How do I fly this approach?

[Mxsmanic]

Kindly take a look at the ILS runway 26 approach to Astoria (KAST). I tried
to fly this in my sim and I'm not at all sure that I did it correctly.

In my case, this is what I did: I was on V187 from Seattle at 6000. Once I
was within 25 nm of AST, I descended to 4300. About 12 nm away from AST, I
turned roughly north and flew back out to 19 DME from AST, then turned east to
follow the 19 DME arc until I was within a few degrees of the localizer
course. At that point I started a turn towards the localizer and armed the
autopilot, which captured the localizer and glide slope immediately and took
over. About a mile away from the airport I disengaged the AP and flew the
landing by hand.

Was this correct? I'm confused by the references to the NDB and the pointers
towards the east and the procedure turn. Do I have multiple options for this
approach? Was the way I flew it one of them? Or what?

I almost thought that maybe I was supposed to fly to the VOR then outbound to
the NDB then make a procedure turn and come back in. But the DME arc had IAFs
at each end so I finally figured I could just come in towards the VOR then fly
back out to the arc and finally turn towards the airport, which is what I did.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Why would you fly 12 miles from the VOR and then turn around to go back out
and intercept the 19 DME arc? V187 does not appear to be depicted on the
approach plate. What was the IAF?

Your best answer to this question would be to get a PPL, and then and IR
with a competent instructor, who could easily answer the questions.

Otherwise, why start another ridiculous discourse when you blatantly are
announcing your naivete to the world?

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Why would you fly 12 miles from the VOR and then turn around to go back out
> and intercept the 19 DME arc? V187 does not appear to be depicted on the
> approach plate. What was the IAF?

I was already inside the 19 DME arc while I was still trying to figure out
what to do next. The MSA was 4300, and I saw that the arc was 4000, so I flew
back out to the arc to descend to 4000, since I figured terrain clearance
would be guaranteed along the arc but not elsewhere.

I saw three IAFs, one at the PEN NDB, and two at either end of the DME arc. I
wasn't sure if I was supposed to go all the way to the IAF at the end of the
arc to use it.

V187 isn't marked on approach plates. It's on the en-route charts and
sectionals. AST is on the airway, and I was coming from OLM, also on the
airway.

> Your best answer to this question would be to get a PPL, and then and IR
> with a competent instructor, who could easily answer the questions.

That would be tremendous overkill, extremely time-consuming and expensive. I
was hoping someone here would be able to help. It's a bit like suggesting
that one become a surgeon in order to learn the effects of aspirin.

[Beauciphus]

Warning - troll alert.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

> That would be tremendous overkill, extremely time-consuming and expensive.
> I
> was hoping someone here would be able to help. It's a bit like suggesting
> that one become a surgeon in order to learn the effects of aspirin.


You seem to forget that the purpose of approach plates is to help do
instrument approaches while flying an airplane. Yes, it can be time
consuming and expensive, but it's the price of actually flying.

Surgeons in general don't use a lot of aspirin, but of course that's another
subject about which you know little.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Yes, here we go again- he will start arguing how people with instrument
ratings that are actually pilots don't know the answers, or he will tell us
why we are wrong.

Anthony is so boringly predictable, yet some do gooder will either defend
him or try to provide an honest answer, and then it's off to the races.

[Mike Beede]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Was this correct? I'm confused by the references to the NDB and the pointers
> towards the east and the procedure turn. Do I have multiple options for this
> approach? Was the way I flew it one of them? Or what?

There are three initial approach fixes--the two on the DME arcs
and the NDB. The procedure turn is for the NDB used as the initial
approach fix. The idea is it's close enough to the airport that
you get established outbound on the localizer.

It sounds like, other than using the autopilot (which doesn't
really give you any experience tracking the localizer) you
flew one of the published approaches.

Depending on local radar coverage, you might get vectored to
the localizer, in which case you don't worry about the initial
approach fix.

I'm not current, and I'm not an instructor, so like the other
poster said, don't take this advice if you're actually going
to FLY the approach....

Mike Beede

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Kindly take a look at the ILS runway 26 approach to Astoria (KAST). I tried
> to fly this in my sim and I'm not at all sure that I did it correctly.
>
> In my case, this is what I did: I was on V187 from Seattle at 6000. Once I
> was within 25 nm of AST, I descended to 4300. About 12 nm away from AST, I
> turned roughly north and flew back out to 19 DME from AST, then turned east to
> follow the 19 DME arc until I was within a few degrees of the localizer
> course. At that point I started a turn towards the localizer and armed the
> autopilot, which captured the localizer and glide slope immediately and took
> over. About a mile away from the airport I disengaged the AP and flew the
> landing by hand.
>
> Was this correct? I'm confused by the references to the NDB and the pointers
> towards the east and the procedure turn. Do I have multiple options for this
> approach? Was the way I flew it one of them? Or what?
>
> I almost thought that maybe I was supposed to fly to the VOR then outbound to
> the NDB then make a procedure turn and come back in. But the DME arc had IAFs
> at each end so I finally figured I could just come in towards the VOR then fly
> back out to the arc and finally turn towards the airport, which is what I did.


You did it wrong about every way possible. How long have you been
playing real pilot and still don't know the basic rules?

First, by what authority did you descend 700 feet flow the MEA for V-187
simply because you were within 25 miles of AST? The MEA is 5,000 all
the way to AST VOR. That is basic chart reading.

Then, when you turn around at about 12 miles and headed north you
departed protected airspace. At some locations that could kill you but,
of course, not with your MS toy.

The 19 DME arc is available only to non-radar arrivals on on V-27
(R-328) from the northwest or V-27 (R-166) from the south. For any
other arrival the approach begins at AST via the feeder route to KARPEN,
then the procedure turn.

With this one, Anthony, you demonstrate you haven't grasped even the
fundamentals after how many years of ****ing around on this forum.

[Sam Spade]

Viperdoc wrote:

> Yes, here we go again- he will start arguing how people with instrument
> ratings that are actually pilots don't know the answers, or he will tell us
> why we are wrong.
>
> Anthony is so boringly predictable, yet some do gooder will either defend
> him or try to provide an honest answer, and then it's off to the races.
>
>
It will be difficult for him to rationalize his way out of this one.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> You did it wrong about every way possible.

Okay. Please describe the right way ... and provide references.

> First, by what authority did you descend 700 feet flow the MEA for V-187
> simply because you were within 25 miles of AST? The MEA is 5,000 all
> the way to AST VOR. That is basic chart reading.

The plate gives the MSA within a 25-nm radius. Once I was within the 25-nm
radius, I could safely descend to the MSA, and I did so, because it
facilitated entering the approach.

> Then, when you turn around at about 12 miles and headed north you
> departed protected airspace.

I'm not sure what you mean by protected airspace. Once I was clear of the
Seattle Class B, the rest of the flight was conducted entirely in Class E
airspace, right up to landing.

> The 19 DME arc is available only to non-radar arrivals on on V-27
> (R-328) from the northwest or V-27 (R-166) from the south. For any
> other arrival the approach begins at AST via the feeder route to KARPEN,
> then the procedure turn.

Okay. How do you know this? Explain where and how it is documented on the
plate, or where it is documented elsewhere, so that I can look it up.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>You did it wrong about every way possible.
>
>
> Okay. Please describe the right way ... and provide references.
>
>
>>First, by what authority did you descend 700 feet flow the MEA for V-187
>> simply because you were within 25 miles of AST? The MEA is 5,000 all
>>the way to AST VOR. That is basic chart reading.
>
>
> The plate gives the MSA within a 25-nm radius. Once I was within the 25-nm
> radius, I could safely descend to the MSA, and I did so, because it
> facilitated entering the approach.

You must think you are in Canada. MSAs are emergency altitudes only in
the U.S.
>
>
>>Then, when you turn around at about 12 miles and headed north you
>>departed protected airspace.
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by protected airspace. Once I was clear of the
> Seattle Class B, the rest of the flight was conducted entirely in Class E
> airspace, right up to landing.
>
Airspace protected from obstacles.
>
>>The 19 DME arc is available only to non-radar arrivals on on V-27
>>(R-328) from the northwest or V-27 (R-166) from the south. For any
>>other arrival the approach begins at AST via the feeder route to KARPEN,
>>then the procedure turn.
>
>
> Okay. How do you know this? Explain where and how it is documented on the
> plate, or where it is documented elsewhere, so that I can look it up.

Chief counsel's November, 1994 legal ruling on use of IAP's in non-radar
conditions. It is available on Summit's Aviation Reference Library:

The letter states in part:

"You also ask whether a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) arc
initial approach segment can be substituted for a published IAF along
any portion of the published arc. A DME arc cannot be substituted for a
published IAF along a portion of the published arc."

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> You must think you are in Canada. MSAs are emergency altitudes only in
> the U.S.

Even if I grant this (the FARs mention it but do not define it), how would I
then determine the minimum altitude when moving from the airway to the DME
arc? The airway MEA applies only on the airway, which I had left. The
sectional MEF for the quadrant in which I was operating was 1100 feet below
the MSA.

If I'm off-airway, and not within an area for which a MSA is published, how do
I determine my minimum instrument altitude? If the MEA on the airway had been
14,000 feet, how would I get from that altitude to the appropriate altitude to
capture the ILS glide slope in the distance available to me?

> Airspace protected from obstacles.

By remaining at or above the MSA, I was protected from obstacles. This is true
whether an emergency existed or not.

> Chief counsel's November, 1994 legal ruling on use of IAP's in non-radar
> conditions. It is available on Summit's Aviation Reference Library:
>
> The letter states in part:
>
> "You also ask whether a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) arc
> initial approach segment can be substituted for a published IAF along
> any portion of the published arc. A DME arc cannot be substituted for a
> published IAF along a portion of the published arc."

I have the letter in front of me, but I do not see the relevance of it.
Explain how it applies here.

I also don't see any indication of feeder routes on the IAP plate. Can you
point these indications out to me?

I'll ask again: Describe exactly how I should have flown this, and explain
why, step by step.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>You must think you are in Canada. MSAs are emergency altitudes only in
>>the U.S.
>
>
> Even if I grant this (the FARs mention it but do not define it), how would I
> then determine the minimum altitude when moving from the airway to the DME
> arc? The airway MEA applies only on the airway, which I had left. The
> sectional MEF for the quadrant in which I was operating was 1100 feet below
> the MSA.
>
> If I'm off-airway, and not within an area for which a MSA is published, how do
> I determine my minimum instrument altitude? If the MEA on the airway had been
> 14,000 feet, how would I get from that altitude to the appropriate altitude to
> capture the ILS glide slope in the distance available to me?
>
>
>>Airspace protected from obstacles.
>
>
> By remaining at or above the MSA, I was protected from obstacles. This is true
> whether an emergency existed or not.
>
>
>>Chief counsel's November, 1994 legal ruling on use of IAP's in non-radar
>>conditions. It is available on Summit's Aviation Reference Library:
>>
>>The letter states in part:
>>
>> "You also ask whether a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) arc
>>initial approach segment can be substituted for a published IAF along
>>any portion of the published arc. A DME arc cannot be substituted for a
>>published IAF along a portion of the published arc."
>
>
> I have the letter in front of me, but I do not see the relevance of it.
> Explain how it applies here.
>
> I also don't see any indication of feeder routes on the IAP plate. Can you
> point these indications out to me?
>
> I'll ask again: Describe exactly how I should have flown this, and explain
> why, step by step.

If you don't see the relevance of the letter and you don't understand
MSAs, then just go play with yourself. You are up to the same bull****
game.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Classic example of Anthony thinking that by reading something (although not
understanding) he somehow gains expertise, which is of course not the case.

His questions and responses clearly demonstrate his fundamental lack of
knowledge of how the system works, as well as how to fly instrument
procedures.

Perhaps he should go back to asking about the location of the ejection seat
handle in a Baron.

[Sam Spade]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Classic example of Anthony thinking that by reading something (although not
> understanding) he somehow gains expertise, which is of course not the case.
>
> His questions and responses clearly demonstrate his fundamental lack of
> knowledge of how the system works, as well as how to fly instrument
> procedures.
>
> Perhaps he should go back to asking about the location of the ejection seat
> handle in a Baron.
>
>
It all goes beyond his inability and unwillingness to learn. He
displays a profound personality defect by the need to ask for technical
help then attacking those who try to help.

I don't know why the nut house permits him access to the Internet.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Given his history, it's no wonder why he can't find a job in either the US
or France, yet he only blames others and never takes responsbility himself.

[Tom S.[_2_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc wrote:
>> Classic example of Anthony thinking that by reading something (although
>> not understanding) he somehow gains expertise, which is of course not the
>> case.
>>
>> His questions and responses clearly demonstrate his fundamental lack of
>> knowledge of how the system works, as well as how to fly instrument
>> procedures.
>>
>> Perhaps he should go back to asking about the location of the ejection
>> seat handle in a Baron.
> It all goes beyond his inability and unwillingness to learn. He displays
> a profound personality defect by the need to ask for technical help then
> attacking those who try to help.
>
> I don't know why the nut house permits him access to the Internet.

I don't know why you feed the troll then wonder why he keeping popping up.

Matt B.

[Sam Spade]

Tom S. wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Viperdoc wrote:
>>
>>>Classic example of Anthony thinking that by reading something (although
>>>not understanding) he somehow gains expertise, which is of course not the
>>>case.
>>>
>>>His questions and responses clearly demonstrate his fundamental lack of
>>>knowledge of how the system works, as well as how to fly instrument
>>>procedures.
>>>
>>>Perhaps he should go back to asking about the location of the ejection
>>>seat handle in a Baron.
>>
>>It all goes beyond his inability and unwillingness to learn. He displays
>>a profound personality defect by the need to ask for technical help then
>>attacking those who try to help.
>>
>>I don't know why the nut house permits him access to the Internet.
>
>
> I don't know why you feed the troll then wonder why he keeping popping up.
>
> Matt B.
>
>
Because I mistakenly thought he was asking some quasi-legitimate
questions. Or, perhaps I just wanted to rub his face in his unending
ignorance, not stopping to realize it is impossible to have an
intelligent discussion with a troll. Shame on me.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 15, 5:34*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Kindly take a look at the ILS runway 26 approach to Astoria (KAST). *I tried
> to fly this in my sim and I'm not at all sure that I did it correctly.
>
> In my case, this is what I did: *I was on V187 from Seattle at 6000. *Once I
> was within 25 nm of AST, I descended to 4300. *About 12 nm away from AST, I
> turned roughly north and flew back out to 19 DME from AST, then turned east to
> follow the 19 DME arc until I was within a few degrees of the localizer
> course. *At that point I started a turn towards the localizer and armed the
> autopilot, which captured the localizer and glide slope immediately and took
> over. *About a mile away from the airport I disengaged the AP and flew the
> landing by hand.
>
> Was this correct? *I'm confused by the references to the NDB and the pointers
> towards the east and the procedure turn. *Do I have multiple options for this
> approach? *Was the way I flew it one of them? *Or what?
>
> I almost thought that maybe I was supposed to fly to the VOR then outbound to
> the NDB then make a procedure turn and come back in. *But the DME arc had IAFs
> at each end so I finally figured I could just come in towards the VOR then fly
> back out to the arc and finally turn towards the airport, which is what I did.

There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about this approach. Any rated
pilot, from 50 miles out at 6000 feet on V187 would not be happy to
hear center say "Cleared ILS 26, report to the tower at the outer
marker inbound" but would know what to do. It would be the same thing
we would do had we lost radio communication and our last clearance was
to that airport. Have you any clue as to why we would not be happy to
get that clearance?

What would YOU do? And provide references.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 19, 9:42*am, a > wrote:
> On Mar 15, 5:34*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kindly take a look at the ILS runway 26 approach to Astoria (KAST). *I tried
> > to fly this in my sim and I'm not at all sure that I did it correctly.
>
> > In my case, this is what I did: *I was on V187 from Seattle at 6000. *Once I
> > was within 25 nm of AST, I descended to 4300. *About 12 nm away from AST, I
> > turned roughly north and flew back out to 19 DME from AST, then turned east to
> > follow the 19 DME arc until I was within a few degrees of the localizer
> > course. *At that point I started a turn towards the localizer and armed the
> > autopilot, which captured the localizer and glide slope immediately and took
> > over. *About a mile away from the airport I disengaged the AP and flew the
> > landing by hand.
>
> > Was this correct? *I'm confused by the references to the NDB and the pointers
> > towards the east and the procedure turn. *Do I have multiple options for this
> > approach? *Was the way I flew it one of them? *Or what?
>
> > I almost thought that maybe I was supposed to fly to the VOR then outbound to
> > the NDB then make a procedure turn and come back in. *But the DME arc had IAFs
> > at each end so I finally figured I could just come in towards the VOR then fly
> > back out to the arc and finally turn towards the airport, which is what I did.
>
> There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about this approach. *Any rated
> pilot, from 50 miles out at 6000 feet on V187 would not be happy to
> hear center say "Cleared ILS 26, report to the tower at the outer
> marker inbound" but would know what to do. It would be the same thing
> we would do had we lost radio communication and our last clearance was
> to that airport. Have you any clue as to why we would not be happy to
> get that clearance?
>
> What would YOU do? And provide references.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Apparently I don't understand the question. This approach does not
seem to be unusual, and your scenario would not make me unhappy
(unless you just don't like doing full approaches).

Maurice Givens
CSEL, CSES, CMEL, CFI-A, CFI-I, AGI, IGI
CAP Check Pilot

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 19, 1:08*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 19, 9:42*am, a > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 5:34*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > Kindly take a look at the ILS runway 26 approach to Astoria (KAST). *I tried
> > > to fly this in my sim and I'm not at all sure that I did it correctly..
>
> > > In my case, this is what I did: *I was on V187 from Seattle at 6000.. *Once I
> > > was within 25 nm of AST, I descended to 4300. *About 12 nm away from AST, I
> > > turned roughly north and flew back out to 19 DME from AST, then turned east to
> > > follow the 19 DME arc until I was within a few degrees of the localizer
> > > course. *At that point I started a turn towards the localizer and armed the
> > > autopilot, which captured the localizer and glide slope immediately and took
> > > over. *About a mile away from the airport I disengaged the AP and flew the
> > > landing by hand.
>
> > > Was this correct? *I'm confused by the references to the NDB and the pointers
> > > towards the east and the procedure turn. *Do I have multiple options for this
> > > approach? *Was the way I flew it one of them? *Or what?
>
> > > I almost thought that maybe I was supposed to fly to the VOR then outbound to
> > > the NDB then make a procedure turn and come back in. *But the DME arc had IAFs
> > > at each end so I finally figured I could just come in towards the VOR then fly
> > > back out to the arc and finally turn towards the airport, which is what I did.
>
> > There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about this approach. *Any rated
> > pilot, from 50 miles out at 6000 feet on V187 would not be happy to
> > hear center say "Cleared ILS 26, report to the tower at the outer
> > marker inbound" but would know what to do. It would be the same thing
> > we would do had we lost radio communication and our last clearance was
> > to that airport. Have you any clue as to why we would not be happy to
> > get that clearance?
>
> > What would YOU do? And provide references.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Apparently I don't understand the question. *This approach does not
> seem to be unusual, and your scenario would not make me unhappy
> (unless you just don't like doing full approaches).
>
> Maurice Givens
> CSEL, CSES, CMEL, CFI-A, CFI-I, AGI, IGI
> CAP Check Pilot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The question was directed to the OP, Maury. Consider again the
clearance and your position. My own preference is to not have to hurry
down from en route altitudes.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 19, 2:28*pm, a > wrote:
> On Mar 19, 1:08*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 9:42*am, a > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 15, 5:34*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > > Kindly take a look at the ILS runway 26 approach to Astoria (KAST). *I tried
> > > > to fly this in my sim and I'm not at all sure that I did it correctly.
>
> > > > In my case, this is what I did: *I was on V187 from Seattle at 6000. *Once I
> > > > was within 25 nm of AST, I descended to 4300. *About 12 nm away from AST, I
> > > > turned roughly north and flew back out to 19 DME from AST, then turned east to
> > > > follow the 19 DME arc until I was within a few degrees of the localizer
> > > > course. *At that point I started a turn towards the localizer and armed the
> > > > autopilot, which captured the localizer and glide slope immediately and took
> > > > over. *About a mile away from the airport I disengaged the AP and flew the
> > > > landing by hand.
>
> > > > Was this correct? *I'm confused by the references to the NDB and the pointers
> > > > towards the east and the procedure turn. *Do I have multiple options for this
> > > > approach? *Was the way I flew it one of them? *Or what?
>
> > > > I almost thought that maybe I was supposed to fly to the VOR then outbound to
> > > > the NDB then make a procedure turn and come back in. *But the DME arc had IAFs
> > > > at each end so I finally figured I could just come in towards the VOR then fly
> > > > back out to the arc and finally turn towards the airport, which is what I did.
>
> > > There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about this approach. *Any rated
> > > pilot, from 50 miles out at 6000 feet on V187 would not be happy to
> > > hear center say "Cleared ILS 26, report to the tower at the outer
> > > marker inbound" but would know what to do. It would be the same thing
> > > we would do had we lost radio communication and our last clearance was
> > > to that airport. Have you any clue as to why we would not be happy to
> > > get that clearance?
>
> > > What would YOU do? And provide references.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Apparently I don't understand the question. *This approach does not
> > seem to be unusual, and your scenario would not make me unhappy
> > (unless you just don't like doing full approaches).
>
> > Maurice Givens
> > CSEL, CSES, CMEL, CFI-A, CFI-I, AGI, IGI
> > CAP Check Pilot- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The question was directed to the OP, Maury. Consider again the
> clearance and your position. My own preference is to not have to hurry
> down from en route altitudes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

O.K., you're at 6000 ft on V187, AST defines V187, there is a feeder
from AST to KARPEN and you're allowed to descend to 4300 ft. on the
feeder. The feeder is 12.3 mi from AST to KARPEN. I think I can lose
1700 ft in 12.3 mi., do the procedure turn and intercept. Am I
missing something? This does not appear to be that difficult.


Maurice Givens
CSEL, CSES, CMEL, CFI-A, CFI-I, AGI, IGI
CAP Check Pilot

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about this approach. Any rated
> pilot, from 50 miles out at 6000 feet on V187 would not be happy to
> hear center say "Cleared ILS 26, report to the tower at the outer
> marker inbound" but would know what to do. It would be the same thing
> we would do had we lost radio communication and our last clearance was
> to that airport. Have you any clue as to why we would not be happy to
> get that clearance?
>
> What would YOU do? And provide references.

From what I've learned thus far (not here, alas!), I would proceed at my
altitude of 6000 feet to AST, and turn from there towards the PEN NDB, one of
the three IAFs for the approach. After crossing PEN, I would descent to 4300
while making a procedure turn to intercept the ILS localizer. I would then
follow the published lateral and vertical profile until I was fully
established.

I'm not sure why this would make me unhappy.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> The question was directed to the OP, Maury. Consider again the
> clearance and your position. My own preference is to not have to hurry
> down from en route altitudes.

At a ground speed of 120 knots, with a maximum of ten miles within which to
descend from 6000 feet to 4300 feet, I would need a descent rate of 340 fpm,
which is easily achievable. With a 40-knot tailwind at 120 KIAS (not
inconceivable in this case), I would need a descent rate of 453 fpm, still
easy to achieve.

[Beauciphus]

Troll Alert

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

Why would anyone care if something makes you happy or unhappy?

You've stated many times that there are no experienced instrument pilots
here, so why do you keep bothering us with your moronic questions?

[Beauciphus]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> You've stated many times that there are no experienced instrument pilots
> here, so why do you keep bothering us with your moronic questions?

Five letters, starts with a T

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Why would anyone care if something makes you happy or unhappy?
>
> You've stated many times that there are no experienced instrument pilots
> here, so why do you keep bothering us with your moronic questions?

Stalking is evidence of a personality disorder. Personality disorders are
disqualifying conditions for airman medical certification.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

I'd have to check the FAR's regarding personality disorders, but I do know
that I have a Class II medical- how about yours? What class medical do you
have, and what aviation ratings?

What do you know about personality disorders other than your own? Are you a
trained medical practitioner or psychologist? Do you have a medical sim game
that goes along with MSFS?

Having trouble climbing into the treehouse?

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2:28 pm, a > wrote:
>
>>On Mar 19, 1:08 pm, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Mar 19, 9:42 am, a > wrote:
>>
>>>>On Mar 15, 5:34 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>>>>>Kindly take a look at the ILS runway 26 approach to Astoria (KAST). I tried
>>>>>to fly this in my sim and I'm not at all sure that I did it correctly.
>>
>>>>>In my case, this is what I did: I was on V187 from Seattle at 6000. Once I
>>>>>was within 25 nm of AST, I descended to 4300. About 12 nm away from AST, I
>>>>>turned roughly north and flew back out to 19 DME from AST, then turned east to
>>>>>follow the 19 DME arc until I was within a few degrees of the localizer
>>>>>course. At that point I started a turn towards the localizer and armed the
>>>>>autopilot, which captured the localizer and glide slope immediately and took
>>>>>over. About a mile away from the airport I disengaged the AP and flew the
>>>>>landing by hand.
>>
>>>>>Was this correct? I'm confused by the references to the NDB and the pointers
>>>>>towards the east and the procedure turn. Do I have multiple options for this
>>>>>approach? Was the way I flew it one of them? Or what?
>>
>>>>>I almost thought that maybe I was supposed to fly to the VOR then outbound to
>>>>>the NDB then make a procedure turn and come back in. But the DME arc had IAFs
>>>>>at each end so I finally figured I could just come in towards the VOR then fly
>>>>>back out to the arc and finally turn towards the airport, which is what I did.
>>
>>>>There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about this approach. Any rated
>>>>pilot, from 50 miles out at 6000 feet on V187 would not be happy to
>>>>hear center say "Cleared ILS 26, report to the tower at the outer
>>>>marker inbound" but would know what to do. It would be the same thing
>>>>we would do had we lost radio communication and our last clearance was
>>>>to that airport. Have you any clue as to why we would not be happy to
>>>>get that clearance?
>>
>>>>What would YOU do? And provide references.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>Apparently I don't understand the question. This approach does not
>>>seem to be unusual, and your scenario would not make me unhappy
>>>(unless you just don't like doing full approaches).
>>
>>>Maurice Givens
>>>CSEL, CSES, CMEL, CFI-A, CFI-I, AGI, IGI
>>>CAP Check Pilot- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>The question was directed to the OP, Maury. Consider again the
>>clearance and your position. My own preference is to not have to hurry
>>down from en route altitudes.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> O.K., you're at 6000 ft on V187, AST defines V187, there is a feeder
> from AST to KARPEN and you're allowed to descend to 4300 ft. on the
> feeder. The feeder is 12.3 mi from AST to KARPEN. I think I can lose
> 1700 ft in 12.3 mi., do the procedure turn and intercept. Am I
> missing something? This does not appear to be that difficult.
>
>
> Maurice Givens
> CSEL, CSES, CMEL, CFI-A, CFI-I, AGI, IGI
> CAP Check Pilot
>
>
Why are you concerned with being at 4,300 at KARPEN eastbound? The
procedure turn completion altitude is also 4,300. Then, upon
intercepting the localizer at completion of procedure turn you have only
another 300 feet to descend to intercept the G/S.

[Beauciphus]

Troll Alert - hide your cookies

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 20, 5:52*am, "Beauciphus" > wrote:
> Troll Alert - hide your cookies

He does present himself as a target, doesn't he? I took the bait --
sorry.

[Dan Camper]

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:08:50 -0500, Viperdoc wrote:

> Yes, here we go again- he will start arguing how people with instrument
> ratings that are actually pilots don't know the answers, or he will tell us
> why we are wrong.
>
> Anthony is so boringly predictable, yet some do gooder will either defend
> him or try to provide an honest answer, and then it's off to the races.

Of course your incessant posting in his threads is OK dokey.

**** you and your hypocritical horse you rode in on.
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

[Dan Camper]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:29:28 -0500, Viperdoc wrote:

> I'd have to check the FAR's regarding personality disorders, but I do know
> that I have a Class II medical- how about yours? What class medical do you
> have, and what aviation ratings?
>
> What do you know about personality disorders other than your own? Are you a
> trained medical practitioner or psychologist? Do you have a medical sim game
> that goes along with MSFS?
>
> Having trouble climbing into the treehouse?

Throw him down a ladder, TrollBait
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 21, 5:39*pm, Dan Camper > wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:08:50 -0500, Viperdoc wrote:
> > Yes, here we go again- he will start arguing how people with instrument
> > ratings that are actually pilots don't know the answers, or he will tell us
> > why we are wrong.
>
> > Anthony is so boringly predictable, yet some do gooder will either defend
> > him or try to provide an honest answer, and then it's off to the races.
>
> Of course your incessant posting in his threads is OK dokey.
>
> **** you and your hypocritical horse you rode in on.
> --http://tr.im/1f9p

Probably more hypercritical than hypo, but MX does manage to bring out
the worst in some people regarding aviation related issues. He manages
to inspire the internet equivalent of road rage, it's his gift, a
skill that is augmented by extensive practice. I heard Homi Bhabha
(look him up, it's worthwhile) recently give a lecture titled "Also, I
Know That a Man Can Become of an Incredible Wickedness Very Suddenly".
MX is a catayst (Viper, think of him has an enzyme!) in that reaction.

[Beauciphus]

Public discussions of a troll are as satisfying to him as argument.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 19, 5:40*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > The question was directed to the OP, Maury. Consider again the
> > clearance and your position. My own preference is to not have to hurry
> > down from en route altitudes.
>
> At a ground speed of 120 knots, with a maximum of ten miles within which to
> descend from 6000 feet to 4300 feet, I would need a descent rate of 340 fpm,
> which is easily achievable. *With a 40-knot tailwind at 120 KIAS (not
> inconceivable in this case), I would need a descent rate of 453 fpm, still
> easy to achieve.

You don't have to wait until you get to the NDB to start your
descent. You can descend from AST by using the feeder. Down load the
FAA IFR Procedures Handbook from the FAA web site and look up feeder.

Maurice Givens
CSEL, CSES, CMEL, CFI-A, CFI-I, AGI, IGI
CAP Check Pilot

[-b-]

In article >,
says...

>
>From what I've learned thus far (not here, alas!), I would proceed at my
>altitude of 6000 feet to AST, and turn from there towards the PEN NDB, one of
>the three IAFs for the approach. After crossing PEN, I would descent to 4300
>while making a procedure turn to intercept the ILS localizer. I would then
>follow the published lateral and vertical profile until I was fully
>established.
>
>I'm not sure why this would make me unhappy.


The extreme dangers incurred by you misreading of the approach would make any
experienced pilot unhappy. But then, we know little of the afterlife, and we
assume that most accident victims blithely ignored the errors that brought them
to greif. . .