Viperdoc wrote:
Basically, it's as I initially said. We were at 13,000 and then were cleared
to intercept the arc from the SW. I was still descending while trying to fly
the arc, and then intercepted the final approach course while still in the
descent.

So, it was descending at a pretty rapid rate, turning to intercept the BC,
turbulence, and ice. I do have WAAS GPS as well as traditional DME, which
made some of it easier, but did not couple the autopilot, and hand flew
instead. (The DME fixes on the GPS may not necessarily be the same as the
DME from the navaid.)

I made very sure that I stayed on the final approach course, and did not get
low (which never happened due to the circumstances). Again, it is a non
radar environment, so the tower was asking for DME readouts.

The second WAAS GPS was set for the terrain page, as added information.


Monday Morning quarterbacking:

1. You had the latest and greatest RNAV package available.

2. The RNAV Runway 9 IAP has an MDA 520 feet lower than the LOC DME
(BACK CRS)-C.

3. The back course approach doesn't have straight-in minimums even
though it is lineup up exactly with the runway. That means the descent
gradient is excessive for straight-in minimums. In fact, the descent
gradient is very high; 635 feet per mile from the FAF to the runway at
threshold crossing height.

4. The descent on the RNAV Runway 9 is 3.46 degrees from the FAF. as
shown on the chart; or just less than 370 feet per mile.

5. Because the LOC BC approach does not have straight-in minimums you
can do a 360 once clear of clouds, but you need approval from the tower
to do that. It would have to be done at not less than 5120 and north of
course, and within the circling maneuvering area.

The RNAV 9 would have been my choice, given your equipment, then the
tower would be obligated to make reference to that procedure.

Unless you insist on the RNAV 9 they will always use the back course
because it makes life easier for them (they have all those DME distances
to make you report. ;-)