VOR approach SMO

In article ,
"Milen E. Lazarov" wrote:

On 2007-07-23, karl gruber wrote:
Not with DME, you'll be at 680 far before CULVE.

If you cannot identify CULVE, you descent to 1120 after BEVEY
and wait to see the runway or go missed at the VOR.
If you can identify CULVE, you descent to 680 after BEVEY and
wait to see the runway or go missed at the VOR.
So what does really identifying CULVE do for you if you are
already down to 680 by the the time you identify it?

As I hope everyone's now aware -- for safety's sake, if nothing else,
since I fly that approach every now and then, and there are some
heavily-peopled buildings with heights above 680' close to the approach
centreline between BEVEY and CULVE -- *you cannot go below 1120' MSL
before CULVE unless you're on the visual*, regardless of whether you can
identify CULVE or not.

There's simply nothing ambiguous about this on the approach plate I'm
looking at....

Hamish

On Jul 23, 4:08 pm, B wrote:
Right, dive to 1120 and drive to CULVE, then dive to 680.

So, the question is still, how does the GulfStream get from CULVE at
1120 down to 0 at the numbers. I was in IMC with gear and flaps down,
power at idle and in a slip and I was still about 3/4 down when I
touched. Does a GulfStream drop faster than a Mooney?

-Robert

In article . com,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Jul 23, 4:30 pm, "karl gruber" wrote:
"

The MDA is 1120 unless you have DME. If you have DME then the MDA is 680
once you pass CULVE. You cannot descend below 1120 prior to CULVE even if
you see the runway unless you either cancel, get a contact approach, or a
visual approach.

If you have DME, IFRGPS, or ATC Radar, you can descend to 680 past
BEVEY............that is simply what that chart reads.

Karl

I'm still a bit confused. When I first looked at the chart I assumed
that you had to have 1120 at CULVE and could go down to 680 after
CULVE. Then looking at it again, it seemed that you could go to 680 at
BEVEY since the 680 is modifying the restriction of 1120 at CULVE
(very, very, scarry with those buildings around). However, looking at
it again, I'm not sure what purpose CULVE would serve if that was the
case. I wonder if this chart meets the FAA requirements because it
seems to be a bit ambiguous. I can't honestly believe that the FAA
would want airplanes at 680 from BEVEY (or anyone who has seen the
approach VFR would want to do that IMC).


Robert -- you're right, and Karl has (rather graciously, I have to
admit) apologised else-thread for misreading the chart. Having looked at
the NACO plates I still find it a little difficult to see how people are
misreading them -- the asterisk next to CULVE on the NACO profile view
refers to the note specifying that if SMO tower is closed, you must use
DME to identify CULVE. It does not affect the unambiguous underlined
1120 step altitude between BEVEY and CULVE in any way. The minimums box
below that is very clear -- 1120 unless you can identify CULVE, in which
case 680; and the latter only applies after CULVE.

As you say, the idea that anyone would descend below 1120 much before
CULVE on that approach in IMC is really scary -- there are significant
buildings in the area with heights above 680' close to the approach...

Hamish

In article
,
Hamish Reid wrote:

Indeed. Having briefly worked in the building that that obstruction
represents, I hope there aren't too many pilots out there in IMC
dropping below 1120 before they're at least abeam that point...

There's nothing that makes you appreciate the importance of the MDA like
being part of the terrain :-)

On Jul 23, 3:15 pm, Roy Smith wrote:
In article ,

CULVE is 1.6 nm from the threshold. If you cross it at 1120, you're 945
feet AGL (referenced to the runway surface). So, to hit the numbers, you
need to keep a 590 ft/nm descent gradient from CULVE to the runway.
Looking at it another way, at 90 kts and no wind, you need an 885 ft/min
descent rate. That's fast, but not outrageously so. It's about twice as
steep as an ILS.

Maybe easy in a 172 but not in my Mooney. With gear and flaps out and
power at idle I don't think I can do 885 ft/min without a lot of
slipping. Even if I could there is still the issue of going from 90
knots approach speed down to 70 knots threshold crossing speed. This
is why I was 3/4 down the runway. I'm still wondering how the
GulfStream did that.

-Robert

On Jul 23, 8:31 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Jul 23, 4:08 pm, B wrote:

Right, dive to 1120 and drive to CULVE, then dive to 680.

So, the question is still, how does the GulfStream get from CULVE at
1120 down to 0 at the numbers. I was in IMC with gear and flaps down,
power at idle and in a slip and I was still about 3/4 down when I
touched. Does a GulfStream drop faster than a Mooney?


I wouldn't be surprised...doesn't NASA use Gulfstreams albiet
modified) to train Shuttle pilots to be able to land the "flying
brick?" g

In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

OK, you're right............I'm totally wrong. I just broke out my Jepps,
and it is clear from them that 680 is after CULVE, not BEVEY.

A sincere apology to the people I was trashing. Now I'm going out in the
yard and kill more weeds.

What was on the Jepp version that made it more clear than the NOS plate?

On Jul 23, 9:39 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
The other day I shot the VOR approach into SMO for the first time in
low actual. I've often looked at that approach as one of the most
difficult I've seen published so it was interesting to actually try
it. The weather was 008OVC with something like 3sm HZ. I touched down
about 3/4 down the runway and was able to stop without a problem.
However, while taxiing back, I noticed a Gulf Stream land right on the
numbers. There is no way you can tell me he properly flew the approach
and was able to touch on the numbers.
The approach is published as a circle to land (I assume because of the
extreme nature of the decent) but they certainly were not offering to
allow anyone to circle. In fact there was a steady line of jets coming
in, it would probably have been unlikely to get a circle approved.

Last night I departed. AWOS was reporting 005OVC. I took off right
around 21:10. There was a large Citation right behind me picking up
his clearance. I didn't ever hear him depart on approach frequency so
I'm assuming he missed his curfew and his execs got stranded.

-Robert

So, in the end it sounds like if everyone on this list had just
grabbed the chart and flown the approach, about 3/4 of the people
would have died (gone down to 680 before CULVE). Wow, does it seem
like the FAA should make this chart a bit more clear?

-Robert

On Jul 23, 8:51 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Jul 23, 9:39 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:





The other day I shot the VOR approach into SMO for the first time in
low actual. I've often looked at that approach as one of the most
difficult I've seen published so it was interesting to actually try
it. The weather was 008OVC with something like 3sm HZ. I touched down
about 3/4 down the runway and was able to stop without a problem.
However, while taxiing back, I noticed a Gulf Stream land right on the
numbers. There is no way you can tell me he properly flew the approach
and was able to touch on the numbers.
The approach is published as a circle to land (I assume because of the
extreme nature of the decent) but they certainly were not offering to
allow anyone to circle. In fact there was a steady line of jets coming
in, it would probably have been unlikely to get a circle approved.

Last night I departed. AWOS was reporting 005OVC. I took off right
around 21:10. There was a large Citation right behind me picking up
his clearance. I didn't ever hear him depart on approach frequency so
I'm assuming he missed his curfew and his execs got stranded.

-Robert

So, in the end it sounds like if everyone on this list had just
grabbed the chart and flown the approach, about 3/4 of the people
would have died (gone down to 680 before CULVE). Wow, does it seem
like the FAA should make this chart a bit more clear?


Since I wouldn't be able to fly the approach anyway........

I don't have access to Jepp plates, only NACO. However, if you read
my first post in this thread I questioned the modification of crossing
restriction at CULVE by whoeveritwas. I *would* have flown it 1120
until CULVE, 680 after passing CULVE. Anyway, now that things have
been "debated and explained" I don't think it's that ambiguous (except
perhaps, as someone else mentioned, the footnote that DME is required
when tower closed...it's not to shoot the approach, only to use the
reduced MDA). I also don't think they should have *'ed the crossing
restriction necessarily. shrug it is the government about which we
are talking.

On Jul 23, 5:41 pm, Doug Semler wrote:
On Jul 23, 8:31 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Jul 23, 4:08 pm, B wrote:

Right, dive to 1120 and drive to CULVE, then dive to 680.

So, the question is still, how does the GulfStream get from CULVE at
1120 down to 0 at the numbers. I was in IMC with gear and flaps down,
power at idle and in a slip and I was still about 3/4 down when I
touched. Does a GulfStream drop faster than a Mooney?

I wouldn't be surprised...doesn't NASA use Gulfstreams albiet
modified) to train Shuttle pilots to be able to land the "flying
brick?" g

Yea, with thrust reverses in the descent!

-Robert