work load.

Still carry the EFB as a back up in case we divert to an airport where I
don't have paper. Recently travelled from Wisconsin to Portland, and then
back, and the following week made a trip to Vermont. It's a lot of charts to
buy and lug around, and it seems like fewer FBO's carry them these days.

Of course, the trip ended up being right in the middle of a revision cycle,
so this required even more paper. Still not comfortable using the EFB as a
primary chart source.

Viperdoc wrote:

> Recently, on a long cross country from Portland, OR to Wisconsin, we stopped
> at Helena, MT for a gas and pit stop.
>
> Coming from the West with the winds calm, I chose the loc DME BC approach to
> runway 9. Even though it's the capitol (is it capital?) of the state, there
> is no radar coverage.
/snip/

Do you have an approach certified GPS on board? If so, you might have
chosen the GPS 9 instead. Since, like most GPS approaches, it's much
simpler to accomplish than an arc to a Back Course, it might have at
least lessened your workload during a bumpy, icy appraoch to an
unfamiliar airport. Also, the initial approach fix, SCAAT, is over 20
miles from the runway, and has a published hold. Both of those features
might have helped you get down easier.

As for executing the BC, sounds like you did as best you could. That
one leaves you up pretty high, to begin with.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

Actually have two certified GPS on board, a Garmin 530 and a 430, both with
WAAS. One was tuned to the inbound, and the other had the terrain page. It
was a tricky approach, and the lack of radar didn't make it any easier.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 06:47:17 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote:

As a foreign (to the USA) pilot, I have the following questions:
1. The US Terps allows a maximum of 300 feet per nautical mile for
both the the intial approach segment and intermediate segment, I
believe. Did you require a lesser descent gradient because of icing?
2. I think you can call by a fix, but do not have to be at the
charted minimum altitude, so no requirement to advise tower of that.

Stan

>
>Once on the loc BC, there are several step down fixes, but since we were
>given the approach clearance several thousand feet high, I had a hard time
>reaching the DME fixes at a low enough altitude.
>
>Of course, without radar, the tower was asking us to report position, and I
>had to keep telling him I was unable to reach the desired altitudes due to
>the excessive descent rate required.
>

"Viperdoc" > writes:
> Recently, on a long cross country from Portland, OR to Wisconsin, we stopped
> at Helena, MT for a gas and pit stop.
>
> Coming from the West with the winds calm, I chose the loc DME BC approach to
> runway 9. Even though it's the capitol (is it capital?) of the state, there
> is no radar coverage.

Yes, Helena is the capitol of Montana. Visit the refurbished
capitol building. Very casual atmosphere when the legislature
is not in session.

> First, I had to descend and intercept the DME arc. Once on the arc, we were
> in turbulence and IMC, and started picking up ice (my Baron had KI
> certification).
>
> Once on the loc BC, there are several step down fixes, but since we were
> given the approach clearance several thousand feet high, I had a hard time
> reaching the DME fixes at a low enough altitude.
>
> Of course, without radar, the tower was asking us to report position, and I
> had to keep telling him I was unable to reach the desired altitudes due to
> the excessive descent rate required.
>
> Finally, before the last fix we broke out into VMC, with the valley below
> and the airport in sight, still several thousand feet high. We circled once,
> and then landed without difficulty.
>
> It was a great learning experience, but I'm not sure what to have done
> differently. I already had the approach flaps out, and contemplated putting
> down the gear to help the descent, but hesitated doing this in icing
> conditions (what if I needed to pull up the gear again for some reason
> during the approach covered in ice?)
>
> I could have chopped the power (was already at 15 inches) and descending at
> over 1,000 fpm near Va, but I felt a stabilized approach in ice and in
> mountainous terrain was safer than making even more radical pitch and power
> changes.
>
> I felt like I was behind the eight ball from the start. Is there a better
> way to have handled the approach?

Ask for a couple of 360s somewhere to get down to a more
reasonable altitude? You probably have the whole sky to
yourself, so the controllers will probably accommodate
you.

> Even though it's the capitol (is it capital?) of the state,

The building is a capitol, the town is the capital.

> Finally, before the last fix we broke out into VMC, with the valley
below
> and the airport in sight, still several thousand feet high. We circled once,
> and then landed without difficulty.

If you had obtained WX and knew you would break out into VMC, then I'd
say you handled it prudently; otoh, if you knew the ceiling was well
above minimums, why were you concerned about having to do a missed
approach with the gear down?

vince norris

There is no radar, and the final approach course is surrounded by mountains,
so I would think circling would have been outside of the protected area of
the localizer. Also, circling in turbulence and icing is not a very
appealing option. I was told by center to intercept the DME arc, but was not
given final approach clearance until established on the localizer BC.

The DME and altitude call outs to the tower were required because again,
there was no radar. The step downs were all based on DME, and he wanted to
know where I was on the approach.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 13:46:04 PST,
(Everett M. Greene) wrote:

>"Viperdoc" > writes:
>> Recently, on a long cross country from Portland, OR to Wisconsin, we stopped
>> at Helena, MT for a gas and pit stop.
>>
>> Coming from the West with the winds calm, I chose the loc DME BC approach to
>> runway 9. Even though it's the capitol (is it capital?) of the state, there
>> is no radar coverage.
>
>Yes, Helena is the capitol of Montana. Visit the refurbished
>capitol building. Very casual atmosphere when the legislature
>is not in session.
>


No, Helena is the CAPITAL of Montana, where the refurbished CAPITOL
building is located.



>> First, I had to descend and intercept the DME arc. Once on the arc, we were
>> in turbulence and IMC, and started picking up ice (my Baron had KI
>> certification).
>>
>> Once on the loc BC, there are several step down fixes, but since we were
>> given the approach clearance several thousand feet high, I had a hard time
>> reaching the DME fixes at a low enough altitude.
>>
>> Of course, without radar, the tower was asking us to report position, and I
>> had to keep telling him I was unable to reach the desired altitudes due to
>> the excessive descent rate required.
>>
>> Finally, before the last fix we broke out into VMC, with the valley below
>> and the airport in sight, still several thousand feet high. We circled once,
>> and then landed without difficulty.
>>
>> It was a great learning experience, but I'm not sure what to have done
>> differently. I already had the approach flaps out, and contemplated putting
>> down the gear to help the descent, but hesitated doing this in icing
>> conditions (what if I needed to pull up the gear again for some reason
>> during the approach covered in ice?)
>>
>> I could have chopped the power (was already at 15 inches) and descending at
>> over 1,000 fpm near Va, but I felt a stabilized approach in ice and in
>> mountainous terrain was safer than making even more radical pitch and power
>> changes.
>>
>> I felt like I was behind the eight ball from the start. Is there a better
>> way to have handled the approach?
>
>Ask for a couple of 360s somewhere to get down to a more
>reasonable altitude? You probably have the whole sky to
>yourself, so the controllers will probably accommodate
>you.

The weather, via ATIS and NEXRAD was above minimums. So, putting the gear
down earlier to help the descent probably would have been an option. I would
say on recollection that the layer was around 4,000 feet thick, and week
broke out during the approach.

However, I was concerned that lowering the gear and having all of the drag
plus possibly getting it covered in ice and maybe not be able to retract
would significantly rob climb performance if needed. I didn't want to add a
gear problem or get stuck with a lack of power just in case.

You do have a good point that I should have considered.


"vincent norris" > wrote in message
...
>> Even though it's the capitol (is it capital?) of the state,
>
> The building is a capitol, the town is the capital.
>
> > Finally, before the last fix we broke out into VMC, with the valley
> below
>> and the airport in sight, still several thousand feet high. We circled
>> once, and then landed without difficulty.
>
> If you had obtained WX and knew you would break out into VMC, then I'd say
> you handled it prudently; otoh, if you knew the ceiling was well above
> minimums, why were you concerned about having to do a missed approach with
> the gear down?
>
> vince norris

Viperdoc wrote:
> Recently, on a long cross country from Portland, OR to Wisconsin, we stopped
> at Helena, MT for a gas and pit stop.
>
<snip>
> Once on the loc BC, there are several step down fixes, but since we were
> given the approach clearance several thousand feet high, I had a hard time
> reaching the DME fixes at a low enough altitude.
>
<snip>
>
> It was a great learning experience, but I'm not sure what to have done
> differently. I already had the approach flaps out, and contemplated putting
> down the gear to help the descent, but hesitated doing this in icing
> conditions (what if I needed to pull up the gear again for some reason
> during the approach covered in ice?)
>
<snip>

I think one of the approaches to this airport was discussed in IFR
Magazine (maybe it was IFR Refresher) some time ago. As I recall, the
article discussed a pilot who decided to do a 360 to lose some
altitude and hit some granite. Because of the terrain, the slam dunk
is all you've got there, I believe.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:50:31 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote:

>There is no radar, and the final approach course is surrounded by mountains,
>so I would think circling would have been outside of the protected area of
>the localizer. Also, circling in turbulence and icing is not a very
>appealing option. I was told by center to intercept the DME arc, but was not
>given final approach clearance until established on the localizer BC.

Once you were established on the arc could you ask to descend to the
published altitudes for the arc itself?

rps > writes:
> Viperdoc wrote:
> > Recently, on a long cross country from Portland, OR to Wisconsin, we stopped
> > at Helena, MT for a gas and pit stop.
> >
> <snip>
> > Once on the loc BC, there are several step down fixes, but since we were
> > given the approach clearance several thousand feet high, I had a hard time
> > reaching the DME fixes at a low enough altitude.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > It was a great learning experience, but I'm not sure what to have done
> > differently. I already had the approach flaps out, and contemplated putting
> > down the gear to help the descent, but hesitated doing this in icing
> > conditions (what if I needed to pull up the gear again for some reason
> > during the approach covered in ice?)
> >
> <snip>
>
> I think one of the approaches to this airport was discussed in IFR
> Magazine (maybe it was IFR Refresher) some time ago. As I recall, the
> article discussed a pilot who decided to do a 360 to lose some
> altitude and hit some granite. Because of the terrain, the slam dunk
> is all you've got there, I believe.

Having no experience with or data about the Helena IFR procedures,
but having experience with the high Sierras and Rockies, I would find
it hard to believe the someone would "hit some granite" without being
way out of bounds. I'd describe the terrain around Helena as gently
rolling, not mountainous. Even the mountains to the west are little
more than big hills.

Everett M. Greene wrote:
>
> Having no experience with or data about the Helena IFR procedures,
> but having experience with the high Sierras and Rockies, I would find
> it hard to believe the someone would "hit some granite" without being
> way out of bounds. I'd describe the terrain around Helena as gently
> rolling, not mountainous. Even the mountains to the west are little
> more than big hills.

The article I recall was in the pre-GPS days and the pilot became
disoriented/distracted by ice in addition to inability to lose
altitude sufficiently quickly, so it's possible that he was out of
bounds. (It's also possible that this occurred at a different airport
altogether or not at all -- the article was written and read by me
many years ago.)

Viperdoc wrote:
> Recently, on a long cross country from Portland, OR to Wisconsin, we stopped
> at Helena, MT for a gas and pit stop.

Just flew that approach from a few different IAFs in the sim with wx set
for 200 above minimums and 2 miles vis and I have to agree -- it's a
tough approach. Not as ridiculous as Aspen, but it still makes you
question the sanity of the TERPS guys.

Tried it from 12K on the southern arc and 10 on the northern arc at
120KIAS. 750FPM seemed to get me where I was going through the
transition to final, but the final approach segment itself required
around 1000FPM just to reach minimums at the MDA.

Not exactly the kind of approach I'd care to shoot in hard IMC and in
icing at the end of a long day, but aviation is all about the challenge,
right? :-)

Oh, and speaking of mountains, if you think the terrain is bad on this
approach, check out the southern arc landing on 27. They have you
inbound at 10900 then drop you down to 9100 only a few miles from a peak
at 8499. Yikes.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:43:13 -0400, Doug Vetter >
wrote:

>Tried it from 12K on the southern arc and 10 on the northern arc at
>120KIAS. 750FPM seemed to get me where I was going through the
>transition to final, but the final approach segment itself required
>around 1000FPM just to reach minimums at the MDA.
>
>Not exactly the kind of approach I'd care to shoot in hard IMC and in
>icing at the end of a long day, but aviation is all about the challenge,
>right? :-)
>
Terps allows the final approach segment up to a maximum of 400 feet
per nm. Check out the altitudes and distances, do they meet this? I
think the idea is that you should be able to fly this without
difficulty.

..>Oh, and speaking of mountains, if you think the terrain is bad on
this
>approach, check out the southern arc landing on 27. They have you
>inbound at 10900 then drop you down to 9100 only a few miles from a peak
>at 8499. Yikes.
>
Terps allow a minimum of 500 feet above all obstacles in the
intermediate segment. Sounds normal to me, and probably the same in
multiple places across the US. Can't say I remember if there is any
addition to terps minimums for segments that are in mountainous
regions, perhaps someone else knows.

>-Doug


Stan

You don't really provide enough specifics about exact route, center
handling while still in radar contact, handoff, etc.

Having said that, at a terrain-laden airport like HLN, a piston aircraft
is often up against the limits (shock cooling, icing limitations, etc.)
compared to turbine aircraft.

Viperdoc wrote:

> Recently, on a long cross country from Portland, OR to Wisconsin, we stopped
> at Helena, MT for a gas and pit stop.
>
> Coming from the West with the winds calm, I chose the loc DME BC approach to
> runway 9. Even though it's the capitol (is it capital?) of the state, there
> is no radar coverage.
>
> First, I had to descend and intercept the DME arc. Once on the arc, we were
> in turbulence and IMC, and started picking up ice (my Baron had KI
> certification).
>
> Once on the loc BC, there are several step down fixes, but since we were
> given the approach clearance several thousand feet high, I had a hard time
> reaching the DME fixes at a low enough altitude.
>
> Of course, without radar, the tower was asking us to report position, and I
> had to keep telling him I was unable to reach the desired altitudes due to
> the excessive descent rate required.
>
> Finally, before the last fix we broke out into VMC, with the valley below
> and the airport in sight, still several thousand feet high. We circled once,
> and then landed without difficulty.
>
> It was a great learning experience, but I'm not sure what to have done
> differently. I already had the approach flaps out, and contemplated putting
> down the gear to help the descent, but hesitated doing this in icing
> conditions (what if I needed to pull up the gear again for some reason
> during the approach covered in ice?)
>
> I could have chopped the power (was already at 15 inches) and descending at
> over 1,000 fpm near Va, but I felt a stabilized approach in ice and in
> mountainous terrain was safer than making even more radical pitch and power
> changes.
>
> I felt like I was behind the eight ball from the start. Is there a better
> way to have handled the approach?
>
>

wrote:


>
> Terps allow a minimum of 500 feet above all obstacles in the
> intermediate segment. Sounds normal to me, and probably the same in
> multiple places across the US. Can't say I remember if there is any
> addition to terps minimums for segments that are in mountainous
> regions, perhaps someone else knows.
>
>
>>-Doug
>
>
>
> Stan

A DME ARC is an initial approach segment.

Mountainous terrain is modeled for percipitious terrain additives.

Doug Vetter wrote:
> Viperdoc wrote:

>
> Oh, and speaking of mountains, if you think the terrain is bad on this
> approach, check out the southern arc landing on 27. They have you
> inbound at 10900 then drop you down to 9100 only a few miles from a peak
> at 8499. Yikes.
>
> -Doug

If you look at the Jeppesen chart the same obstacle is 8,875. Quite a
difference, heh? ;-)

Having said that, you are still at 10,900 when you fly over that
terrain. You don't start down to 9,100 until another 3.7 miles or so.
That is a lot more vertical and horizontal clearance than required by TERPS.

Everett M. Greene wrote:

..
>
>
> Having no experience with or data about the Helena IFR procedures,
> but having experience with the high Sierras and Rockies, I would find
> it hard to believe the someone would "hit some granite" without being
> way out of bounds. I'd describe the terrain around Helena as gently
> rolling, not mountainous. Even the mountains to the west are little
> more than big hills.

Well, you need to look at the charts. It indeed is an open valley with
room for a "200 and 1/2" ILS but it has terminal routes over terrain
some 5,000 feet higher than the airport.

Basically, it's as I initially said. We were at 13,000 and then were cleared
to intercept the arc from the SW. I was still descending while trying to fly
the arc, and then intercepted the final approach course while still in the
descent.

So, it was descending at a pretty rapid rate, turning to intercept the BC,
turbulence, and ice. I do have WAAS GPS as well as traditional DME, which
made some of it easier, but did not couple the autopilot, and hand flew
instead. (The DME fixes on the GPS may not necessarily be the same as the
DME from the navaid.)

I made very sure that I stayed on the final approach course, and did not get
low (which never happened due to the circumstances). Again, it is a non
radar environment, so the tower was asking for DME readouts.

The second WAAS GPS was set for the terrain page, as added information.

It was in a piston twin.

"q" > wrote in message ...
> You don't really provide enough specifics about exact route, center
> handling while still in radar contact, handoff, etc.
>
> Having said that, at a terrain-laden airport like HLN, a piston aircraft
> is often up against the limits (shock cooling, icing limitations, etc.)
> compared to turbine aircraft.
>
> Viperdoc wrote:
>
>> Recently, on a long cross country from Portland, OR to Wisconsin, we
>> stopped at Helena, MT for a gas and pit stop.
>>
>> Coming from the West with the winds calm, I chose the loc DME BC approach
>> to runway 9. Even though it's the capitol (is it capital?) of the state,
>> there is no radar coverage.
>>
>> First, I had to descend and intercept the DME arc. Once on the arc, we
>> were in turbulence and IMC, and started picking up ice (my Baron had KI
>> certification).
>>
>> Once on the loc BC, there are several step down fixes, but since we were
>> given the approach clearance several thousand feet high, I had a hard
>> time reaching the DME fixes at a low enough altitude.
>>
>> Of course, without radar, the tower was asking us to report position, and
>> I had to keep telling him I was unable to reach the desired altitudes due
>> to the excessive descent rate required.
>>
>> Finally, before the last fix we broke out into VMC, with the valley below
>> and the airport in sight, still several thousand feet high. We circled
>> once, and then landed without difficulty.
>>
>> It was a great learning experience, but I'm not sure what to have done
>> differently. I already had the approach flaps out, and contemplated
>> putting down the gear to help the descent, but hesitated doing this in
>> icing conditions (what if I needed to pull up the gear again for some
>> reason during the approach covered in ice?)
>>
>> I could have chopped the power (was already at 15 inches) and descending
>> at over 1,000 fpm near Va, but I felt a stabilized approach in ice and in
>> mountainous terrain was safer than making even more radical pitch and
>> power changes.
>>
>> I felt like I was behind the eight ball from the start. Is there a better
>> way to have handled the approach?

Viperdoc wrote:
> Basically, it's as I initially said. We were at 13,000 and then were cleared
> to intercept the arc from the SW. I was still descending while trying to fly
> the arc, and then intercepted the final approach course while still in the
> descent.
>
> So, it was descending at a pretty rapid rate, turning to intercept the BC,
> turbulence, and ice. I do have WAAS GPS as well as traditional DME, which
> made some of it easier, but did not couple the autopilot, and hand flew
> instead. (The DME fixes on the GPS may not necessarily be the same as the
> DME from the navaid.)
>
> I made very sure that I stayed on the final approach course, and did not get
> low (which never happened due to the circumstances). Again, it is a non
> radar environment, so the tower was asking for DME readouts.
>
> The second WAAS GPS was set for the terrain page, as added information.
>

Monday Morning quarterbacking:

1. You had the latest and greatest RNAV package available.

2. The RNAV Runway 9 IAP has an MDA 520 feet lower than the LOC DME
(BACK CRS)-C.

3. The back course approach doesn't have straight-in minimums even
though it is lineup up exactly with the runway. That means the descent
gradient is excessive for straight-in minimums. In fact, the descent
gradient is very high; 635 feet per mile from the FAF to the runway at
threshold crossing height.

4. The descent on the RNAV Runway 9 is 3.46 degrees from the FAF. as
shown on the chart; or just less than 370 feet per mile.

5. Because the LOC BC approach does not have straight-in minimums you
can do a 360 once clear of clouds, but you need approval from the tower
to do that. It would have to be done at not less than 5120 and north of
course, and within the circling maneuvering area.

The RNAV 9 would have been my choice, given your equipment, then the
tower would be obligated to make reference to that procedure.

Unless you insist on the RNAV 9 they will always use the back course
because it makes life easier for them (they have all those DME distances
to make you report. ;-)

Yes, I looked at and could have chosen that approach. However, how often
does one get to fly a DME arc loc BC approach in a non-radar environment? I
was not necessarily looking for what was easier, and this particular
approach offered a lot of interesting challenges.

The gear in my plane, which is also KI equipped, definitely simplified the
matter, but it was still a challenge and learning experience.

"q" > wrote in message ...
> Viperdoc wrote:
>> Basically, it's as I initially said. We were at 13,000 and then were
>> cleared to intercept the arc from the SW. I was still descending while
>> trying to fly the arc, and then intercepted the final approach course
>> while still in the descent.
>>
>> So, it was descending at a pretty rapid rate, turning to intercept the
>> BC, turbulence, and ice. I do have WAAS GPS as well as traditional DME,
>> which made some of it easier, but did not couple the autopilot, and hand
>> flew instead. (The DME fixes on the GPS may not necessarily be the same
>> as the DME from the navaid.)
>>
>> I made very sure that I stayed on the final approach course, and did not
>> get low (which never happened due to the circumstances). Again, it is a
>> non radar environment, so the tower was asking for DME readouts.
>>
>> The second WAAS GPS was set for the terrain page, as added information.
>>
>
> Monday Morning quarterbacking:
>
> 1. You had the latest and greatest RNAV package available.
>
> 2. The RNAV Runway 9 IAP has an MDA 520 feet lower than the LOC DME (BACK
> CRS)-C.
>
> 3. The back course approach doesn't have straight-in minimums even though
> it is lineup up exactly with the runway. That means the descent gradient
> is excessive for straight-in minimums. In fact, the descent gradient is
> very high; 635 feet per mile from the FAF to the runway at threshold
> crossing height.
>
> 4. The descent on the RNAV Runway 9 is 3.46 degrees from the FAF. as shown
> on the chart; or just less than 370 feet per mile.
>
> 5. Because the LOC BC approach does not have straight-in minimums you can
> do a 360 once clear of clouds, but you need approval from the tower to do
> that. It would have to be done at not less than 5120 and north of course,
> and within the circling maneuvering area.
>
> The RNAV 9 would have been my choice, given your equipment, then the tower
> would be obligated to make reference to that procedure.
>
> Unless you insist on the RNAV 9 they will always use the back course
> because it makes life easier for them (they have all those DME distances
> to make you report. ;-)

> Yes, Helena is the capitol of Montana. Visit the refurbished
> capitol building. Very casual atmosphere when the legislature
> is not in session.


Not that it matters much (or at all), but "capitol" is the commonly
accepted spelling for the building in which the state or federal
legislature is located; "capital" is the usual spelling of the word
used when referring to the town where the capitol building is located,
such as Helena, or Washington, D.C.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 06:30:41 -0700, q > wrote:
>>
>Mountainous terrain is modeled for percipitious terrain additives.

Mr Q, can you fill us in on what the additives are? For initial,
intermediate, and final segments?

Thanks, Stan

wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 06:30:41 -0700, q > wrote:
>
>>Mountainous terrain is modeled for percipitious terrain additives.
>
>
> Mr Q, can you fill us in on what the additives are? For initial,
> intermediate, and final segments?
>
> Thanks, Stan

It is a complex forumla contained in the FAA's Instrument Approach
Procedure Automation (IAPA).

The forumla is not part of any public document.

When it triggers an additive, it is typically in the intermediate
segment, and is not all that much. It can all disappear and then some
on a really cold day.

bluenosepiperflyer > writes:
> > Yes, Helena is the capitol of Montana. Visit the refurbished
> > capitol building. Very casual atmosphere when the legislature
> > is not in session.
>
> Not that it matters much (or at all), but "capitol" is the commonly
> accepted spelling for the building in which the state or federal
> legislature is located; "capital" is the usual spelling of the word
> used when referring to the town where the capitol building is located,
> such as Helena, or Washington, D.C.

I stand corrected. Your statement is almost a verbatim quote of
what I find in The American Heritage Dictionary about usage of
"capital". [Isn't English a fun language!]

Everett M. Greene wrote:
> bluenosepiperflyer > writes:
> [i]
>>>Yes, Helena is the capitol of Montana. Visit the refurbished
>>>capitol building. Very casual atmosphere when the legislature
>>>is not in session.
>>
>>Not that it matters much (or at all), but "capitol" is the commonly
>>accepted spelling for the building in which the state or federal
>>legislature is located; "capital" is the usual spelling of the word
>>used when referring to the town where the capitol building is located,
>>such as Helena, or Washington, D.C.
>
>
> I stand corrected. Your statement is almost a verbatim quote of
> what I find in The American Heritage Dictionary about usage of
> "capital".

In our nation's capital a bunch of self-serving white-collar criminals
sit in our capitol building and **** away our capital.

"frank" > wrote in message
...
> Everett M. Greene wrote:
>> bluenosepiperflyer > writes:
>>[i]
>>>>Yes, Helena is the capitol of Montana. Visit the refurbished
>>>>capitol building. Very casual atmosphere when the legislature
>>>>is not in session.
>>>
>>>Not that it matters much (or at all), but "capitol" is the commonly
>>>accepted spelling for the building in which the state or federal
>>>legislature is located; "capital" is the usual spelling of the word
>>>used when referring to the town where the capitol building is located,
>>>such as Helena, or Washington, D.C.
>>
>>
>> I stand corrected. Your statement is almost a verbatim quote of
>> what I find in The American Heritage Dictionary about usage of
>> "capital".
>
> In our nation's capital a bunch of self-serving white-collar criminals sit
> in our capitol building and **** away our capital.

"frank" > wrote in message
...
> Everett M. Greene wrote:
>> bluenosepiperflyer > writes:
>> I stand corrected. Your statement is almost a verbatim quote of
>> what I find in The American Heritage Dictionary about usage of
>> "capital". [Isn't English a fun language!]
>
> In our nation's capital a bunch of self-serving white-collar criminals sit
> in our capitol building and **** away our capital.

You and your neighbors elected them. They were (re)elected primarily because
they "brought home the bacon". By the bucket load. Everybody got their own
little "fix".
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY
--
In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville famously concludes
with a warning of the kind of despotism democratic nations have to
fear. Tocqueville warns that the passion for equality will give
rise to a certain kind of degradation in which citizens will surrender
their freedom democratically to a tutelary power:

Above these [citizens] an immense tutelary power is
elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their
enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute,
detailed, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal
power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare
men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to
keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens
to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying
themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it
wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides
for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates
their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their
industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances;
can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of
thinking and the pain of living?

***

Subjection in small affairs manifests itself every day
and makes itself felt without distinction by all citizens.
It does not make them desperate, but it constantly thwarts
them and brings them to renounce the use of their wills.
Thus little by little, it extinguishes their spirits and
enervates their souls....

Matt Barrow wrote:

>
>
> You and your neighbors elected them. They were (re)elected primarily because
> they "brought home the bacon". By the bucket load. Everybody got their own
> little "fix".

That is such a trite argument. Sure, and all the kids can become
president, too.

The party machine and money (lots of it) decides which of a couple of
crooks end up on my ballot.

"Frank" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You and your neighbors elected them. They were (re)elected primarily
>> because they "brought home the bacon". By the bucket load. Everybody got
>> their own little "fix".
>
> That is such a trite argument.

Truth hurts, donut?

> Sure, and all the kids can become president, too.

Welcome to a Republic come democracy in the post-modern culture.

>
> The party machine and money (lots of it) decides which of a couple of
> crooks end up on my ballot.

Last Senate election in my area, there were five different parties on the
ballot -- D, R, Lib, Green, Constitution.

As for "trite", it's rather trite to rail against politicians who have been
re-elected four, five, eight times. Every time they ran and ran again, there
was an opposition candidate.

Or, you can just engage in denial.