Help understanding Aspen VOR/DME approach

Note that the angle is given on then chart, at about 10
degrees. This is possible for some STOL aircraft, but 3
degrees is an average.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
| On 08/05/06 20:16, Bob Gardner wrote:
| Yes. The minimum descent altitude is 10,200...either
land (good luck!),
| circle, or do the miss at the MAP. I've never done this
approach in a sim or
| in real life, so I'm just going by the plate.
|
| As a general rule, not limited to this approach, nothing
regulatory keeps
| you from landing straight in if you are in position to
do so, even with
| circling-only minima. Doing so will always be tough.
|
| Well, they say you must be able to complete the approach
and land using
| "normal" maneuvers. They don't define "normal", but I
would think a really
| steep descent would not be normal.
|
|
| Bob Gardner
|
|
| Bob Gardner
|
| "SimGuy" wrote in message
| ...
|
|
| "SimGuy" wrote in message
| news | The plate is here-
|
|
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://.../05889VDGC.PDF
|
| While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to
the MAP with
| relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to
make the runway
| without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it
seems a drop of 2380'
| must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a
lateral distance of
| 1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
|
| Could someone please confirm this or help with my
interpretation of
| the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.
|
| TIA
|
| On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:09:35 -0700, "Bob Gardner"

| wrote:
|
| You get a clue from the fact that there are no
straight-in minimums. Then
| there is the "C" in the title. When there is no runway
number, one of two
| things is evident: either the runway is not aligned
with the final
| approach
| course (not in this case, of course), or the descent
rate does not meet
| the
| 400-foot per mile maximum allowable descent rate. You
have to circle.
|
| Bob Gardner
|
| (you top-posted so I moved your message)
|
| Thanks, that makes much more sense. But I have a
question- the
| circling minimum is 10,200', this applies up to the MAP
right?
| Obviously in circling the runway one would need to get
lower.
|
|
|
|
|
| --
| Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
| Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
| Sacramento, CA

SimGuy wrote:
The plate is here-

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://.../05889VDGC.PDF

While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!

Could someone please confirm this or help with my interpretation of
the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.

TIA

Having actually flow this approach in a real airplane, a T182RG. It is a
real SLAM DUNK. We ended up circling to get down. Spoilers would be a
huge help.

Michelle

A common misunderstanding I have seen from IFR students is the concept
that transition to visual begins at the MAP. MAP is where the missed
approach begins; it is not where the visual segment begins. You should
be in visual well prior to the MAP, otherwise a normal descent and
landing may not be possible. This is why some approaches designate a
VDP (Visual Descent Point), a point from where you can make a 3-deg
descent to the runway.

Aspen is not the only example. There are plenty of examples where the
MAP is on top of the runway (or even past the runway), so a straight-in
landing is clearly not possible from that point.



SimGuy wrote:
The plate is here-

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://.../05889VDGC.PDF

While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!

Could someone please confirm this or help with my interpretation of
the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.

TIA

SimGuy wrote:
The plate is here-

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://.../05889VDGC.PDF

While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!

Could someone please confirm this or help with my interpretation of
the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.

TIA

On 6 Aug 2006 09:08:33 -0700, "Andrew Sarangan"
wrote:

A common misunderstanding I have seen from IFR students is the concept
that transition to visual begins at the MAP. MAP is where the missed
approach begins; it is not where the visual segment begins. You should
be in visual well prior to the MAP, otherwise a normal descent and
landing may not be possible. This is why some approaches designate a
VDP (Visual Descent Point), a point from where you can make a 3-deg
descent to the runway.

Aspen is not the only example. There are plenty of examples where the
MAP is on top of the runway (or even past the runway), so a straight-in
landing is clearly not possible from that point.



I must admit this has confused me. Is it the case that once I have the
field in sight I can dip below the minimums on the chart?

Absolutely! Once the field is in sight, with enough flight visibility,
you can descend below the minimum (FAR 91.175). If you couldn't, many
nonprecision approaches would be simply unflyable.


SimGuy wrote:

SimGuy wrote:
The plate is here-

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://.../05889VDGC.PDF

While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!

Could someone please confirm this or help with my interpretation of
the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.

TIA

On 6 Aug 2006 09:08:33 -0700, "Andrew Sarangan"
wrote:

A common misunderstanding I have seen from IFR students is the concept
that transition to visual begins at the MAP. MAP is where the missed
approach begins; it is not where the visual segment begins. You should
be in visual well prior to the MAP, otherwise a normal descent and
landing may not be possible. This is why some approaches designate a
VDP (Visual Descent Point), a point from where you can make a 3-deg
descent to the runway.

Aspen is not the only example. There are plenty of examples where the
MAP is on top of the runway (or even past the runway), so a straight-in
landing is clearly not possible from that point.



I must admit this has confused me. Is it the case that once I have the
field in sight I can dip below the minimums on the chart?