VOR approach SMO

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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?

Hamish Reid wrote:

Dear God -- not this again.

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

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