VOR approach SMO

On Jul 23, 7:43 pm, Doug Semler wrote:
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

OK. DTW's approach plates have alot of 5000 crossing restrictions
that are footnoted 4000 when directed by ATC.

I would expect the same footnote to apply to SMO's approach plate if
that were the case.

On Jul 23, 7:43 pm, B wrote:
Doug Semler wrote:
On Jul 23, 5:43 pm, "karl gruber" wrote:

Correct. That's why there's a little * next to the 1120*.

Unless they changed the rules of footnoting on me, the only thing the
little * next to 1120 tells me is that DME is required when the tower
is closed. Presumably to identify CULVE.

Correct, but the note is a bit ambiguous. DME is not required when the
tower is closed unless you want to identify CULVE and use the lower MDA.

You know, I kinda figured this; otherwise it would have been a VOR/DME
appch, right?

Correct. When DME etc. equipped, and descending to 680 after BEVEY,
identifying CULVE does you no good, other than for situational awareness.

Karl

So what does really identifying CULVE do for you if you are
already down to 680 by the the time you identify it?

--

SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:

In article
,
Hamish Reid wrote:

The other point is that you're on an approach with a lot of faster
aircraft behind you, and I'm sure the temptation is to keep going like a
bat out of hell right up until the MDA, at which point you don't have a
lot of time and space to slow down. That hasn't happened to me, but I
can understand why it might. I was asked for best forward speed all the
way from somewhere out near OHIGH to CULVE.

You worry about flying the approach and let ATC worry about the aircraft
behind you. If you're not comfortable flying it any faster than 90 kts,
when they ask you for best speed, just tell them 90 kts IS your best speed.
They'll deal with it.

Well, yes. I wasn't suggesting I had any problems with this at all, just
that I can understand how someone unfamiliar with the approach and the
area might botch things under the pressure, assuming they had more time
to slow down than they really did... I actually enjoyed the experience.

Hamish

In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

No.

You can be 6.7 miles out at 680/DME.

Maybe I'm just thick, but that's not how I read the chart.

After DARTS, you can descend to 2600. After BEVEY, you can descend to
1120. What happens after that depends on whether you can identify CULVE or
not. If you can identify CULVE, once you reach it, you can descend to 680.
Without CULVE, you have to stay at 1120 until you have the runway in sight.

That's my understanding as well -- the chart isn't particularly
ambiguous on this, either...


Look at the plan view. There's a 863 tower at what looks like about 1/2
mile right of the FAC. I'm sure that's the controlling terrain for the
1120 MDA between BEVEY and CULVE.

Indeed. Having briefly worked in the building that that obstruction
represents, I hope there aren't too many pilots out there in IMC
dropping below 1120 before they're at least abeam that point...

Hamish

In article ,
"pgbnh" wrote:

I think all but one of the posters have missed the fact that the MDA is not
1120 but 680.

Assuming radar or DME, yes.

If indeed the vis was 3 miles, then the runway should have
been in sight from the MDA of 680 feet about a mile OUTSIDE of Culve.

But you can't go below 1120 until CULVE unless you're on the visual. The
chart's not particularly ambiguous about this...

(Remember what you can do once you have the runway in sight????)

You generally have to be below the ceiling before the runway's in
sight... At 1120, with 800/3, you're presumably still in the stratus.

At which
point it's not a particularly big deal to lose 500 feet to land on the
numbers. Maybe even crossing Culve at 3-400 feet agl.

Having done the approach for real, I didn't find the descents
particularly challenging, but they do require a bit of forethought,
that's for sure. The hardest part was being dumped inside DARTS at
6,000'....

Hamish

"Hamish Reid" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

I see no problem with the weather 800/3 as you point out. Inside BEVEY
drive
down to 680 outside CULVE, and have 3 miles to descend 505 feet. Any jet
will do that all day long.

So you'd drop below 1120 *outside* CULVE? Even if you were just cutting
things a little fine, the 2.4 miles from CULVE is from the *far end* of
the runway you're landing on... and if you were descending below 1120
just inside BEVEY in IMC, you might be in more trouble than you'd like.

Hamish

OK, you're right............I'm totally wrong. I just broke out my Jepps,
and it is clear from them that 680 is after CULVE, not BEVEY.

A sincere apology to the people I was trashing. Now I'm going out in the
yard and kill more weeds.

Karl
"Curator"
Remind me to take recurrent on NACO

"B" wrote in message ...
karl gruber wrote:

"

The MDA is 1120 unless you have DME. If you have DME then the MDA is 680
once you pass CULVE. You cannot descend below 1120 prior to CULVE even
if you see the runway unless you either cancel, get a contact approach,
or a visual approach.


If you have DME, IFRGPS, or ATC Radar, you can descend to 680 past
BEVEY............that is simply what that chart reads.

Karl
I can see how you could take the NACO chart that way, lacking an
understanding of what the line below 1120 means, and failing to reference
the asterik to the note "When tower closed, DME required."

If you look at the Jeppesen chart you cannot reach that erroneous
conculsion.

In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

OK, you're right............I'm totally wrong. I just broke out my Jepps,
and it is clear from them that 680 is after CULVE, not BEVEY.

A sincere apology to the people I was trashing. Now I'm going out in the
yard and kill more weeds.

Damn. That's no good -- aren't we supposed to bicker on endlessly for at
least another few days?! :-).

Hamish

On Jul 23, 4:30 pm, "karl gruber" wrote:
"

The MDA is 1120 unless you have DME. If you have DME then the MDA is 680
once you pass CULVE. You cannot descend below 1120 prior to CULVE even if
you see the runway unless you either cancel, get a contact approach, or a
visual approach.

If you have DME, IFRGPS, or ATC Radar, you can descend to 680 past
BEVEY............that is simply what that chart reads.

Karl

I'm still a bit confused. When I first looked at the chart I assumed
that you had to have 1120 at CULVE and could go down to 680 after
CULVE. Then looking at it again, it seemed that you could go to 680 at
BEVEY since the 680 is modifying the restriction of 1120 at CULVE
(very, very, scarry with those buildings around). However, looking at
it again, I'm not sure what purpose CULVE would serve if that was the
case. I wonder if this chart meets the FAA requirements because it
seems to be a bit ambiguous. I can't honestly believe that the FAA
would want airplanes at 680 from BEVEY (or anyone who has seen the
approach VFR would want to do that IMC).

-Robert

In article ,
"Milen E. Lazarov" wrote:

On 2007-07-23, karl gruber wrote:
Not with DME, you'll be at 680 far before CULVE.

If you cannot identify CULVE, you descent to 1120 after BEVEY
and wait to see the runway or go missed at the VOR.
If you can identify CULVE, you descent to 680 after BEVEY and
wait to see the runway or go missed at the VOR.
So what does really identifying CULVE do for you if you are
already down to 680 by the the time you identify it?

As I hope everyone's now aware -- for safety's sake, if nothing else,
since I fly that approach every now and then, and there are some
heavily-peopled buildings with heights above 680' close to the approach
centreline between BEVEY and CULVE -- *you cannot go below 1120' MSL
before CULVE unless you're on the visual*, regardless of whether you can
identify CULVE or not.

There's simply nothing ambiguous about this on the approach plate I'm
looking at....

Hamish