VOR Approach - Can you alter it?

[gregscheetah]

The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway
heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles
out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the
runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground
blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see.
Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would
have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it
was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed
approach for no reason.

Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156
deg?
There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and
inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and
the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway.

[Michelle P]

gregscheetah wrote:
> The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway
> heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles
> out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the
> runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground
> blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see.
> Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would
> have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it
> was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed
> approach for no reason.
>
> Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156
> deg?
> There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and
> inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and
> the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway.
>
obstruction clearance. It may be clear to you but by the rules of
setting up approaches there is something in the way.

Michelle

[Roy Smith]

In article om>,
"gregscheetah" > wrote:

> The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway
> heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles
> out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the
> runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground
> blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see.
> Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would
> have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it
> was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed
> approach for no reason.
>
> Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156
> deg?
> There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and
> inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and
> the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway.

This is often the case with terminal VOR approaches. The VOR is off to the
side of the runway, and the final approach course is set up so you
intercept the extended runway centerline far enough out that you can safely
maneuver to line up with the runway. Notice the visibility minimum of 1
mile; I'll bet if you draw out where the FAC intersects the centerline,
it'll be less than a mile from the threshold.

Take a look at the GPS-16 to the same runway -- it's lined up perfectly
with the centerline. This is one of the big advantages of GPS; it lets you
create straight-in segments to any runway end, without having to worry
about navaid placement.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gregscheetah" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway
> heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles
> out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the
> runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground
> blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see.
> Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would
> have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it
> was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed
> approach for no reason.
>
> Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156
> deg?
> There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and
> inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and
> the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway.
>

That wouldn't have you lined up with the runway. That moves the FAC further
away from the runway.

[John R. Copeland]

"Michelle P" > wrote in message nk.net...
> gregscheetah wrote:
>> The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway
>> heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles
>> out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the
>> runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground
>> blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see.
>> Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would
>> have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it
>> was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed
>> approach for no reason.
>>
>> Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156
>> deg?
>> There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and
>> inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and
>> the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway.
>>
> obstruction clearance. It may be clear to you but by the rules of
> setting up approaches there is something in the way.
>
> Michelle

Obstructions? No, the corn isn't THAT tall in Iowa. :-)

[Sam Spade]

John R. Copeland wrote:

> "Michelle P" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
>>gregscheetah wrote:
>>
>>>The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway
>>>heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles
>>>out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the
>>>runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground
>>>blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see.
>>>Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would
>>>have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it
>>>was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed
>>>approach for no reason.
>>>
>>>Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156
>>>deg?
>>>There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and
>>>inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and
>>>the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway.
>>>
>>
>>obstruction clearance. It may be clear to you but by the rules of
>>setting up approaches there is something in the way.
>>
>>Michelle
>
>
> Obstructions? No, the corn isn't THAT tall in Iowa. :-)
>

Check the chart. Couple of 400+ agl pointy things.

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:


>
> This is often the case with terminal VOR approaches. The VOR is off to the
> side of the runway, and the final approach course is set up so you
> intercept the extended runway centerline far enough out that you can safely
> maneuver to line up with the runway. Notice the visibility minimum of 1
> mile; I'll bet if you draw out where the FAC intersects the centerline,
> it'll be less than a mile from the threshold.

The point at which the radial crosses the runway centerline has nothing
to do with establishing visibility minimums. Visibility minimums are
predicated on whether the MAP is prior to the runway and the height of
the MDA above TDZ elevation.
>
This is one of the big advantages of GPS; it lets you
> create straight-in segments to any runway end, without having to worry
> about navaid placement.

Usually, but not always. If there are no precision minimums the RNAV
final can be off by as much as 15 degrees if required by terrain further
out.

[Roger[_4_]]

On 19 Feb 2007 09:49:06 -0800, "gregscheetah" >
wrote:

>The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway
>heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles
>out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the
>runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground
>blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see.
>Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would
>have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it
>was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed
>approach for no reason.
>
>Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156
>deg?
>There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and
>inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and
>the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway.

First take a look at the airport diagram. The VOR is well off to the
side of the runway. At a quick glance it appears to be between 1000
and 2000 feet to the side. If you were to come in on a heading of 160
you would be coming in parallel to the runway and well off to the left
which would require a side step. I think you will find all things
being equal coming in on a heading of 156 would be a lot easier than
the side step.

Some have mentioned obstacle clearance, but I'd guess it is that way
to take you across the extended centerline of the runway
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Sam Spade]

Roger wrote:

> On 19 Feb 2007 09:49:06 -0800, "gregscheetah" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway
>>heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles
>>out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the
>>runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground
>>blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see.
>>Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would
>>have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it
>>was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed
>>approach for no reason.
>>
>>Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156
>>deg?
>>There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and
>>inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and
>>the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway.
>
>
> First take a look at the airport diagram. The VOR is well off to the
> side of the runway. At a quick glance it appears to be between 1000
> and 2000 feet to the side. If you were to come in on a heading of 160
> you would be coming in parallel to the runway and well off to the left
> which would require a side step. I think you will find all things
> being equal coming in on a heading of 156 would be a lot easier than
> the side step.
>
> Some have mentioned obstacle clearance, but I'd guess it is that way
> to take you across the extended centerline of the runway
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

The preferred alignment is for the VOR radial to cross the extending
runway centerline 3,000 feet prior to the landing threshold.

[Roger[_4_]]

>> Some have mentioned obstacle clearance, but I'd guess it is that way
>> to take you across the extended centerline of the runway
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>The preferred alignment is for the VOR radial to cross the extending
>runway centerline 3,000 feet prior to the landing threshold.

Here (3BS) they picked a radial off KMBS that crosses the center of
the airport making all runways a circle-to-land. OTOH we don't have
any runways that come close to lining up with KMBS.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here (3BS) they picked a radial off KMBS that crosses the center of
> the airport making all runways a circle-to-land. OTOH we don't have
> any runways that come close to lining up with KMBS.
>

KMBS has no radials.

[Sam Spade]

Roger wrote:

>>>Some have mentioned obstacle clearance, but I'd guess it is that way
>>>to take you across the extended centerline of the runway
>>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>The preferred alignment is for the VOR radial to cross the extending
>>runway centerline 3,000 feet prior to the landing threshold.
>
>
> Here (3BS) they picked a radial off KMBS that crosses the center of
> the airport making all runways a circle-to-land. OTOH we don't have
> any runways that come close to lining up with KMBS.

Without looking it over in detail it appears the geometry between MBS
and the runways at 3BS won't permit alignment within 30 degrees of any
runway centerline at 3,000 feet prior to the thresholds, or even the
alignment options permitted by VOR approach criteria..

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 04:30:07 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Here (3BS) they picked a radial off KMBS that crosses the center of
>> the airport making all runways a circle-to-land. OTOH we don't have
>> any runways that come close to lining up with KMBS.
>>
>
>KMBS has no radials.

Picky, picky, picky...<:-)) OK, MBS VOR Radials.


>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:31:21 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>
>>>>Some have mentioned obstacle clearance, but I'd guess it is that way
>>>>to take you across the extended centerline of the runway
>>>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>
>>>The preferred alignment is for the VOR radial to cross the extending
>>>runway centerline 3,000 feet prior to the landing threshold.
>>
>>
>> Here (3BS) they picked a radial off KMBS that crosses the center of
>> the airport making all runways a circle-to-land. OTOH we don't have
>> any runways that come close to lining up with KMBS.
>
>Without looking it over in detail it appears the geometry between MBS
>and the runways at 3BS won't permit alignment within 30 degrees of any
>runway centerline at 3,000 feet prior to the thresholds, or even the
>alignment options permitted by VOR approach criteria..

Which gives you a circle to land on every one.
Makes it interesting when it's right down to minimums.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Sam Spade]

Roger wrote:

>
>
> Which gives you a circle to land on every one.
> Makes it interesting when it's right down to minimums.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

The sooner approaches like that one disapper the better off we all are.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:54:44 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Which gives you a circle to land on every one.
>> Makes it interesting when it's right down to minimums.
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>The sooner approaches like that one disapper the better off we all are.

I always considered it fun. Drop the gear, set the flaps, bring in a
*lot* of power, and hope you don't have any easily excitable
passengers. Holding altitude at 500 feet AGL at 120 MPH while staying
within a mile is something I really enjoy. It does take practice
though. I had an instructor who said he liked to fly with me as I
was the only instrument student he ever had who flew a good solid
circle to land. Most would slow way down and pussyfoot around the
pattern. Then one day I saw a 421 come in with the circle to land on
24. That was impressive. He was faster and stayed in closer than I
do.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Sam Spade]

Roger wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:54:44 -0800, Sam Spade >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Roger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Which gives you a circle to land on every one.
>>>Makes it interesting when it's right down to minimums.
>>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>The sooner approaches like that one disapper the better off we all are.
>
>
> I always considered it fun. Drop the gear, set the flaps, bring in a
> *lot* of power, and hope you don't have any easily excitable
> passengers. Holding altitude at 500 feet AGL at 120 MPH while staying
> within a mile is something I really enjoy. It does take practice
> though. I had an instructor who said he liked to fly with me as I
> was the only instrument student he ever had who flew a good solid
> circle to land. Most would slow way down and pussyfoot around the
> pattern. Then one day I saw a 421 come in with the circle to land on
> 24. That was impressive. He was faster and stayed in closer than I
> do.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Fun aside, accident stats prove that circling is a high risk operation
in weather.

[Barry]

> I always considered it fun. Drop the gear, set the flaps, bring in a
> *lot* of power, and hope you don't have any easily excitable
> passengers.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but don't you extend the gear before you start
to circle? The way I fly (and teach) non-precision approaches is to configure
the airplane no later than a mile or two before the final approach fix. So
when you hit the FAF you're at the proper power setting to maintain level
flight for the configuration and speed that you want on final (typically 90
knots). At the FAF, reducing power by 7" (or 500 rpm with a fixed pitch prop)
and pitching down slightly should establish a 700 fpm descent at the trimmed
airspeed. At 100 feet above MDA, increase power back to what it was at the
FAF, pitch up slightly, and you should level off about 50 feet above MDA.
Then you can nibble away to descend the last 50 feet and look for the airport.