VOR approach SMO

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

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

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

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.

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

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)

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

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

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, 10:55 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