VOR approach SMO

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

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."

"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?

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.

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. ;-)