A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hardest approach flown so far



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #29  
Old July 14th 07, 06:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
q
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Hardest approach flown so far

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. ;-)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Easiest and Hardest [email protected] Piloting 13 July 4th 06 02:39 PM
Has anyone flown in here? john smith Piloting 2 October 2nd 05 11:36 AM
Approach Question- Published Missed Can't be flown? Brad Z Instrument Flight Rules 8 May 6th 04 04:19 AM
has anyone flown with these ? Damian John Paul Brown General Aviation 0 April 15th 04 04:26 AM
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach John Clonts Instrument Flight Rules 45 November 20th 03 05:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.