![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway
heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see. Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed approach for no reason. Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156 deg? There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
first approach in IMC | G. Sylvester | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | July 12th 05 02:14 AM |
ILS or LOC approach? | Dan Wegman | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | May 9th 05 11:41 PM |
No FAF on an ILS approach...? | John Harper | Instrument Flight Rules | 7 | December 24th 03 03:54 AM |
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 45 | November 20th 03 05:20 AM |
Brief an approach | Ditch | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | October 14th 03 12:10 AM |