VOR approach- when to descend from the FAF

Greg Esres wrote:

Les Izmore wrote:

This is being treated like some kind of academic angels-on-the-head-
of-a-pin question. It is not.

Not to you, maybe. People ask questions here for a variety of
reasons: 1) legality, 2) safety, 3) passing checkrides, 4) curiosity,
etc.

Regarding safety, no doubt you're 100% correct.

We have a local VOR approach with a course change at the FAF and a
high descent gradient on final. Without descending immediately pass
the VOR, the odds of getting in shrink rapidly.

Not to mention real issues trying to do a slam-dunk low to the ground.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:41:20 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 19, 2:53*pm, Les Izmore wrote:

This is being treated like some kind of academic
angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin question. *It is not.

It is academic.

Two choices, very simple. Either you are on the final approach
course, or not. If not, you go missed, nothing complicated.


I think you need to go back and re-read the original post.


They usually "try harder" *to reintercept the course while going still
lower. *This practially always ends up in a situation that could be
disastrous in actual conditions.

Then that pilot is behind the plane. See above for choices of
action. Really very academic. It may not be a training issue, but a
currency issue, thus the IMPORTANCE of staying current.

and I base that opinion on watching a lot of
pilots, many of them experienced and *instrument rated, screw
approaches up pretty badly, for any number of reasons.

At anytime a pilot "screws up" as you alleged, missed is always that
option. Very academic. I personally experience quite the opposite
for IA pilots when I was their safety pilot, they get it right and
never gone full deflection. I am not a CFI by any means for what this
is worth.

I don't care what the "book" says.

Book is very clear. If you are not on the final approach course
within the established tolerances, you go missed. What part of the
book is hard to understand?

The orignal question is a very elementary question for IA flying.

For what it's worth, in my 600 hours of instrument flying, it takes a
hell of a lot more then 1 or 2 miles for the CDI to start moving. If
that is happening to the original poster, or you experienced that,
then there is something wrong with that station signal or airplane
equipment and a missed approach is in order. KMBO has the VOR alpha
approach and I can pick up the VOR signal strong on both my NAV1 and
NAV2 within 20 miles.

When you are within 1 or 2 miles of a final approach fix (I.E. VOR) it
is normal to get a full deflection from that "zone of confusion" for
the CDI. The needles will recapture within a mile or two of station
passage.

But you do not descend before getting the from flag on your NAV1 or
NAV2 AND being on the final approach course. If you don't get a from
flag you go missed even if you are on the final approach course as
something is radically wrong equipment wise.. Note the word AND, both
being on the approach course AND from flag, BOTH must be present.
VERY SIMPLE!

The original question was so basic, that it sounded like an Mx
question..

Allen

On Feb 20, 12:33*pm, Les Izmore wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:41:20 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:53*pm, Les Izmore wrote:

This is being treated like some kind of academic
angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin question. *It is not.

It is academic.

Two choices, very simple. *Either you are on the final approach
course, or not. *If not, you go missed, nothing complicated.

I think you need to go back and re-read the original post.

Why? My response was directed to you.

It was a very academic question and I responses were to what I quoted
on you, not the original poster.

If I wanted to respond to the original post, I would have done so.

Your response at best was very questionable, and see what I quoted on
what I was questioning.

Allen

The original post, and subsequent messages (with the exception of
yours) all related to the advisability of starting a descent on a VOR
approach immediately upon passing a VOR, before aquiring any course
guidance from the VOR needle or HSI.

Your response was not germane.


Read the posts, Grasshopper. Your responses will then more likely be
relevant to the issues.





On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:28:54 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 20, 12:33*pm, Les Izmore wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:41:20 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:53*pm, Les Izmore wrote:

This is being treated like some kind of academic
angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin question. *It is not.

It is academic.

Two choices, very simple. *Either you are on the final approach
course, or not. *If not, you go missed, nothing complicated.

I think you need to go back and re-read the original post.

Why? My response was directed to you.

It was a very academic question and I responses were to what I quoted
on you, not the original poster.

If I wanted to respond to the original post, I would have done so.

Your response at best was very questionable, and see what I quoted on
what I was questioning.

Allen

On Feb 20, 4:01*pm, Les Izmore wrote:
Your response was not germane.

REALLY???????

Where did I misquote you and where did I misappropriately reply to
YOUR responses.

Like I said, if I wanted to respond to the original post, I would
have. I responded to you, and quoted your response.

Better hop to English reading courses grasshopper.

Allen

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:56:13 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 20, 4:01*pm, Les Izmore wrote:
Your response was not germane.

REALLY???????

Where did I misquote you and where did I misappropriately reply to
YOUR responses.



Where did anyone say you misquoted me? "Not germane" does not mean
"misquote".

You were off the thread topic, very simply.

If you wish to discuss that topic (see the Subject line- " VOR
approach - when to descend from the FAF"), I will be happy to
accomodate you.

The other stuff you mentioned is of no interest.



Like I said, if I wanted to respond to the original post, I would
have. I responded to you, and quoted your response.

Better hop to English reading courses grasshopper.

Allen

On Feb 20, 9:31*pm, Les Izmore wrote:

The other stuff you mentioned is of no interest.

To you maybe of no interest.... because I responded to you,
questioning some things you said?

Clearly what you said regarding pilots messing up approaches didn't
have anything to do with the original posted question.

Clearly the way you don't believe in what the book said had nothing to
do with the original posted question.

Clearly pilots trying to reintercept the localizer had nothing to do
with the original question.

So, who drifted of topic????

Like I said grasshopper, get to a reading course,

ALL I DID was respond to your very strange responsey. Don't believe
me? Reread your own post and my subsequent replies.

Like it or not grasshopper, my replies were relevant to your post
since I replied DIRECTLY to your post.

Allen

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:26:41 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 20, 9:31*pm, Les Izmore wrote:

The other stuff you mentioned is of no interest.

To you maybe of no interest.... because I responded to you,
questioning some things you said?

Clearly what you said regarding pilots messing up approaches didn't
have anything to do with the original posted question.


It had everything to do with the original question.

Let me explain:

The original poster asked about starting to descend on a VOR approach
before receiving an on-course indication from his navigation
equipment. A responder or two either implied or said explicitly that
there was no problem in doing that.

I posted a contrary opinion, and said I thought it was not a good
practice.

To support that statement, I said that I had seen (and I have) many
approaches messed up once the pilot loses the approach course below
altitude and then tries to remedy the situation in undesirable ways.


Clearly the way you don't believe in what the book said had nothing to
do with the original posted question.


Clearly it does. I was stating that safety issues often override what
might be permitted by "the book", in this case, descending without
positve guidance.


Clearly pilots trying to reintercept the localizer had nothing to do
with the original question.


Au contraire, but it clearly did. It was a part of the scenario I was
using to describe an accident chain that could begin with the case in
point. (It was a VOR approach, incidentally, not a localizer)


So, who drifted of topic????

Like I said grasshopper, get to a reading course,

ALL I DID was respond to your very strange responsey. Don't believe
me? Reread your own post and my subsequent replies.


In the future, I might suggest that you think twice before responding
to what you describe as "strange response[s])". They may appear
strange to you because, as is obvious in this case, you simply do
not have a firm grasp of the issue under discussion.

I can't help you with that. However, if you wish to try to discuss
the safety issues involved in beginning a descent without course
guidance, I will be happy to oblige, in the interests of aviation
safety.



Like it or not grasshopper, my replies were relevant to your post
since I replied DIRECTLY to your post.

Allen

"Terence Wilson" wrote in message
...
When flying a VOR approach in which the FAF is defined by the VOR, is
it appropriate to start the descent to the MAP, or next stepdown,
immediately after overflying the VOR or should I wait until I have
positive course guidance for the final approach segment?

I ask because it can sometimes take 1-2nm for the CDI to move, which
may require a rushed descent to the MAP on some approaches.

I spend that minute or so making sure my heading and approach airspeed are
under control, and then simply catch up to the descent afterward when the
needle comes back. It'll be interesting to see how other people do it, but
that's the way I was trained.

-c

On 02/21/08 09:27, gatt wrote:
"Terence Wilson" wrote in message
...
When flying a VOR approach in which the FAF is defined by the VOR, is
it appropriate to start the descent to the MAP, or next stepdown,
immediately after overflying the VOR or should I wait until I have
positive course guidance for the final approach segment?

I ask because it can sometimes take 1-2nm for the CDI to move, which
may require a rushed descent to the MAP on some approaches.

I spend that minute or so making sure my heading and approach airspeed are
under control, and then simply catch up to the descent afterward when the
needle comes back. It'll be interesting to see how other people do it, but
that's the way I was trained.

-c



I was taught to begin the descent at station passage (using the 5 'T's).
It's never taken more than just a very few seconds for the CDI to start
coming back in. A minute seems awfully long.

By the way, if the needle doesn't come back in, I would go missed. The
first thing I do there is begin a climb. I really don't see how it causes
any problems to begin the descent at station passage (assuming that is
what the procedure calls for, of course).


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA