VOR approach SMO

[Robert M. Gary]

The other day I shot the VOR approach into SMO for the first time in
low actual. I've often looked at that approach as one of the most
difficult I've seen published so it was interesting to actually try
it. The weather was 008OVC with something like 3sm HZ. I touched down
about 3/4 down the runway and was able to stop without a problem.
However, while taxiing back, I noticed a Gulf Stream land right on the
numbers. There is no way you can tell me he properly flew the approach
and was able to touch on the numbers.
The approach is published as a circle to land (I assume because of the
extreme nature of the decent) but they certainly were not offering to
allow anyone to circle. In fact there was a steady line of jets coming
in, it would probably have been unlikely to get a circle approved.

Last night I departed. AWOS was reporting 005OVC. I took off right
around 21:10. There was a large Citation right behind me picking up
his clearance. I didn't ever hear him depart on approach frequency so
I'm assuming he missed his curfew and his execs got stranded.

-Robert

[Roy Smith]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> The other day I shot the VOR approach into SMO for the first time in
> low actual. I've often looked at that approach as one of the most
> difficult I've seen published

Why do you think this is difficult? The only thing I see that's tricky
about it is that you need to keep up a steep descent (360 ft/nm from DARTS
to the threshold, and about 500 ft/nm from CULVE to the threshold, by my
calculations), but that's just a matter of energy management.

> However, while taxiing back, I noticed a Gulf Stream land right on the
> numbers. There is no way you can tell me he properly flew the approach
> and was able to touch on the numbers.

Why not? Follow the descent profile until you can see the runway, then fly
the rest visually. The only thing is you need to realize ahead of time
that this is a steep descent profile and you'll need to reduce power and/or
add drag to stay on the descent profile without picking up too much speed.
In a spam can, I would certainly be flying this with the first notch of
flaps in from DARTS or FAC intercept if on vectors.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 23, 10:58 am, Roy Smith > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > The other day I shot the VOR approach into SMO for the first time in
> > low actual. I've often looked at that approach as one of the most
> > difficult I've seen published
>
> Why do you think this is difficult?

Landing from 1100 feet when less than 2 miles from the runway. Notice
the VOR is on the OTHER side of the runway.

-Robert

[B]

Roy Smith wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>>The other day I shot the VOR approach into SMO for the first time in
>>low actual. I've often looked at that approach as one of the most
>>difficult I've seen published
>
>
> Why do you think this is difficult? The only thing I see that's tricky
> about it is that you need to keep up a steep descent (360 ft/nm from DARTS
> to the threshold, and about 500 ft/nm from CULVE to the threshold, by my
> calculations), but that's just a matter of energy management.
>
The gradient from CULVE to the threshold is all that matters and that is
well over 600 feet per mile. You need to have the Jepp airport diagram
to figure that out.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY drive
down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet. Any jet
will do that all day long.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> The other day I shot the VOR approach into SMO for the first time in
> low actual. I've often looked at that approach as one of the most
> difficult I've seen published so it was interesting to actually try
> it. The weather was 008OVC with something like 3sm HZ. I touched down
> about 3/4 down the runway and was able to stop without a problem.
> However, while taxiing back, I noticed a Gulf Stream land right on the
> numbers. There is no way you can tell me he properly flew the approach
> and was able to touch on the numbers.
> The approach is published as a circle to land (I assume because of the
> extreme nature of the decent) but they certainly were not offering to
> allow anyone to circle. In fact there was a steady line of jets coming
> in, it would probably have been unlikely to get a circle approved.
>
> Last night I departed. AWOS was reporting 005OVC. I took off right
> around 21:10. There was a large Citation right behind me picking up
> his clearance. I didn't ever hear him depart on approach frequency so
> I'm assuming he missed his curfew and his execs got stranded.
>
> -Robert
>

[B]

karl gruber wrote:
> I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY drive
> down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet. Any jet
> will do that all day long.
>
> Karl
> "Curator" N185KG

So, now you're past the runway and landing on the VOR shack.

It is 1.54 miles from CULVE to the beginning of the runway.

[B]

karl gruber wrote:

> I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY drive
> down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet. Any jet
> will do that all day long.
>
> Karl
> "Curator" N185KG

1120 at CULVE. 175 feet airport elevation. Difference 945 feet.
Distance from CULVE to runway 1.54 miles.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Where are you digging up such erroneous thoughts?

With 800/3 you'll be way outside CULVE when you see the runway. That's the
difference between the pros that were landing without any fan fair and you,
without a clue.

Karl


"B" > wrote in message ...
> karl gruber wrote:
>> I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY
>> drive down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet.
>> Any jet will do that all day long.
>>
>> Karl
>> "Curator" N185KG
>
> So, now you're past the runway and landing on the VOR shack.
>
> It is 1.54 miles from CULVE to the beginning of the runway.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Not with DME, or do you think that a Gulfstream wouldn't have DME??

Read the plate!

Karl


"B" > wrote in message ...
> karl gruber wrote:
>
>> I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY
>> drive down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet.
>> Any jet will do that all day long.
>>
>> Karl
>> "Curator" N185KG
>
> 1120 at CULVE. 175 feet airport elevation. Difference 945 feet. Distance
> from CULVE to runway 1.54 miles.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 23, 1:18 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
> Where are you digging up such erroneous thoughts?

No, he's right. The VOR (and therefor the DME readings) are on the
*OTHER* side of the runway. So the distance from CULVE to the
threshold is pretty short, and creates a pretty wild let down from
1000 feet.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 23, 12:17 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
> I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY drive
> down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet. Any jet
> will do that all day long.

No, you misread the chart. It is not 3 miles from CULVE, its about 1/2
that. The distances you are looking at are *NOT* the distances to the
threshold, those are to the DME, on the other side of the field.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 23, 1:18 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
> Where are you digging up such erroneous thoughts?
>
> With 800/3 you'll be way outside CULVE when you see the runway.

No, with 800 foot ceiling you will be at 1120 when at CULVE, making it
hard to see the runway through the clouds.

-Robert

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
Roy Smith > wrote:

> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> > The other day I shot the VOR approach into SMO for the first time in
> > low actual. I've often looked at that approach as one of the most
> > difficult I've seen published
>
> Why do you think this is difficult? The only thing I see that's tricky
> about it is that you need to keep up a steep descent (360 ft/nm from DARTS
> to the threshold, and about 500 ft/nm from CULVE to the threshold, by my
> calculations), but that's just a matter of energy management.

Indeed. The only time I've done that approach for real (in marginal VMC
through a thin layer of stratus) SoCal vectored me well inside DARTS at
6,000' in a 172, which is SOP, apparently. Energy management's
definitely the key in a situation like that -- there's a reason I've
heard it called the "Santa Monica Slam" -- but dropping like a rock like
that would surely take a bit of faith in hard IMC....

The other point is that you're on an approach with a lot of faster
aircraft behind you, and I'm sure the temptation is to keep going like a
bat out of hell right up until the MDA, at which point you don't have a
lot of time and space to slow down. That hasn't happened to me, but I
can understand why it might. I was asked for best forward speed all the
way from somewhere out near OHIGH to CULVE. But it was VFR below the
stratus, and I knew my way around...

Hamish

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
"karl gruber" > wrote:

> I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY drive
> down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet. Any jet
> will do that all day long.

So you'd drop below 1120 *outside* CULVE? Even if you were just cutting
things a little fine, the 2.4 miles from CULVE is from the *far end* of
the runway you're landing on... and if you were descending below 1120
just inside BEVEY in IMC, you might be in more trouble than you'd like.

Hamish

[pgbnh]

I think all but one of the posters have missed the fact that the MDA is not
1120 but 680. If indeed the vis was 3 miles, then the runway should have
been in sight from the MDA of 680 feet about a mile OUTSIDE of Culve.
(Remember what you can do once you have the runway in sight????) At which
point it's not a particularly big deal to lose 500 feet to land on the
numbers. Maybe even crossing Culve at 3-400 feet agl.
"Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "karl gruber" > wrote:
>
>> I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY
>> drive
>> down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet. Any jet
>> will do that all day long.
>
> So you'd drop below 1120 *outside* CULVE? Even if you were just cutting
> things a little fine, the 2.4 miles from CULVE is from the *far end* of
> the runway you're landing on... and if you were descending below 1120
> just inside BEVEY in IMC, you might be in more trouble than you'd like.
>
> Hamish

[karl gruber[_1_]]

No, the VIS is 3. It doesn't matter where the VOR is. You can be at 680 6.7
miles out. When you are 3 miles from the AIRPORT, it will be in sight.

Karl



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jul 23, 1:18 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
>> Where are you digging up such erroneous thoughts?
>
> No, he's right. The VOR (and therefor the DME readings) are on the
> *OTHER* side of the runway. So the distance from CULVE to the
> threshold is pretty short, and creates a pretty wild let down from
> 1000 feet.
>
> -Robert
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Not with DME, you'll be at 680 far before CULVE.

Karl
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jul 23, 1:18 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
>> Where are you digging up such erroneous thoughts?
>>
>> With 800/3 you'll be way outside CULVE when you see the runway.
>
> No, with 800 foot ceiling you will be at 1120 when at CULVE, making it
> hard to see the runway through the clouds.
>
> -Robert
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

No.

You can be 6.7 miles out at 680/DME.


Karl
Read and UNDERSTAND the chart



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jul 23, 12:17 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
>> I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY
>> drive
>> down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet. Any jet
>> will do that all day long.
>
> No, you misread the chart. It is not 3 miles from CULVE, its about 1/2
> that. The distances you are looking at are *NOT* the distances to the
> threshold, those are to the DME, on the other side of the field.
>
> -Robert
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Once inside BEVEY you're good for 680. There is no glideslope and it's "Dive
and Drive." That's why the pros make it in with no trouble, they can read
charts.

Karl

Karl
"Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "karl gruber" > wrote:
>
>> I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY
>> drive
>> down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet. Any jet
>> will do that all day long.
>
> So you'd drop below 1120 *outside* CULVE? Even if you were just cutting
> things a little fine, the 2.4 miles from CULVE is from the *far end* of
> the runway you're landing on... and if you were descending below 1120
> just inside BEVEY in IMC, you might be in more trouble than you'd like.
>
> Hamish

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!

Karl



"pgbnh" > wrote in message
. ..
>I think all but one of the posters have missed the fact that the MDA is not
>1120 but 680. If indeed the vis was 3 miles, then the runway should have
>been in sight from the MDA of 680 feet about a mile OUTSIDE of Culve.
>(Remember what you can do once you have the runway in sight????) At which
>point it's not a particularly big deal to lose 500 feet to land on the
>numbers. Maybe even crossing Culve at 3-400 feet agl.
> "Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "karl gruber" > wrote:
>>
>>> I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY
>>> drive
>>> down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet. Any jet
>>> will do that all day long.
>>
>> So you'd drop below 1120 *outside* CULVE? Even if you were just cutting
>> things a little fine, the 2.4 miles from CULVE is from the *far end* of
>> the runway you're landing on... and if you were descending below 1120
>> just inside BEVEY in IMC, you might be in more trouble than you'd like.
>>
>> Hamish
>
>

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 23, 5:07 pm, "pgbnh" > wrote:
> I think all but one of the posters have missed the fact that the MDA is not
> 1120 but 680. If indeed the vis was 3 miles, then the runway should have
> been in sight from the MDA of 680 feet about a mile OUTSIDE of Culve.
> (Remember what you can do once you have the runway in sight????) At which
> point it's not a particularly big deal to lose 500 feet to land on the
> numbers. Maybe even crossing Culve at 3-400 feet agl

Please, tell me how you read the plate in a way that you can cross
CULVE below 1120 when you don't have the airport in sight?
Note I am not an IA pilot, but I really want to understand this. My
reading of the plate is:

Cross CULVE at or above 1120. If you are DME equipped and radar, you
can then descend to 680. Otherwise you gotta remain at 1120. If you
get to the VOR before seeing the airport, you execute missed.

Now if the conditions are 800 overcast 3mi, how can you see the
airport before hitting CULVE unless you are below the crossing
restriction?

[karl gruber[_1_]]

You can cross CULVE at 680 because the chart says "CULVE DME/RADAR MINIMA*
680-1"
You can descend to 680 past BEVEY. Look at the chart...........that's how
it's read.

Karl


"Doug Semler" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Jul 23, 5:07 pm, "pgbnh" > wrote:
>> I think all but one of the posters have missed the fact that the MDA is
>> not
>> 1120 but 680. If indeed the vis was 3 miles, then the runway should have
>> been in sight from the MDA of 680 feet about a mile OUTSIDE of Culve.
>> (Remember what you can do once you have the runway in sight????) At
>> which
>> point it's not a particularly big deal to lose 500 feet to land on the
>> numbers. Maybe even crossing Culve at 3-400 feet agl
>
> Please, tell me how you read the plate in a way that you can cross
> CULVE below 1120 when you don't have the airport in sight?
> Note I am not an IA pilot, but I really want to understand this. My
> reading of the plate is:
>
> Cross CULVE at or above 1120. If you are DME equipped and radar, you
> can then descend to 680. Otherwise you gotta remain at 1120. If you
> get to the VOR before seeing the airport, you execute missed.
>
> Now if the conditions are 800 overcast 3mi, how can you see the
> airport before hitting CULVE unless you are below the crossing
> restriction?
>

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 23, 5:28 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
> You can cross CULVE at 680 because the chart says "CULVE DME/RADAR MINIMA*
> 680-1"
> You can descend to 680 past BEVEY. Look at the chart...........that's how
> it's read.
>

So, iff you have DME and RADAR, the _1120_ in profile view changes to
_680_, right?

That is a *bit* confusing.

[pgbnh]

Note this is a VOR or GPS approach. Sorry if I just assumed that there would
be on-board EITHER a DME or an IFR certified GPS that would provide the
distance-measuring requirements of the DME/Radar minima. Pretty good chance
the jet in question had both. And maybe you understand this, but youir
reference to Radar implies that maybe you do not. The 'Radar' reference is
NOT referring to whether the plane is radar equipped, but rather whether
there is radar coverage from the ground. Which in fact should allow an
aircraft WITHOUT DME to descend to 680 (if receiving advisories from the
tower/approach)
"Doug Semler" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Jul 23, 5:07 pm, "pgbnh" > wrote:
>> I think all but one of the posters have missed the fact that the MDA is
>> not
>> 1120 but 680. If indeed the vis was 3 miles, then the runway should have
>> been in sight from the MDA of 680 feet about a mile OUTSIDE of Culve.
>> (Remember what you can do once you have the runway in sight????) At
>> which
>> point it's not a particularly big deal to lose 500 feet to land on the
>> numbers. Maybe even crossing Culve at 3-400 feet agl
>
> Please, tell me how you read the plate in a way that you can cross
> CULVE below 1120 when you don't have the airport in sight?
> Note I am not an IA pilot, but I really want to understand this. My
> reading of the plate is:
>
> Cross CULVE at or above 1120. If you are DME equipped and radar, you
> can then descend to 680. Otherwise you gotta remain at 1120. If you
> get to the VOR before seeing the airport, you execute missed.
>
> Now if the conditions are 800 overcast 3mi, how can you see the
> airport before hitting CULVE unless you are below the crossing
> restriction?
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Correct. That's why there's a little * next to the 1120*.


Karl
"Doug Semler" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 23, 5:28 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
>> You can cross CULVE at 680 because the chart says "CULVE DME/RADAR
>> MINIMA*
>> 680-1"
>> You can descend to 680 past BEVEY. Look at the chart...........that's how
>> it's read.
>>
>
> So, iff you have DME and RADAR, the _1120_ in profile view changes to
> _680_, right?
>
> That is a *bit* confusing.
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Exactly, you don't need DME or GPS. ATC can tell you where CULVE
is........with THEIR Radar.


Karl


"pgbnh" > wrote in message
. ..
> Note this is a VOR or GPS approach. Sorry if I just assumed that there
> would be on-board EITHER a DME or an IFR certified GPS that would provide
> the distance-measuring requirements of the DME/Radar minima. Pretty good
> chance the jet in question had both. And maybe you understand this, but
> youir reference to Radar implies that maybe you do not. The 'Radar'
> reference is NOT referring to whether the plane is radar equipped, but
> rather whether there is radar coverage from the ground. Which in fact
> should allow an aircraft WITHOUT DME to descend to 680 (if receiving
> advisories from the tower/approach)
> "Doug Semler" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> On Jul 23, 5:07 pm, "pgbnh" > wrote:
>>> I think all but one of the posters have missed the fact that the MDA is
>>> not
>>> 1120 but 680. If indeed the vis was 3 miles, then the runway should have
>>> been in sight from the MDA of 680 feet about a mile OUTSIDE of Culve.
>>> (Remember what you can do once you have the runway in sight????) At
>>> which
>>> point it's not a particularly big deal to lose 500 feet to land on the
>>> numbers. Maybe even crossing Culve at 3-400 feet agl
>>
>> Please, tell me how you read the plate in a way that you can cross
>> CULVE below 1120 when you don't have the airport in sight?
>> Note I am not an IA pilot, but I really want to understand this. My
>> reading of the plate is:
>>
>> Cross CULVE at or above 1120. If you are DME equipped and radar, you
>> can then descend to 680. Otherwise you gotta remain at 1120. If you
>> get to the VOR before seeing the airport, you execute missed.
>>
>> Now if the conditions are 800 overcast 3mi, how can you see the
>> airport before hitting CULVE unless you are below the crossing
>> restriction?
>>
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 23, 2:07 pm, "pgbnh" > wrote:
> I think all but one of the posters have missed the fact that the MDA is not
> 1120 but 680.

Generally people who's method of explaining things starts by insulting
them, telling them that they don't know what they are doing, and then
explaining that he's much smarter than everyone else have a more
difficult time explaining things. Sadly, the one poster you referenced
uses this has his methodology. Let's all pray that he's not a CFI.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 23, 2:12 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
> No.
>
> You can be 6.7 miles out at 680/DME.

ATC certainly never offered that but I guess I never asked. They keep
you at 4,000 until about 3 miles outside of CULVE. Maybe for Burbank
traffic?? Remeber this is VERY busy airspace and ATC has very small
windows for you.

-Robert

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"karl gruber" > wrote:

> No.
>
> You can be 6.7 miles out at 680/DME.

Maybe I'm just thick, but that's not how I read the chart.

After DARTS, you can descend to 2600. After BEVEY, you can descend to
1120. What happens after that depends on whether you can identify CULVE or
not. If you can identify CULVE, once you reach it, you can descend to 680.
Without CULVE, you have to stay at 1120 until you have the runway in sight.

Look at the plan view. There's a 863 tower at what looks like about 1/2
mile right of the FAC. I'm sure that's the controlling terrain for the
1120 MDA between BEVEY and CULVE.

To identify CULVE, you need one of two things: either DME in the aircraft,
or the tower has to be open AND you have to be in radar contact. It
doesn't explicitly say so on the chart, but I assume the tower has a BRITE
scope in the cab with CULVE marked on it and will call it for you on tower
frequency.

CULVE is 1.6 nm from the threshold. If you cross it at 1120, you're 945
feet AGL (referenced to the runway surface). So, to hit the numbers, you
need to keep a 590 ft/nm descent gradient from CULVE to the runway.
Looking at it another way, at 90 kts and no wind, you need an 885 ft/min
descent rate. That's fast, but not outrageously so. It's about twice as
steep as an ILS. It's certainly the kind of approach you need to brief
ahead of time and know what you're going to need to do before you get there.

[Roy Smith]

In article
>,
Hamish Reid > wrote:

> The other point is that you're on an approach with a lot of faster
> aircraft behind you, and I'm sure the temptation is to keep going like a
> bat out of hell right up until the MDA, at which point you don't have a
> lot of time and space to slow down. That hasn't happened to me, but I
> can understand why it might. I was asked for best forward speed all the
> way from somewhere out near OHIGH to CULVE.

You worry about flying the approach and let ATC worry about the aircraft
behind you. If you're not comfortable flying it any faster than 90 kts,
when they ask you for best speed, just tell them 90 kts IS your best speed.
They'll deal with it.

[B]

What you advocate is a violation of the FARs, but I guess that is the
way it is with Cessna Curators.

So, what is your minimums busting scheme when the weather is right at
minimums; i.e., 600 and 1?

karl gruber wrote:
> Where are you digging up such erroneous thoughts?
>
> With 800/3 you'll be way outside CULVE when you see the runway. That's the
> difference between the pros that were landing without any fan fair and you,
> without a clue.
>
> Karl
>
>
> "B" > wrote in message ...
>
>>karl gruber wrote:
>>
>>>I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY
>>>drive down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet.
>>>Any jet will do that all day long.
>>>
>>>Karl
>>>"Curator" N185KG
>>
>>So, now you're past the runway and landing on the VOR shack.
>>
>>It is 1.54 miles from CULVE to the beginning of the runway.
>
>
>

[B]

Man, you are an accident looking for a place to happen. There are
buildings over 800 feet high inside your minimums-busting 6.7 miles.

karl gruber wrote:

> No, the VIS is 3. It doesn't matter where the VOR is. You can be at 680 6.7
> miles out. When you are 3 miles from the AIRPORT, it will be in sight.
>
> Karl
>

[B]

Do you have an instrument rating?

Help me understand how DME permits you to descent to 680 "far before CULVE."

karl gruber wrote:

> Not with DME, you'll be at 680 far before CULVE.
>
> Karl
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>On Jul 23, 1:18 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
>>
>>>Where are you digging up such erroneous thoughts?
>>>
>>>With 800/3 you'll be way outside CULVE when you see the runway.
>>
>>No, with 800 foot ceiling you will be at 1120 when at CULVE, making it
>>hard to see the runway through the clouds.
>>
>>-Robert
>>
>
>
>

[B]

I am reading the plate. Apparently, you are not.

karl gruber wrote:

> Not with DME, or do you think that a Gulfstream wouldn't have DME??
>
> Read the plate!
>
> Karl
>
>
> "B" > wrote in message ...
>
>>karl gruber wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY
>>>drive down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet.
>>>Any jet will do that all day long.
>>>
>>>Karl
>>>"Curator" N185KG
>>
>>1120 at CULVE. 175 feet airport elevation. Difference 945 feet. Distance
>>from CULVE to runway 1.54 miles.
>
>
>

[B]

Roy Smith wrote:
You're not thick, the Curator is.

> In article >,
> "karl gruber" > wrote:
>
>
>>No.
>>
>>You can be 6.7 miles out at 680/DME.
>
>
> Maybe I'm just thick, but that's not how I read the chart.
>
> After DARTS, you can descend to 2600. After BEVEY, you can descend to
> 1120. What happens after that depends on whether you can identify CULVE or
> not. If you can identify CULVE, once you reach it, you can descend to 680.
> Without CULVE, you have to stay at 1120 until you have the runway in sight.
>
> Look at the plan view. There's a 863 tower at what looks like about 1/2
> mile right of the FAC. I'm sure that's the controlling terrain for the
> 1120 MDA between BEVEY and CULVE.

Actually, it is several very tall building in Century City. At 680 feet
out there you die.
>
> To identify CULVE, you need one of two things: either DME in the aircraft,
> or the tower has to be open AND you have to be in radar contact. It
> doesn't explicitly say so on the chart, but I assume the tower has a BRITE
> scope in the cab with CULVE marked on it and will call it for you on tower
> frequency.
>
> CULVE is 1.6 nm from the threshold. If you cross it at 1120, you're 945
> feet AGL (referenced to the runway surface). So, to hit the numbers, you
> need to keep a 590 ft/nm descent gradient from CULVE to the runway.
> Looking at it another way, at 90 kts and no wind, you need an 885 ft/min
> descent rate. That's fast, but not outrageously so. It's about twice as
> steep as an ILS. It's certainly the kind of approach you need to brief
> ahead of time and know what you're going to need to do before you get there.

[B]

pgbnh wrote:

> I think all but one of the posters have missed the fact that the MDA is not
> 1120 but 680. If indeed the vis was 3 miles, then the runway should have
> been in sight from the MDA of 680 feet about a mile OUTSIDE of Culve.
> (Remember what you can do once you have the runway in sight????) At which
> point it's not a particularly big deal to lose 500 feet to land on the
> numbers. Maybe even crossing Culve at 3-400 feet agl.
> "Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
> ...

The MDA is 1120 unless you have DME. If you have DME then the MDA is
680 once you pass CULVE. You cannot descend below 1120 prior to CULVE
even if you see the runway unless you either cancel, get a contact
approach, or a visual approach.

Having said that, when the weather is good, folks who know the airport
descend out of 1120 on the 4 degree PAPI. But, sometimes it is 600 and
1 around there.

[B]

karl gruber wrote:

> Correct. That's why there's a little * next to the 1120*.

And, that little "*" (black ball number 1 on Jepp chart) means you can
descend to 680 ONCE PASSING CULVE.
>
>
> Karl
> "Doug Semler" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>On Jul 23, 5:28 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
>>
>>>You can cross CULVE at 680 because the chart says "CULVE DME/RADAR
>>>MINIMA*
>>>680-1"
>>>You can descend to 680 past BEVEY. Look at the chart...........that's how
>>>it's read.
>>>
>>
>>So, iff you have DME and RADAR, the _1120_ in profile view changes to
>>_680_, right?
>>
>>That is a *bit* confusing.
>>
>
>
>

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 23, 5:41 pm, "pgbnh" > wrote:
> Note this is a VOR or GPS approach. Sorry if I just assumed that there would
> be on-board EITHER a DME or an IFR certified GPS that would provide the
> distance-measuring requirements of the DME/Radar minima. Pretty good chance
> the jet in question had both. And maybe you understand this, but youir
> reference to Radar implies that maybe you do not. The 'Radar' reference is
> NOT referring to whether the plane is radar equipped, but rather whether
> there is radar coverage from the ground. Which in fact should allow an
> aircraft WITHOUT DME to descend to 680 (if receiving advisories from the
> tower/approach)

No I completely understand what RADAR means. I know it means radar
contact from ATC. I mistyped an "and" instead of "or" in a previous
post about whether the different crossing restrictions were allowed if
and only if there was DME on board or radar guidance from ATC.

<shrug> It seems inconsistent with other uses of "/" (e.g. VOR/DME)
meaningthat both are required.

[B]

They can call BEVEY, too, workload permitting.

karl gruber wrote:

> Exactly, you don't need DME or GPS. ATC can tell you where CULVE
> is........with THEIR Radar.
>

[B]

Right, dive to 1120 and drive to CULVE, then dive to 680.

karl gruber wrote:

> Once inside BEVEY you're good for 680. There is no glideslope and it's "Dive
> and Drive." That's why the pros make it in with no trouble, they can read
> charts.
>
> Karl
>

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Smith ]
> Posted At: Monday, July 23, 2007 5:19 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: VOR approach SMO
> Subject: Re: VOR approach SMO
>
> In article
> >,
> Hamish Reid > wrote:
>
> > The other point is that you're on an approach with a lot of faster
> > aircraft behind you, and I'm sure the temptation is to keep going
like a
> > bat out of hell right up until the MDA, at which point you don't
have a
> > lot of time and space to slow down. That hasn't happened to me, but
I
> > can understand why it might. I was asked for best forward speed all
the
> > way from somewhere out near OHIGH to CULVE.
>
> You worry about flying the approach and let ATC worry about the
aircraft
> behind you. If you're not comfortable flying it any faster than 90
kts,
> when they ask you for best speed, just tell them 90 kts IS your best
> speed.
> They'll deal with it.

Of course the way they deal with it could easily have you practicing a
hold for quite a while.

When I was working out of Boeing Field, I intentionally took my advanced
instrument students down to Portland because it gave them an exposure to
pressure situations they couldn't get in Seattle. Portland required good
speed down final which often meant no gear or flaps until the middle
marker or minimums. Students taught to stabilize the approach at 90
knots without getting to experience an approach at 120 or 140 or more
are often very uncomfortable in high-traffic situations. I'd rather they
were uncomfortable when I was there to help them. Besides, it is best if
we all try to work together.

I still practice high-speed approaches occasionally just to keep myself
comfortable with the reactions and timing necessary and to stay
comfortable with the aircraft handling during the quick configuration
changes.


Kindest regards,
Jim Carter

Politicians fear most an armed, educated electorate.

[pgbnh]

OK, now I admit to being confused.

I read the chart as 'the MDA is 1120 unless equipped with dme or receiving
radar advisories so that CULVE can be indentified, in which case the MDA is
680.' The asterisk next to the 1120 is, I believe, indicating that the MDA
is 1120 unless (see the other half of the asterisk below) DME or Radar
equipped, inwhich case it is 680. With DME I do not see a requirement to
stay at 1120 to CULVE and THEN descend to 680. Rather, I believe it says I
can descend to 680 (with DME) once I pass BEVEY.

I also do not agree with the statement "You cannot descend below 1120 prior
to CULVE
even if you see the runway unless you either cancel, get a contact
approach, or a visual approach.". 91.175 clearly states that I can descend
below MDA when I have the runway environment (lightts, etc) in sight. No
restrictions on when I can begin a descent below MDA. Were there a VDP,
different situation, but no VDP on this approach.

So I stand by what I said earlier. I can be at 680 BEFORE CULVE, AND, if I
have the runway environment, I can be below 680 even earlier.

I also reserve the right to be wrong

"B" > wrote in message ...
> pgbnh wrote:
>
>> I think all but one of the posters have missed the fact that the MDA is
>> not 1120 but 680. If indeed the vis was 3 miles, then the runway should
>> have been in sight from the MDA of 680 feet about a mile OUTSIDE of
>> Culve. (Remember what you can do once you have the runway in sight????)
>> At which point it's not a particularly big deal to lose 500 feet to land
>> on the numbers. Maybe even crossing Culve at 3-400 feet agl.
>> "Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
> The MDA is 1120 unless you have DME. If you have DME then the MDA is 680
> once you pass CULVE. You cannot descend below 1120 prior to CULVE even if
> you see the runway unless you either cancel, get a contact approach, or a
> visual approach.
>
> Having said that, when the weather is good, folks who know the airport
> descend out of 1120 on the 4 degree PAPI. But, sometimes it is 600 and 1
> around there.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

">
> The MDA is 1120 unless you have DME. If you have DME then the MDA is 680
> once you pass CULVE. You cannot descend below 1120 prior to CULVE even if
> you see the runway unless you either cancel, get a contact approach, or a
> visual approach.

If you have DME, IFRGPS, or ATC Radar, you can descend to 680 past
BEVEY............that is simply what that chart reads.

Karl

[karl gruber[_1_]]

If there were, they be full of holes, just like your explanation.

Karl


"B" > wrote in message ...
> Man, you are an accident looking for a place to happen. There are
> buildings over 800 feet high inside your minimums-busting 6.7 miles.
>
> karl gruber wrote:
>
>> No, the VIS is 3. It doesn't matter where the VOR is. You can be at 680
>> 6.7 miles out. When you are 3 miles from the AIRPORT, it will be in
>> sight.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 23, 5:43 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
> Correct. That's why there's a little * next to the 1120*.
>

Unless they changed the rules of footnoting on me, the only thing the
little * next to 1120 tells me is that DME is required when the tower
is closed. Presumably to identify CULVE.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

I love that question!

No........I don't have an instrument rating. What does my having or not
having an instrument rating have to do with your confusion about this
approach?

Hell, MXmania could read this correctly.

Karl
"B" > wrote in message ...
> Do you have an instrument rating?
>
> Help me understand how DME permits you to descent to 680 "far before
> CULVE."
>
> karl gruber wrote:
>
>> Not with DME, you'll be at 680 far before CULVE.
>>
>> Karl
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>>>On Jul 23, 1:18 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Where are you digging up such erroneous thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>With 800/3 you'll be way outside CULVE when you see the runway.
>>>
>>>No, with 800 foot ceiling you will be at 1120 when at CULVE, making it
>>>hard to see the runway through the clouds.
>>>
>>>-Robert
>>>
>>
>>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

You may be "seeing" the plate.........but certainly not comprehending it.


Karl


"B" > wrote in message ...
>I am reading the plate. Apparently, you are not.
>
> karl gruber wrote:
>
>> Not with DME, or do you think that a Gulfstream wouldn't have DME??
>>
>> Read the plate!
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>> "B" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>karl gruber wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY
>>>>drive down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet.
>>>>Any jet will do that all day long.
>>>>
>>>>Karl
>>>>"Curator" N185KG
>>>
>>>1120 at CULVE. 175 feet airport elevation. Difference 945 feet.
>>>Distance from CULVE to runway 1.54 miles.
>>
>>

[B]

Doug Semler wrote:

> On Jul 23, 5:43 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
>
>>Correct. That's why there's a little * next to the 1120*.
>>
>
>
> Unless they changed the rules of footnoting on me, the only thing the
> little * next to 1120 tells me is that DME is required when the tower
> is closed. Presumably to identify CULVE.
>
Correct, but the note is a bit ambiguous. DME is not required when the
tower is closed unless you want to identify CULVE and use the lower MDA.

[Milen E. Lazarov]

On 2007-07-23, karl gruber > wrote:
> Not with DME, you'll be at 680 far before CULVE.
>
> Karl
>

If you cannot identify CULVE, you descent to 1120 after BEVEY
and wait to see the runway or go missed at the VOR.
If you can identify CULVE, you descent to 680 after BEVEY and
wait to see the runway or go missed at the VOR.
So what does really identifying CULVE do for you if you are
already down to 680 by the the time you identify it?

--

SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 23, 7:28 pm, "pgbnh" > wrote:
> OK, now I admit to being confused.
>
> I read the chart as 'the MDA is 1120 unless equipped with dme or receiving
> radar advisories so that CULVE can be indentified, in which case the MDA is
> 680.' The asterisk next to the 1120 is, I believe, indicating that the MDA
> is 1120 unless (see the other half of the asterisk below) DME or Radar
> equipped, inwhich case it is 680. With DME I do not see a requirement to
> stay at 1120 to CULVE and THEN descend to 680. Rather, I believe it says I
> can descend to 680 (with DME) once I pass BEVEY.
>
> I also do not agree with the statement "You cannot descend below 1120 prior
> to CULVE
> even if you see the runway unless you either cancel, get a contact
> approach, or a visual approach.". 91.175 clearly states that I can descend
> below MDA when I have the runway environment (lightts, etc) in sight. No
> restrictions on when I can begin a descent below MDA. Were there a VDP,
> different situation, but no VDP on this approach.
>
> So I stand by what I said earlier. I can be at 680 BEFORE CULVE, AND, if I
> have the runway environment, I can be below 680 even earlier.
>
> I also reserve the right to be wrong
>

This is where my confusion is as well. The profile view of the
approach says _1120_ next to CULVE. All information I have ever read
makes that a crossing restriction (step downs and all that, the 1120
with a line below it means that 1120 is your floor). There is an *
next to that number. However, the * references a note that says DME
required if tower closed. If there was a lower crossing restriction
if DME equipped, I would have expected the footnote to reference the
lower altitude that would be allowed (and i could have sworn I have
seen this before, but of course I wouldn't be able to remember where/
if/when I saw this.

[B]

karl gruber wrote:

> ">
>
>>The MDA is 1120 unless you have DME. If you have DME then the MDA is 680
>>once you pass CULVE. You cannot descend below 1120 prior to CULVE even if
>>you see the runway unless you either cancel, get a contact approach, or a
>>visual approach.
>
>
> If you have DME, IFRGPS, or ATC Radar, you can descend to 680 past
> BEVEY............that is simply what that chart reads.
>
> Karl
>
>
I can see how you could take the NACO chart that way, lacking an
understanding of what the line below 1120 means, and failing to
reference the asterik to the note "When tower closed, DME required."

If you look at the Jeppesen chart you cannot reach that erroneous
conculsion.

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 23, 7:43 pm, Doug Semler > wrote:
> If there was a lower crossing restriction
> if DME equipped, I would have expected the footnote to reference the
> lower altitude that would be allowed (and i could have sworn I have
> seen this before, but of course I wouldn't be able to remember where/
> if/when I saw this

OK. DTW's approach plates have alot of 5000 crossing restrictions
that are footnoted 4000 when directed by ATC.

I would expect the same footnote to apply to SMO's approach plate if
that were the case.

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 23, 7:43 pm, B > wrote:
> Doug Semler wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 5:43 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
>
> >>Correct. That's why there's a little * next to the 1120*.
>
> > Unless they changed the rules of footnoting on me, the only thing the
> > little * next to 1120 tells me is that DME is required when the tower
> > is closed. Presumably to identify CULVE.
>
> Correct, but the note is a bit ambiguous. DME is not required when the
> tower is closed unless you want to identify CULVE and use the lower MDA.

You know, I kinda figured this; otherwise it would have been a VOR/DME
appch, right?

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Correct. When DME etc. equipped, and descending to 680 after BEVEY,
identifying CULVE does you no good, other than for situational awareness.

Karl

> So what does really identifying CULVE do for you if you are
> already down to 680 by the the time you identify it?
>
> --
>
> SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
Roy Smith > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Hamish Reid > wrote:
>
> > The other point is that you're on an approach with a lot of faster
> > aircraft behind you, and I'm sure the temptation is to keep going like a
> > bat out of hell right up until the MDA, at which point you don't have a
> > lot of time and space to slow down. That hasn't happened to me, but I
> > can understand why it might. I was asked for best forward speed all the
> > way from somewhere out near OHIGH to CULVE.
>
> You worry about flying the approach and let ATC worry about the aircraft
> behind you. If you're not comfortable flying it any faster than 90 kts,
> when they ask you for best speed, just tell them 90 kts IS your best speed.
> They'll deal with it.

Well, yes. I wasn't suggesting I had any problems with this at all, just
that I can understand how someone unfamiliar with the approach and the
area might botch things under the pressure, assuming they had more time
to slow down than they really did... I actually enjoyed the experience.

Hamish

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
Roy Smith > wrote:

> In article >,
> "karl gruber" > wrote:
>
> > No.
> >
> > You can be 6.7 miles out at 680/DME.
>
> Maybe I'm just thick, but that's not how I read the chart.
>
> After DARTS, you can descend to 2600. After BEVEY, you can descend to
> 1120. What happens after that depends on whether you can identify CULVE or
> not. If you can identify CULVE, once you reach it, you can descend to 680.
> Without CULVE, you have to stay at 1120 until you have the runway in sight.

That's my understanding as well -- the chart isn't particularly
ambiguous on this, either...

>
> Look at the plan view. There's a 863 tower at what looks like about 1/2
> mile right of the FAC. I'm sure that's the controlling terrain for the
> 1120 MDA between BEVEY and CULVE.

Indeed. Having briefly worked in the building that that obstruction
represents, I hope there aren't too many pilots out there in IMC
dropping below 1120 before they're at least abeam that point...

Hamish

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
"pgbnh" > wrote:

> I think all but one of the posters have missed the fact that the MDA is not
> 1120 but 680.

Assuming radar or DME, yes.

> If indeed the vis was 3 miles, then the runway should have
> been in sight from the MDA of 680 feet about a mile OUTSIDE of Culve.

But you can't go below 1120 until CULVE unless you're on the visual. The
chart's not particularly ambiguous about this...

> (Remember what you can do once you have the runway in sight????)

You generally have to be below the ceiling before the runway's in
sight... At 1120, with 800/3, you're presumably still in the stratus.

> At which
> point it's not a particularly big deal to lose 500 feet to land on the
> numbers. Maybe even crossing Culve at 3-400 feet agl.

Having done the approach for real, I didn't find the descents
particularly challenging, but they do require a bit of forethought,
that's for sure. The hardest part was being dumped inside DARTS at
6,000'....

Hamish

> "Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "karl gruber" > wrote:
> >
> >> I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY
> >> drive
> >> down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet. Any jet
> >> will do that all day long.
> >
> > So you'd drop below 1120 *outside* CULVE? Even if you were just cutting
> > things a little fine, the 2.4 miles from CULVE is from the *far end* of
> > the runway you're landing on... and if you were descending below 1120
> > just inside BEVEY in IMC, you might be in more trouble than you'd like.
> >
> > Hamish
>
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

OK, you're right............I'm totally wrong. I just broke out my Jepps,
and it is clear from them that 680 is after CULVE, not BEVEY.

A sincere apology to the people I was trashing. Now I'm going out in the
yard and kill more weeds.

Karl
"Curator"
Remind me to take recurrent on NACO

"B" > wrote in message ...
> karl gruber wrote:
>
>> ">
>>
>>>The MDA is 1120 unless you have DME. If you have DME then the MDA is 680
>>>once you pass CULVE. You cannot descend below 1120 prior to CULVE even
>>>if you see the runway unless you either cancel, get a contact approach,
>>>or a visual approach.
>>
>>
>> If you have DME, IFRGPS, or ATC Radar, you can descend to 680 past
>> BEVEY............that is simply what that chart reads.
>>
>> Karl
> I can see how you could take the NACO chart that way, lacking an
> understanding of what the line below 1120 means, and failing to reference
> the asterik to the note "When tower closed, DME required."
>
> If you look at the Jeppesen chart you cannot reach that erroneous
> conculsion.

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
"karl gruber" > wrote:

> OK, you're right............I'm totally wrong. I just broke out my Jepps,
> and it is clear from them that 680 is after CULVE, not BEVEY.
>
> A sincere apology to the people I was trashing. Now I'm going out in the
> yard and kill more weeds.

Damn. That's no good -- aren't we supposed to bicker on endlessly for at
least another few days?! :-).

Hamish

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 23, 4:30 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
> ">
>
> > The MDA is 1120 unless you have DME. If you have DME then the MDA is 680
> > once you pass CULVE. You cannot descend below 1120 prior to CULVE even if
> > you see the runway unless you either cancel, get a contact approach, or a
> > visual approach.
>
> If you have DME, IFRGPS, or ATC Radar, you can descend to 680 past
> BEVEY............that is simply what that chart reads.
>
> Karl

I'm still a bit confused. When I first looked at the chart I assumed
that you had to have 1120 at CULVE and could go down to 680 after
CULVE. Then looking at it again, it seemed that you could go to 680 at
BEVEY since the 680 is modifying the restriction of 1120 at CULVE
(very, very, scarry with those buildings around). However, looking at
it again, I'm not sure what purpose CULVE would serve if that was the
case. I wonder if this chart meets the FAA requirements because it
seems to be a bit ambiguous. I can't honestly believe that the FAA
would want airplanes at 680 from BEVEY (or anyone who has seen the
approach VFR would want to do that IMC).

-Robert

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
"Milen E. Lazarov" > wrote:

> On 2007-07-23, karl gruber > wrote:
> > Not with DME, you'll be at 680 far before CULVE.
>
> If you cannot identify CULVE, you descent to 1120 after BEVEY
> and wait to see the runway or go missed at the VOR.
> If you can identify CULVE, you descent to 680 after BEVEY and
> wait to see the runway or go missed at the VOR.
> So what does really identifying CULVE do for you if you are
> already down to 680 by the the time you identify it?

As I hope everyone's now aware -- for safety's sake, if nothing else,
since I fly that approach every now and then, and there are some
heavily-peopled buildings with heights above 680' close to the approach
centreline between BEVEY and CULVE -- *you cannot go below 1120' MSL
before CULVE unless you're on the visual*, regardless of whether you can
identify CULVE or not.

There's simply nothing ambiguous about this on the approach plate I'm
looking at....

Hamish

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 23, 4:08 pm, B > wrote:
> Right, dive to 1120 and drive to CULVE, then dive to 680.

So, the question is still, how does the GulfStream get from CULVE at
1120 down to 0 at the numbers. I was in IMC with gear and flaps down,
power at idle and in a slip and I was still about 3/4 down when I
touched. Does a GulfStream drop faster than a Mooney?

-Robert

[Hamish Reid]

In article om>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Jul 23, 4:30 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
> > ">
> >
> > > The MDA is 1120 unless you have DME. If you have DME then the MDA is 680
> > > once you pass CULVE. You cannot descend below 1120 prior to CULVE even if
> > > you see the runway unless you either cancel, get a contact approach, or a
> > > visual approach.
> >
> > If you have DME, IFRGPS, or ATC Radar, you can descend to 680 past
> > BEVEY............that is simply what that chart reads.
> >
> > Karl
>
> I'm still a bit confused. When I first looked at the chart I assumed
> that you had to have 1120 at CULVE and could go down to 680 after
> CULVE. Then looking at it again, it seemed that you could go to 680 at
> BEVEY since the 680 is modifying the restriction of 1120 at CULVE
> (very, very, scarry with those buildings around). However, looking at
> it again, I'm not sure what purpose CULVE would serve if that was the
> case. I wonder if this chart meets the FAA requirements because it
> seems to be a bit ambiguous. I can't honestly believe that the FAA
> would want airplanes at 680 from BEVEY (or anyone who has seen the
> approach VFR would want to do that IMC).


Robert -- you're right, and Karl has (rather graciously, I have to
admit) apologised else-thread for misreading the chart. Having looked at
the NACO plates I still find it a little difficult to see how people are
misreading them -- the asterisk next to CULVE on the NACO profile view
refers to the note specifying that if SMO tower is closed, you must use
DME to identify CULVE. It does not affect the unambiguous underlined
1120 step altitude between BEVEY and CULVE in any way. The minimums box
below that is very clear -- 1120 unless you can identify CULVE, in which
case 680; and the latter only applies after CULVE.

As you say, the idea that anyone would descend below 1120 much before
CULVE on that approach in IMC is really scary -- there are significant
buildings in the area with heights above 680' close to the approach...

Hamish

[Roy Smith]

In article
>,
Hamish Reid > wrote:

> Indeed. Having briefly worked in the building that that obstruction
> represents, I hope there aren't too many pilots out there in IMC
> dropping below 1120 before they're at least abeam that point...

There's nothing that makes you appreciate the importance of the MDA like
being part of the terrain :-)

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 23, 3:15 pm, Roy Smith > wrote:
> In article >,

> CULVE is 1.6 nm from the threshold. If you cross it at 1120, you're 945
> feet AGL (referenced to the runway surface). So, to hit the numbers, you
> need to keep a 590 ft/nm descent gradient from CULVE to the runway.
> Looking at it another way, at 90 kts and no wind, you need an 885 ft/min
> descent rate. That's fast, but not outrageously so. It's about twice as
> steep as an ILS.

Maybe easy in a 172 but not in my Mooney. With gear and flaps out and
power at idle I don't think I can do 885 ft/min without a lot of
slipping. Even if I could there is still the issue of going from 90
knots approach speed down to 70 knots threshold crossing speed. This
is why I was 3/4 down the runway. I'm still wondering how the
GulfStream did that.

-Robert

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 23, 8:31 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 4:08 pm, B > wrote:
>
> > Right, dive to 1120 and drive to CULVE, then dive to 680.
>
> So, the question is still, how does the GulfStream get from CULVE at
> 1120 down to 0 at the numbers. I was in IMC with gear and flaps down,
> power at idle and in a slip and I was still about 3/4 down when I
> touched. Does a GulfStream drop faster than a Mooney?
>

I wouldn't be surprised...doesn't NASA use Gulfstreams albiet
modified) to train Shuttle pilots to be able to land the "flying
brick?" <g>

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"karl gruber" > wrote:

> OK, you're right............I'm totally wrong. I just broke out my Jepps,
> and it is clear from them that 680 is after CULVE, not BEVEY.
>
> A sincere apology to the people I was trashing. Now I'm going out in the
> yard and kill more weeds.

What was on the Jepp version that made it more clear than the NOS plate?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 23, 9:39 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> The other day I shot the VOR approach into SMO for the first time in
> low actual. I've often looked at that approach as one of the most
> difficult I've seen published so it was interesting to actually try
> it. The weather was 008OVC with something like 3sm HZ. I touched down
> about 3/4 down the runway and was able to stop without a problem.
> However, while taxiing back, I noticed a Gulf Stream land right on the
> numbers. There is no way you can tell me he properly flew the approach
> and was able to touch on the numbers.
> The approach is published as a circle to land (I assume because of the
> extreme nature of the decent) but they certainly were not offering to
> allow anyone to circle. In fact there was a steady line of jets coming
> in, it would probably have been unlikely to get a circle approved.
>
> Last night I departed. AWOS was reporting 005OVC. I took off right
> around 21:10. There was a large Citation right behind me picking up
> his clearance. I didn't ever hear him depart on approach frequency so
> I'm assuming he missed his curfew and his execs got stranded.
>
> -Robert

So, in the end it sounds like if everyone on this list had just
grabbed the chart and flown the approach, about 3/4 of the people
would have died (gone down to 680 before CULVE). Wow, does it seem
like the FAA should make this chart a bit more clear?

-Robert

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 23, 8:51 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 9:39 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The other day I shot the VOR approach into SMO for the first time in
> > low actual. I've often looked at that approach as one of the most
> > difficult I've seen published so it was interesting to actually try
> > it. The weather was 008OVC with something like 3sm HZ. I touched down
> > about 3/4 down the runway and was able to stop without a problem.
> > However, while taxiing back, I noticed a Gulf Stream land right on the
> > numbers. There is no way you can tell me he properly flew the approach
> > and was able to touch on the numbers.
> > The approach is published as a circle to land (I assume because of the
> > extreme nature of the decent) but they certainly were not offering to
> > allow anyone to circle. In fact there was a steady line of jets coming
> > in, it would probably have been unlikely to get a circle approved.
>
> > Last night I departed. AWOS was reporting 005OVC. I took off right
> > around 21:10. There was a large Citation right behind me picking up
> > his clearance. I didn't ever hear him depart on approach frequency so
> > I'm assuming he missed his curfew and his execs got stranded.
>
> > -Robert
>
> So, in the end it sounds like if everyone on this list had just
> grabbed the chart and flown the approach, about 3/4 of the people
> would have died (gone down to 680 before CULVE). Wow, does it seem
> like the FAA should make this chart a bit more clear?
>

Since I wouldn't be able to fly the approach anyway........

I don't have access to Jepp plates, only NACO. However, if you read
my first post in this thread I questioned the modification of crossing
restriction at CULVE by whoeveritwas. I *would* have flown it 1120
until CULVE, 680 after passing CULVE. Anyway, now that things have
been "debated and explained" I don't think it's that ambiguous (except
perhaps, as someone else mentioned, the footnote that DME is required
when tower closed...it's not to shoot the approach, only to use the
reduced MDA). I also don't think they should have *'ed the crossing
restriction necessarily. <shrug> it is the government about which we
are talking.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 23, 5:41 pm, Doug Semler > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 8:31 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 23, 4:08 pm, B > wrote:
>
> > > Right, dive to 1120 and drive to CULVE, then dive to 680.
>
> > So, the question is still, how does the GulfStream get from CULVE at
> > 1120 down to 0 at the numbers. I was in IMC with gear and flaps down,
> > power at idle and in a slip and I was still about 3/4 down when I
> > touched. Does a GulfStream drop faster than a Mooney?
>
> I wouldn't be surprised...doesn't NASA use Gulfstreams albiet
> modified) to train Shuttle pilots to be able to land the "flying
> brick?" <g>

Yea, with thrust reverses in the descent! ;)

-Robert

[Hamish Reid]

In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Jul 23, 9:39 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> > The other day I shot the VOR approach into SMO for the first time in
> > low actual.

[... snip original posting...]

> So, in the end it sounds like if everyone on this list had just
> grabbed the chart and flown the approach, about 3/4 of the people
> would have died (gone down to 680 before CULVE). Wow, does it seem
> like the FAA should make this chart a bit more clear?

I still don't see what's ambiguous about the charts, to be honest --
it's not a difficult chart to understand, and it's pretty clear from
both the NACO and Jepp versions that you absolutely can't go below 1120
until CULVE unless you're on the visual.

So yes, it's really pretty scary that there might be IFR-rated pilots
out there who got this wrong (Karl has said elsewhere that he doesn't
have an IFR rating, so that excuses him), but I don't think the chart's
the cause of the confusion...

Hamish

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 23, 9:03 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 5:41 pm, Doug Semler > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 23, 8:31 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> > >Does a GulfStream drop faster than a Mooney?
>
> > I wouldn't be surprised...doesn't NASA use Gulfstreams albiet
> > modified) to train Shuttle pilots to be able to land the "flying
> > brick?" <g>
>
> Yea, with thrust reverses in the descent! ;)

There's your answer... Guy behind you is a former shuttle pilot <big
grin>

[Roy Smith]

In article om>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Jul 23, 3:15 pm, Roy Smith > wrote:
> > In article >,
>
> > CULVE is 1.6 nm from the threshold. If you cross it at 1120, you're 945
> > feet AGL (referenced to the runway surface). So, to hit the numbers, you
> > need to keep a 590 ft/nm descent gradient from CULVE to the runway.
> > Looking at it another way, at 90 kts and no wind, you need an 885 ft/min
> > descent rate. That's fast, but not outrageously so. It's about twice as
> > steep as an ILS.
>
> Maybe easy in a 172 but not in my Mooney. With gear and flaps out and
> power at idle I don't think I can do 885 ft/min without a lot of
> slipping. Even if I could there is still the issue of going from 90
> knots approach speed down to 70 knots threshold crossing speed. This
> is why I was 3/4 down the runway. I'm still wondering how the
> GulfStream did that.

I've never flown a Mooney, so I can't speak for what it can or can't do.

The charted procedure only promises that if you fly the specified course
and altitudes, it'll keep you from hitting any terrain. There's nothing
that promises that any particular aircraft has the required performance to
land straight-in (or any other way, for that matter) out of any particular
approach. Figuring that stuff out is all part of pre-flight planning.

[Bill Zaleski]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:22:27 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article om>,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> On Jul 23, 3:15 pm, Roy Smith > wrote:
>> > In article >,
>>
>> > CULVE is 1.6 nm from the threshold. If you cross it at 1120, you're 945
>> > feet AGL (referenced to the runway surface). So, to hit the numbers, you
>> > need to keep a 590 ft/nm descent gradient from CULVE to the runway.
>> > Looking at it another way, at 90 kts and no wind, you need an 885 ft/min
>> > descent rate. That's fast, but not outrageously so. It's about twice as
>> > steep as an ILS.
>>
>> Maybe easy in a 172 but not in my Mooney. With gear and flaps out and
>> power at idle I don't think I can do 885 ft/min without a lot of
>> slipping. Even if I could there is still the issue of going from 90
>> knots approach speed down to 70 knots threshold crossing speed. This
>> is why I was 3/4 down the runway. I'm still wondering how the
>> GulfStream did that.
>
>I've never flown a Mooney, so I can't speak for what it can or can't do.
>
>The charted procedure only promises that if you fly the specified course
>and altitudes, it'll keep you from hitting any terrain. There's nothing
>that promises that any particular aircraft has the required performance to
>land straight-in (or any other way, for that matter) out of any particular
>approach. Figuring that stuff out is all part of pre-flight planning.

Come on guys, this IS a circling approach. If you feel stuffed in,
you can always circle southeast, remain within 1 1/4 miles of the
approach end of 21, and descend when appropriate for the pavement.

[John R. Copeland]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message ups.com...
>
> Yea, with thrust reverses in the descent! ;)
>
> -Robert
>

Reminds me of a story told me by a friend in school for his King Air.
A classmate asked if he could reverse the prop pitch in flight.
The instructor replied: "Yes, you can.
And if you do, you will fall out of the sky like a typewriter."

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 23, 6:22 pm, Roy Smith > wrote:
> In article om>,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 3:15 pm, Roy Smith > wrote:
> > > In article >,
>
> > > CULVE is 1.6 nm from the threshold. If you cross it at 1120, you're 945
> > > feet AGL (referenced to the runway surface). So, to hit the numbers, you
> > > need to keep a 590 ft/nm descent gradient from CULVE to the runway.
> > > Looking at it another way, at 90 kts and no wind, you need an 885 ft/min
> > > descent rate. That's fast, but not outrageously so. It's about twice as
> > > steep as an ILS.
>
> > Maybe easy in a 172 but not in my Mooney. With gear and flaps out and
> > power at idle I don't think I can do 885 ft/min without a lot of
> > slipping. Even if I could there is still the issue of going from 90
> > knots approach speed down to 70 knots threshold crossing speed. This
> > is why I was 3/4 down the runway. I'm still wondering how the
> > GulfStream did that.
>
> I've never flown a Mooney, so I can't speak for what it can or can't do.
>
> The charted procedure only promises that if you fly the specified course
> and altitudes, it'll keep you from hitting any terrain. There's nothing
> that promises that any particular aircraft has the required performance to
> land straight-in (or any other way, for that matter) out of any particular
> approach. Figuring that stuff out is all part of pre-flight planning.

What is your point? That the GulfStream shouldn't have been able to
touch down on the numbers or should have? You've lost me.

-Robert

[Roy Smith]

In article om>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Jul 23, 6:22 pm, Roy Smith > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 23, 3:15 pm, Roy Smith > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> >
> > > > CULVE is 1.6 nm from the threshold. If you cross it at 1120, you're
> > > > 945
> > > > feet AGL (referenced to the runway surface). So, to hit the numbers,
> > > > you
> > > > need to keep a 590 ft/nm descent gradient from CULVE to the runway.
> > > > Looking at it another way, at 90 kts and no wind, you need an 885
> > > > ft/min
> > > > descent rate. That's fast, but not outrageously so. It's about twice
> > > > as
> > > > steep as an ILS.
> >
> > > Maybe easy in a 172 but not in my Mooney. With gear and flaps out and
> > > power at idle I don't think I can do 885 ft/min without a lot of
> > > slipping. Even if I could there is still the issue of going from 90
> > > knots approach speed down to 70 knots threshold crossing speed. This
> > > is why I was 3/4 down the runway. I'm still wondering how the
> > > GulfStream did that.
> >
> > I've never flown a Mooney, so I can't speak for what it can or can't do.
> >
> > The charted procedure only promises that if you fly the specified course
> > and altitudes, it'll keep you from hitting any terrain. There's nothing
> > that promises that any particular aircraft has the required performance to
> > land straight-in (or any other way, for that matter) out of any particular
> > approach. Figuring that stuff out is all part of pre-flight planning.
>
> What is your point? That the GulfStream shouldn't have been able to
> touch down on the numbers or should have? You've lost me.
>
> -Robert

My point is that people should do pre-flight planning and not wait until
three quarters of the the runway is behind them to start thinking about
whether they can land on what's left.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"karl gruber" > wrote:

> Correct. When DME etc. equipped, and descending to 680 after BEVEY,
> identifying CULVE does you no good, other than for situational awareness.

Then why do you think they bothered to include CULVE on the chart? And
why does being able to identify CULVE make it safe to descend to 680
after BEVEY when it would not be safe to do so without that ability?

(Note to sane readers: these are rhetorical questions designed to show
Karl that he is wrong. Which he most assuredly is.)

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"karl gruber" > wrote:

> No........I don't have an instrument rating.

It shows.

rg

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:06:20 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Jul 23, 2:12 pm, "karl gruber" > wrote:
>> No.
>>
>> You can be 6.7 miles out at 680/DME.
>
>ATC certainly never offered that but I guess I never asked. They keep
>you at 4,000 until about 3 miles outside of CULVE. Maybe for Burbank
>traffic?? Remeber this is VERY busy airspace and ATC has very small
>windows for you.

ATC is keeping you at 4K until 1.3 miles inside the FAF?

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:43:48 -0700, Doug Semler >
wrote:

>This is where my confusion is as well. The profile view of the
>approach says _1120_ next to CULVE. All information I have ever read
>makes that a crossing restriction (step downs and all that, the 1120
>with a line below it means that 1120 is your floor). There is an *
>next to that number. However, the * references a note that says DME
>required if tower closed. If there was a lower crossing restriction
>if DME equipped, I would have expected the footnote to reference the
>lower altitude that would be allowed (and i could have sworn I have
>seen this before, but of course I wouldn't be able to remember where/
>if/when I saw this.

Actually, there's 3 *'s on the plate, one showing part-time tower, one
referencing the "CULVE DME/RADAR MINIMA" box, and one saying DME
required when the tower's closed.

Anyway, yes, It's a crossing restriction, in this case an underlined
"at or above". You cross DARTS at or above 4500, BEVEYat or above
2600 and CULVE at or above 1120. *IF* you can identify CULVE via DME
or RADAR you can *THEN* descend below 1120, otherwise you motor along
at 1120 and do the missed. There is nothing here which would permit
decent below 1120 before crossing CULVE. The note is telling you what
you can do if you have radar/DME after CULVE.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:18:29 -0700, "karl gruber"
> wrote:

>Where are you digging up such erroneous thoughts?
>
>With 800/3 you'll be way outside CULVE when you see the runway. That's the
>difference between the pros that were landing without any fan fair and you,
>without a clue.
>
>Karl
>
>

Karl,

You are misreading the chart.

The underlined 1120 at CULVE means that is the minimum altitude at that
location.

IF you can identify CULVE, then AFTER passing CULVE you may descend to
680', but not before.

The * next to CULVE means only that if the Tower is closed, DME is
required. The * does not change the 1120 to 680.

Also, it is not in accordance with TERPS to allow a 680' minimum altitude
at CULVE with the nearby 863' tower.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 00:51:07 -0000, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>So, in the end it sounds like if everyone on this list had just
>grabbed the chart and flown the approach, about 3/4 of the people
>would have died (gone down to 680 before CULVE). Wow, does it seem
>like the FAA should make this chart a bit more clear?
>
>-Robert

I think the confusion of some of the posters may have been due to the
coincidence of the minimum altitude at CULVE being the same as the circling
MDA without CULVE.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Mark Hansen]

On 07/23/07 17:51, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jul 23, 9:39 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> The other day I shot the VOR approach into SMO for the first time in
>> low actual. I've often looked at that approach as one of the most
>> difficult I've seen published so it was interesting to actually try
>> it. The weather was 008OVC with something like 3sm HZ. I touched down
>> about 3/4 down the runway and was able to stop without a problem.
>> However, while taxiing back, I noticed a Gulf Stream land right on the
>> numbers. There is no way you can tell me he properly flew the approach
>> and was able to touch on the numbers.
>> The approach is published as a circle to land (I assume because of the
>> extreme nature of the decent) but they certainly were not offering to
>> allow anyone to circle. In fact there was a steady line of jets coming
>> in, it would probably have been unlikely to get a circle approved.
>>
>> Last night I departed. AWOS was reporting 005OVC. I took off right
>> around 21:10. There was a large Citation right behind me picking up
>> his clearance. I didn't ever hear him depart on approach frequency so
>> I'm assuming he missed his curfew and his execs got stranded.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> So, in the end it sounds like if everyone on this list had just
> grabbed the chart and flown the approach, about 3/4 of the people
> would have died (gone down to 680 before CULVE). Wow, does it seem
> like the FAA should make this chart a bit more clear?
>
> -Robert
>

After reading many of the responses, it seemed Karl (and some others) felt
that the lower "Minima" as a result of identifying CULVE meant a lower
crossing altitude at CULVE.

Of course, this is wrong. The crossing altitude at CULVE is 1120, and doesn't
change whether or not you can identify CULVE.

It's been an interesting discussion.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 23, 8:31 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 4:08 pm, B > wrote:
>
> > Right, dive to 1120 and drive to CULVE, then dive to 680.
>
> So, the question is still, how does the GulfStream get from CULVE at
> 1120 down to 0 at the numbers. I was in IMC with gear and flaps down,
> power at idle and in a slip and I was still about 3/4 down when I
> touched. Does a GulfStream drop faster than a Mooney?

FWIW, my quick and dirty math shows ~5.5 degree slope from CULVE to
threshold @ 1120. If you keep that slope, you would have broken
through the clouds about 6500 ft from the threshold at 800 (625 agl).
The Gulf's approach speed is something like 120 or 130. Calling it
130, that's a 1300-1400fpm descent rate at that slope. If the gulf
can do that, then they could keep a nice steady path to the threshold
@ 5.5 degrees.

Now if you dive at a 6.5 degree slope at CULVE, you are decreasing
your final angle to 5 degrees while extending your distance to
threshold another 500 ft when breaking out.

Of course, this all assumes that you are actually at 1120 when at
culve <g>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 23, 7:23 pm, Roy Smith > wrote:
> In article om>,

> My point is that people should do pre-flight planning and not wait until
> three quarters of the the runway is behind them to start thinking about
> whether they can land on what's left.- Hide quoted text -

No, ****, but what are you refering to? Who was "start thinking about
whether they can land on what's left"? Is that a reference to this
thread or a different thread? I don't recall anyone being concerned
that the runway was too short or that they couldn't land in the
available runway. This thread concerns an IFR approach and the
question of being able to hit the numbers from 1120 under 2 miles out.
Maybe its a newsreader issue???

-Robert

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Jul 23, 7:23 pm, Roy Smith > wrote:
> > In article om>,
>
> > My point is that people should do pre-flight planning and not wait until
> > three quarters of the the runway is behind them to start thinking about
> > whether they can land on what's left.- Hide quoted text -
>
> No, ****, but what are you refering to?

Your original statement that you "touched down about 3/4 down the runway".
That set warning bells off in my head. Were you planning on touching down
that far down the runway, or did you just come in too high and fast and
that's when you managed to stop flying? Did you have a plan for when you
were going to decide there wasn't enough runway left and go around?

You seemed surprised that the Gulfsteam driver behind you managed to land
on the beginning of the runway. I'm guessing he had the approach planned
out far in advance and knew what descent rates he would need and what
configuration it would take to get that. And I'm guessing you didn't,
which is why you ended up touching down 3/4 of the way down the runway.

The flying club I used to belong to ran three airplanes off ends of runways
in the 10 years or so I was a member (one was totalled, fortunately nobody
was hurt in any of them). All three could have been avoided by pilots
recognizing that things were not working out and going around for another
try. So I'm kind of sensitive to things like that.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 24, 10:00 am, Roy Smith > wrote:

> Your original statement that you "touched down about 3/4 down the runway".
> That set warning bells off in my head. Were you planning on touching down
> that far down the runway,

Pretty much that's what I expected would happen.

> or did you just come in too high and fast and
> that's when you managed to stop flying?

Of course I came in high and fast. That's really the point of this
thread, that the approach requires you to be high and fast (my minimum
IFR approach speed is 90 knots) and of course I was 1120 about 2 miles
from the end of the runway as required by the approach.

> You seemed surprised that the Gulfsteam driver behind you managed to land
> on the beginning of the runway.

And I'm still surprised.

> I'm guessing he had the approach planned
> out far in advance and knew what descent rates he would need and what
> configuration it would take to get that.

You keep referring planning. I'm not sure what planning you are
referring to in this context. The fact is that the GulfStream probably
had to have a good 1300 ft/min decent rate (assuming he flew the
approach perfectly). I'm surprised a GulfStream can do that because a
Mooney certainly cannot. I had gear and flaps out with power at idle
and couldn't do anywhere near that.

The point is that is it almost certain that the GulfStream was
familiar with the approach and decided to drop down early. My guess is
that a lot of the jets flying into SMO during low overcast are
dropping down to the MDA before CULVE just because they know its the
only way for them to hit the numbers.


> And I'm guessing you didn't,
> which is why you ended up touching down 3/4 of the way down the runway.

Well, guesses are what you pay for them.

-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 24, 8:59 am, Doug Semler > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 8:31 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 23, 4:08 pm, B > wrote:
>
> > > Right, dive to 1120 and drive to CULVE, then dive to 680.
>
> > So, the question is still, how does the GulfStream get from CULVE at
> > 1120 down to 0 at the numbers. I was in IMC with gear and flaps down,
> > power at idle and in a slip and I was still about 3/4 down when I
> > touched. Does a GulfStream drop faster than a Mooney?
>
> FWIW, my quick and dirty math shows ~5.5 degree slope from CULVE to
> threshold @ 1120. If you keep that slope, you would have broken
> through the clouds about 6500 ft from the threshold at 800 (625 agl).
> The Gulf's approach speed is something like 120 or 130. Calling it
> 130, that's a 1300-1400fpm descent rate at that slope. If the gulf
> can do that, then they could keep a nice steady path to the threshold
> @ 5.5 degrees.
>
> Now if you dive at a 6.5 degree slope at CULVE, you are decreasing
> your final angle to 5 degrees while extending your distance to
> threshold another 500 ft when breaking out.
>
> Of course, this all assumes that you are actually at 1120 when at
> culve <g>

And that your approach speed and threshold crossing speed are the same
(i,e. that you don't need additional room to slow down).

[Bob Gardner]

I hate to blow Karl's cover, but he flies a jet for the Microsoft
millionaire who just visited the space station for 25 million bucks. He and
I flew for the same FBO before most of you guys were born.

Bob Gardner


"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "karl gruber" > wrote:
>
>> No........I don't have an instrument rating.
>
> It shows.
>
> rg

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
"Bob Gardner" > wrote:

> I hate to blow Karl's cover, but he flies a jet for the Microsoft
> millionaire who just visited the space station for 25 million bucks. He and
> I flew for the same FBO before most of you guys were born.

And yet he can look at the (relatively simple) KSMO VOR / GPS approach
chart and misread it to the point where he's confidently heaping crap on
anyone who disagrees with his very basic misreading of it. At least he
finally and graciously appologised for all that.

Seriously, though, can anyone look at the chart and really think it's
safe (let alone legal) to go much below 1120 immediately after BEVEY in
IMC? As I've said earlier in this thread, I've worked in the buildings
that represent the charted obstructions not far from the centerline of
that approach, and it scares the hell out of me that a supposedly
seasoned ATP can be so far off in his reading of that chart.

Hamish

[karl gruber[_1_]]

I have never used NACO charts, ever.

From the NACO chart I downloaded, there are four identical asterisks. It is
very easy to read the chart as I did, as one of the asterisk points to
crossing at the lower altitude. Another poster read it that way as well.

The Jeppesen charts show no such ambiguity.

Best,
Karl



"Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>
>> I hate to blow Karl's cover, but he flies a jet for the Microsoft
>> millionaire who just visited the space station for 25 million bucks. He
>> and
>> I flew for the same FBO before most of you guys were born.
>
> And yet he can look at the (relatively simple) KSMO VOR / GPS approach
> chart and misread it to the point where he's confidently heaping crap on
> anyone who disagrees with his very basic misreading of it. At least he
> finally and graciously appologised for all that.
>
> Seriously, though, can anyone look at the chart and really think it's
> safe (let alone legal) to go much below 1120 immediately after BEVEY in
> IMC? As I've said earlier in this thread, I've worked in the buildings
> that represent the charted obstructions not far from the centerline of
> that approach, and it scares the hell out of me that a supposedly
> seasoned ATP can be so far off in his reading of that chart.
>
> Hamish

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>
> I hate to blow Karl's cover, but he flies a jet for the Microsoft
> millionaire who just visited the space station for 25 million bucks. He
> and I flew for the same FBO before most of you guys were born.


Yes, but you do know there's been significant changes since the old A-O
ranges, don't you?

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 24, 1:59 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jul 24, 8:59 am, Doug Semler > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 8:31 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 23, 4:08 pm, B > wrote:
>
> > > > Right, dive to 1120 and drive to CULVE, then dive to 680.
>
> > > So, the question is still, how does the GulfStream get from CULVE at
> > > 1120 down to 0 at the numbers. I was in IMC with gear and flaps down,
> > > power at idle and in a slip and I was still about 3/4 down when I
> > > touched. Does a GulfStream drop faster than a Mooney?
>
> > FWIW, my quick and dirty math shows ~5.5 degree slope from CULVE to
> > threshold @ 1120. If you keep that slope, you would have broken
> > through the clouds about 6500 ft from the threshold at 800 (625 agl).
> > The Gulf's approach speed is something like 120 or 130. Calling it
> > 130, that's a 1300-1400fpm descent rate at that slope. If the gulf
> > can do that, then they could keep a nice steady path to the threshold
> > @ 5.5 degrees.
>
> > Now if you dive at a 6.5 degree slope at CULVE, you are decreasing
> > your final angle to 5 degrees while extending your distance to
> > threshold another 500 ft when breaking out.
>
> > Of course, this all assumes that you are actually at 1120 when at
> > culve <g>
>
> And that your approach speed and threshold crossing speed are the same
> (i,e. that you don't need additional room to slow down

Yes, I told you it was quick and dirty (I did it pretty much in my
head. there's *alot* of rounding in there <g>)

I did a search and can't find any performance characteristics of a
gulf on the web, except an accident report stating the probable cause
of an accident as the pilot's putting the plane in an unstabilized
2500fpm descent profile :-/

[Steve S[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> You keep referring planning. I'm not sure what planning you are
> referring to in this context. The fact is that the GulfStream probably
> had to have a good 1300 ft/min decent rate (assuming he flew the
> approach perfectly). I'm surprised a GulfStream can do that because a
> Mooney certainly cannot. I had gear and flaps out with power at idle
> and couldn't do anywhere near that.
>
> The point is that is it almost certain that the GulfStream was
> familiar with the approach and decided to drop down early. My guess is
> that a lot of the jets flying into SMO during low overcast are
> dropping down to the MDA before CULVE just because they know its the
> only way for them to hit the numbers.
>

Or perhaps his spoilers were working? Does your Mooney have them?

[John Godwin]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in
:

> Yes, but you do know there's been significant changes since the
> old A-O ranges, don't you?
>
You mean A-N, don't you?



--

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"karl gruber" > wrote:

> I have never used NACO charts, ever.

So?

> From the NACO chart I downloaded, there are four identical asterisks. It is
> very easy to read the chart as I did, as one of the asterisk points to
> crossing at the lower altitude.

No, it doesn't. It points to reduced minimums, which is NOT the same
thing.

> Another poster read it that way as well.

That poster was wrong too.

> The Jeppesen charts show no such ambiguity.

Neither does the NACO chart.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Bob Gardner" > wrote:

> I hate to blow Karl's cover, but he flies a jet for the Microsoft
> millionaire who just visited the space station for 25 million bucks.

So what? That he works for Charles Simonyi doesn't change the fact that
he is wrong.

(Interesting side note: back in the mid-90's I ran into Charles Simonyi
at a conference in Santa Barbara and ended up giving him a ride back to
the airport since we were both parked at the same FBO. Of course, he
was in his private Falcon jet and I was in a rented C182RG. As I was
preflighting I heard the Falcon's engines spooling up and down, but the
plane didn't move. After a while they shut the engines down, so I went
back into the FBO to see what was going on. Turned out they had a red
light on one of the engines and were grounded. Since he wasn't going
anywhere, Simonyi gave me a tour of the plane. It was the first time I
ever saw a glass cockpit. Sweet! But I couldn't help thinking as I
climbed out of SBA that I was going home while Simonyi, one of the
richest men in the world, was stuck at the airport like any ordinary
shmoe.)

rg

[Richard[_4_]]

>>
>> So, in the end it sounds like if everyone on this list had just
>> grabbed the chart and flown the approach, about 3/4 of the people
>> would have died (gone down to 680 before CULVE). Wow, does it seem
>> like the FAA should make this chart a bit more clear?

The chart is "clear" as is. Review the LEGEND in the front of the U.S.
Terminal Procedure book. (Page H1 in my approach books.) Bottom left
corner of page: Under "ALTITUDES" 2500 with a line under it - "Minimum
Altitude". Pretty clear!

It's pretty scary to realize that "several" instrument rated pilots were
willing (at least in this discussion group) to descend below a clearly
charted minimum altitude prematurely!

Fly safe!

RAW

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >,
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>
>> I hate to blow Karl's cover, but he flies a jet for the Microsoft
>> millionaire who just visited the space station for 25 million bucks.
>
> So what? That he works for Charles Simonyi doesn't change the fact that
> he is wrong.

Karl is right.

According to the NACO chart I pulled up via Airnav, with DME you can
begin descending to 680 at BEVEY.

You have to stay @ 1120 'till CULVE only if DME is not available.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Richard wrote:
>
> The chart is "clear" as is. Review the LEGEND in the front of the U.S.
> Terminal Procedure book. (Page H1 in my approach books.) Bottom left
> corner of page: Under "ALTITUDES" 2500 with a line under it - "Minimum
> Altitude". Pretty clear!

If there is more than one minimum altitude at a fix, my experience has
shown that the highest Category A altitude will be shown on the NACO
profile view, since the lower requires additional conditions to be met.
Hence the 1120 on the planview, not the 680, but 680 is clearly listed
in the minima box.

Which one would you want to read at a quick glance?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 26, 10:47 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>
> >> I hate to blow Karl's cover, but he flies a jet for the Microsoft
> >> millionaire who just visited the space station for 25 million bucks.
>
> > So what? That he works for Charles Simonyi doesn't change the fact that
> > he is wrong.
>
> Karl is right.
>
> According to the NACO chart I pulled up via Airnav, with DME you can
> begin descending to 680 at BEVEY.
>
> You have to stay @ 1120 'till CULVE only if DME is not available.

Then you will crash.

-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 26, 10:55 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>
> > The chart is "clear" as is. Review the LEGEND in the front of the U.S.
> > Terminal Procedure book. (Page H1 in my approach books.) Bottom left
> > corner of page: Under "ALTITUDES" 2500 with a line under it - "Minimum
> > Altitude". Pretty clear!
>
> If there is more than one minimum altitude at a fix, my experience has
> shown that the highest Category A altitude will be shown on the NACO
> profile view, since the lower requires additional conditions to be met.
> Hence the 1120 on the planview, not the 680, but 680 is clearly listed
> in the minima box.
>
> Which one would you want to read at a quick glance?

See, it even fooled you. You cannot go to 680 until after CULVE but I
can see how it mislead you.

-Robert, CFII

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> Then you will crash.

Actually, I would. <G>

Rethought, with proper attention, I can descend below 1120 AT CULVE, if
the relevant conditions for the lower minimum are met. Otherwise, I'd
continue along @ 1120.

I don't know what I was thinking.

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> >
> >> I hate to blow Karl's cover, but he flies a jet for the Microsoft
> >> millionaire who just visited the space station for 25 million bucks.
> >
> > So what? That he works for Charles Simonyi doesn't change the fact that
> > he is wrong.
>
> Karl is right.
>
> According to the NACO chart I pulled up via Airnav, with DME you can
> begin descending to 680 at BEVEY.
>
> You have to stay @ 1120 'till CULVE only if DME is not available.

Dear God -- not this again. Karl has already admitted he was wrong and
graciously apologised for heaping crap on those who disagreed with his
interpretation. It's astonishing to think that there are
instrument-rated pilots out there who'd descend below 1120 much before
CULVE in IMC -- take a look at the obstructions....

If you're familiar with NACO charts, it's hard to see how there's any
ambiguity about this: you cannot descend below 1120 before CULVE
regardless of whether or not you have DME unless you're on the visual.
The Jepp charts make this even clearer.

Hamish

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> See, it even fooled you. You cannot go to 680 until after CULVE but I
> can see how it mislead you.

Can I have cheese on that crow?

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Hamish Reid wrote:
>
> Dear God -- not this again.

I've issued cancel messages. Hopefully, my posts will not restart the
whole thing.

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> Hamish Reid wrote:
> >
> > Dear God -- not this again.
>
> I've issued cancel messages. Hopefully, my posts will not restart the
> whole thing.

I dunno -- this has been one of the few Usenet threads I've participated
in over the decades where posters in the wrong have actually not only
admitted it but apologised for it. Which makes it something special in
Usenet terms :-).

Hamish

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 26, 11:14 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> > See, it even fooled you. You cannot go to 680 until after CULVE but I
> > can see how it mislead you.
>
> Can I have cheese on that crow?

Hey, its not just you. I was questioning it myself after Karl's posts.
I guess the thing to take away from this to me is that the plan view
does not necessarily present the MDA. The MDA (presented in teh box
below) *only* applies after the FAF and that the plan view may not
show that. Luckily I knew that when I flew it in IMC last weekend ;)

-Robert

[B A R R Y]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:27:01 -0700, Hamish Reid
> wrote:


>I dunno -- this has been one of the few Usenet threads I've participated
>in over the decades where posters in the wrong have actually not only
>admitted it but apologised for it. Which makes it something special in
>Usenet terms :-).

Sometimes, you step in crap. When it happens, you can discretely
scrape it off outside. Or, you can pretend it wasn't you, and get it
all over the carpet.

I have too much respect for the experience of this group to not go
back outside and scrape it off. <G>

My home airport has a constantly NOTAM'd OOS localizer, so the only
way back in is a VOR approach. I should know better about step down
fixes. Once I "ghost flew" the approach at my desk, I realized how
wrong I was. It took Robert's "you would have crashed" message for me
to actually do the "ghost approach", and realize that I really _would_
have crashed.

Barry

[TakeFlight]

Just for kicks I flew this approach in MS FSX with the CRJ700. I set
the wx to 800 & 3 (no wind) and figured I'd see what kind of
acrobatics I would have to do. I crossed CULVE at 1100' with 130 kts
and flaps 45. I descended for 680 MDA at around 1800 fpm, which
surprisingly did not require any deploy of the spoilers. I broke out
of the clouds and continued this descent until reaching the VASI
glideslope at around 450' and 1/2 mile out. From here on it was a
normal descent and I was able to plop down on the aiming point
markers. For what it's worth, FSX had the threshold being at 0.9 DME.

I know FSX isn't the same as the real world, and I'm not sure I would
want to be dropping that fast at such a low altitude, but it seems
like it wouldn't be a stretch for that Gulfstream to make it in on the
numbers if they were on top of their game....

Erik
CFII, MEI


On Jul 23, 12:39 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> The other day I shot the VOR approach into SMO for the first time in
> low actual. I've often looked at that approach as one of the most
> difficult I've seen published so it was interesting to actually try
> it. The weather was 008OVC with something like 3sm HZ. I touched down
> about 3/4 down the runway and was able to stop without a problem.
> However, while taxiing back, I noticed a Gulf Stream land right on the
> numbers. There is no way you can tell me he properly flew the approach
> and was able to touch on the numbers.
> The approach is published as a circle to land (I assume because of the
> extreme nature of the decent) but they certainly were not offering to
> allow anyone to circle. In fact there was a steady line of jets coming
> in, it would probably have been unlikely to get a circle approved.
>
> Last night I departed. AWOS was reporting 005OVC. I took off right
> around 21:10. There was a large Citation right behind me picking up
> his clearance. I didn't ever hear him depart on approach frequency so
> I'm assuming he missed his curfew and his execs got stranded.
>
> -Robert

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 27, 6:39 pm, TakeFlight > wrote:
> Just for kicks I flew this approach in MS FSX with the CRJ700. I set
> the wx to 800 & 3 (no wind) and figured I'd see what kind of
> acrobatics I would have to do. I crossed CULVE at 1100' with 130 kts
> and flaps 45. I descended for 680 MDA at around 1800 fpm, which
> surprisingly did not require any deploy of the spoilers.

FWIW, I believe I remember reading an NTSB report of a Gulf crash (at
i believe Aspen). While it wasn't in the POH, the policy of the
charter company was that spoilers were not to be deployed when landing
gear or flaps were extended...It was mentioned in the report because
investigation revealed that the spoilers were extended on impact...

> I broke out
> of the clouds and continued this descent until reaching the VASI
> glideslope at around 450' and 1/2 mile out. From here on it was a
> normal descent and I was able to plop down on the aiming point
> markers.

Out of curiosity, what was your "speed" at 1800 fpm? I thought SMO
had a PAPI on 21 but it is FSX...

> For what it's worth, FSX had the threshold being at 0.9 DME.
>

Sounds about right (maybe a bit long...)

[TakeFlight]

I was able to hold 130 kts all the way down. My intent was to pin the
speed and see what kind of descent rate I would get (and need) to pull
it off. I wasn't expecting to get that much without dropping the
spoilers at least 1/4, but I was at idle, which probably isn't
SOP...In all fairness, I've never flown a "real" jet, unless the 737
sim at UAL counts :)

You're right about the lights...it is a PAPI in FSX.

>
> Out of curiosity, what was your "speed" at 1800 fpm? I thought SMO
> had a PAPI on 21 but it is FSX...
>
> > For what it's worth, FSX had the threshold being at 0.9 DME.
>
> Sounds about right (maybe a bit long...)

[Dave Butler]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
> Maybe easy in a 172 but not in my Mooney. With gear and flaps out and
> power at idle I don't think I can do 885 ft/min without a lot of
> slipping. Even if I could there is still the issue of going from 90
> knots approach speed down to 70 knots threshold crossing speed.

Go ahead and slow to 70 earlier. Your angle of descent is steeper at 70
than at 90.

DB

[Dave Butler]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Of course I came in high and fast. That's really the point of this
> thread, that the approach requires you to be high and fast (my minimum
> IFR approach speed is 90 knots) and of course I was 1120 about 2 miles
> from the end of the runway as required by the approach.

What's the rationale for the minimum IFR approach speed of 90 knots? A
slower approach speed will get you the required descent angle.

Try flying approaches at different speeds in VMC and see what you get.

DB

[Dave Butler]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> And that your approach speed and threshold crossing speed are the same
> (i,e. that you don't need additional room to slow down).

There's no reason they can't be the same, e.g. 70 knots, if that's what
you need to make the descent angle.

DB

[Dave Butler]

karl gruber wrote:
> I have never used NACO charts, ever.
>
> From the NACO chart I downloaded, there are four identical asterisks. It is
> very easy to read the chart as I did, as one of the asterisk points to
> crossing at the lower altitude. Another poster read it that way as well.
>
> The Jeppesen charts show no such ambiguity.

I agree, Karl. With the benefit of all this discussion and sitting
comfortably at my workstation, the chart is unambiguous. If I were
prepping the approach while trying to fly the airplane (which *does*
happen sometimes) I'm not sure I couldn't have been similarly misled. I
think NACO could find a better way to convey the correct information.

DB

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
Dave Butler > wrote:

> karl gruber wrote:
> > I have never used NACO charts, ever.
> >
> > From the NACO chart I downloaded, there are four identical asterisks. It is
> > very easy to read the chart as I did, as one of the asterisk points to
> > crossing at the lower altitude. Another poster read it that way as well.
> >
> > The Jeppesen charts show no such ambiguity.
>
> I agree, Karl. With the benefit of all this discussion and sitting
> comfortably at my workstation, the chart is unambiguous. If I were
> prepping the approach while trying to fly the airplane (which *does*
> happen sometimes) I'm not sure I couldn't have been similarly misled. I
> think NACO could find a better way to convey the correct information.

As a long-time NACO chart user, I found it unambiguous, but that wasn't
the point I was concentrating on the later parts of this thread, which
was: didn't *anyone* who advocated going below 1120 immediately after
BEVEY notice the obstructions? Doesn't anyone else look at things like
that as well as the bare minimums? Unlike Karl, I'm no ATP, but it's
typically one of the first things I look at with an unfamiliar
approach...

Hamish

[Dane Spearing[_2_]]

In article >,
Hamish Reid > wrote:
>As a long-time NACO chart user, I found it unambiguous, but that wasn't
>the point I was concentrating on the later parts of this thread, which
>was: didn't *anyone* who advocated going below 1120 immediately after
>BEVEY notice the obstructions? Doesn't anyone else look at things like
>that as well as the bare minimums? Unlike Karl, I'm no ATP, but it's
>typically one of the first things I look at with an unfamiliar
>approach...

I too am a long time NACO chart user and didn't see any ambiguity in
reading the SMO VOR approach. It's very clear from the cross-section view
that you are not to descend below 2600' until crossing BEVEY, and are not
to descent below 1120' until crossing CULVE. Furthermore, you can only
descend below 1120' if you have DME to identify CULVE or are under
postivie radar contol from ATC.

I also don't see the ambiguity that the previous poster had mentioned
regarding the three asterisks - they all pertain to the same piece of
information. Namely, that when the tower is closed, DME is required
to descend below 1120 for the circle to land (or that you are under
postivie radar contol when the tower is open).

All of that said, this is still definitely a slam-dunk kind of approach.

I guess it's a matter of perference with respect to NACO vs. Jepp.
Sorta like Apple vs. Microsoft, or vi vs. emacs. :)
(Oh, and I'm a NACO/Apple/vi kind of guy...)

-- Dane

[B]

Dave Butler wrote:
> karl gruber wrote:
>
>> I have never used NACO charts, ever.
>>
>> From the NACO chart I downloaded, there are four identical asterisks.
>> It is very easy to read the chart as I did, as one of the asterisk
>> points to crossing at the lower altitude. Another poster read it that
>> way as well.
>>
>> The Jeppesen charts show no such ambiguity.
>
>
> I agree, Karl. With the benefit of all this discussion and sitting
> comfortably at my workstation, the chart is unambiguous. If I were
> prepping the approach while trying to fly the airplane (which *does*
> happen sometimes) I'm not sure I couldn't have been similarly misled. I
> think NACO could find a better way to convey the correct information.
>
> DB

This was brought to the FAA's attention. The asterisk has no business
being associated with the 1120 minimum altitude. That does suggest the
minimum altitude is conditional.

Here is the FAA response:

"They are going to remove the asterisk by the stepdown fix altitude and
leave it at the fix and with the minimums line. Don't know where they
got it, but they will check their source to see where it came from."

[Doug Semler]

"B" > wrote in message ...
> Dave Butler wrote:
>> karl gruber wrote:
>>
>>> I have never used NACO charts, ever.
>>>
>>> From the NACO chart I downloaded, there are four identical asterisks. It
>>> is very easy to read the chart as I did, as one of the asterisk points
>>> to crossing at the lower altitude. Another poster read it that way as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> The Jeppesen charts show no such ambiguity.
>>
>>
>> I agree, Karl. With the benefit of all this discussion and sitting
>> comfortably at my workstation, the chart is unambiguous. If I were
>> prepping the approach while trying to fly the airplane (which *does*
>> happen sometimes) I'm not sure I couldn't have been similarly misled. I
>> think NACO could find a better way to convey the correct information.
>>
>> DB
>
> This was brought to the FAA's attention. The asterisk has no business
> being associated with the 1120 minimum altitude. That does suggest the
> minimum altitude is conditional.
>
> Here is the FAA response:
>
> "They are going to remove the asterisk by the stepdown fix altitude and
> leave it at the fix and with the minimums line. Don't know where they got
> it, but they will check their source to see where it came from."


If this is the case, this whole discussion has produced 'A Good Thing' (tm).

Thanks to all.

--
Doug Semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Brad[_1_]]

On Jul 23, 12:39 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> However, while taxiing back, I noticed a Gulf Stream land right on the
> numbers. There is no way you can tell me he properly flew the approach
> and was able to touch on the numbers.


After reading the 123 messages in this thread, I am convinced the
Gulfstream pilot had CFII Gruber for Instrument flight training :)

In all seriousness, when I first looked at the chart, I read it
correctly, but after examining the multiple astericks, I can now see
how it's possible that this could be confusing. This is just the sort
of example of how the ASRS is useful in identifying safety issues
relating to charting. I wonder if this sort of thing was ever
reported? Nevertheless, I glad to hear someone got NACO charting
involved.

[B]

Brad wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:39 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>
>>However, while taxiing back, I noticed a Gulf Stream land right on the
>>numbers. There is no way you can tell me he properly flew the approach
>>and was able to touch on the numbers.
>
>
>
> After reading the 123 messages in this thread, I am convinced the
> Gulfstream pilot had CFII Gruber for Instrument flight training :)
>
> In all seriousness, when I first looked at the chart, I read it
> correctly, but after examining the multiple astericks, I can now see
> how it's possible that this could be confusing. This is just the sort
> of example of how the ASRS is useful in identifying safety issues
> relating to charting. I wonder if this sort of thing was ever
> reported? Nevertheless, I glad to hear someone got NACO charting
> involved.
>

Yes, it has recently been reported. You missed one of the 123 messages. ;-)