VOR approach SMO

In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

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

It shows.

rg

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?

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.

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)

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

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

On Jul 23, 7:23 pm, Roy Smith wrote:
In article . com,

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

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

On Jul 23, 7:23 pm, Roy Smith wrote:
In article . com,

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.

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