VOR approach SMO

In article .com,
"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.

[... snip original posting...]

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?

I still don't see what's ambiguous about the charts, to be honest --
it's not a difficult chart to understand, and it's pretty clear from
both the NACO and Jepp versions that you absolutely can't go below 1120
until CULVE unless you're on the visual.

So yes, it's really pretty scary that there might be IFR-rated pilots
out there who got this wrong (Karl has said elsewhere that he doesn't
have an IFR rating, so that excuses him), but I don't think the chart's
the cause of the confusion...

Hamish

On Jul 23, 9:03 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Jul 23, 5:41 pm, Doug Semler wrote:

On Jul 23, 8:31 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
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!

There's your answer... Guy behind you is a former shuttle pilot big
grin

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

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.

I've never flown a Mooney, so I can't speak for what it can or can't do.

The charted procedure only promises that if you fly the specified course
and altitudes, it'll keep you from hitting any terrain. There's nothing
that promises that any particular aircraft has the required performance to
land straight-in (or any other way, for that matter) out of any particular
approach. Figuring that stuff out is all part of pre-flight planning.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:22:27 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

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

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.

I've never flown a Mooney, so I can't speak for what it can or can't do.

The charted procedure only promises that if you fly the specified course
and altitudes, it'll keep you from hitting any terrain. There's nothing
that promises that any particular aircraft has the required performance to
land straight-in (or any other way, for that matter) out of any particular
approach. Figuring that stuff out is all part of pre-flight planning.

Come on guys, this IS a circling approach. If you feel stuffed in,
you can always circle southeast, remain within 1 1/4 miles of the
approach end of 21, and descend when appropriate for the pavement.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message ups.com...

Yea, with thrust reverses in the descent!

-Robert


Reminds me of a story told me by a friend in school for his King Air.
A classmate asked if he could reverse the prop pitch in flight.
The instructor replied: "Yes, you can.
And if you do, you will fall out of the sky like a typewriter."

On Jul 23, 6:22 pm, Roy Smith wrote:
In article . com,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:





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.

I've never flown a Mooney, so I can't speak for what it can or can't do.

The charted procedure only promises that if you fly the specified course
and altitudes, it'll keep you from hitting any terrain. There's nothing
that promises that any particular aircraft has the required performance to
land straight-in (or any other way, for that matter) out of any particular
approach. Figuring that stuff out is all part of pre-flight planning.

What is your point? That the GulfStream shouldn't have been able to
touch down on the numbers or should have? You've lost me.

-Robert

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

On Jul 23, 6:22 pm, Roy Smith wrote:
In article . com,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:





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.

I've never flown a Mooney, so I can't speak for what it can or can't do.

The charted procedure only promises that if you fly the specified course
and altitudes, it'll keep you from hitting any terrain. There's nothing
that promises that any particular aircraft has the required performance to
land straight-in (or any other way, for that matter) out of any particular
approach. Figuring that stuff out is all part of pre-flight planning.

What is your point? That the GulfStream shouldn't have been able to
touch down on the numbers or should have? You've lost me.

-Robert

My point is that people should do pre-flight planning and not wait until
three quarters of the the runway is behind them to start thinking about
whether they can land on what's left.

In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

Correct. When DME etc. equipped, and descending to 680 after BEVEY,
identifying CULVE does you no good, other than for situational awareness.

Then why do you think they bothered to include CULVE on the chart? And
why does being able to identify CULVE make it safe to descend to 680
after BEVEY when it would not be safe to do so without that ability?

(Note to sane readers: these are rhetorical questions designed to show
Karl that he is wrong. Which he most assuredly is.)

rg

In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

No........I don't have an instrument rating.

It shows.

rg

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:06:20 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

On Jul 23, 2:12 pm, "karl gruber" wrote:
No.

You can be 6.7 miles out at 680/DME.

ATC certainly never offered that but I guess I never asked. They keep
you at 4,000 until about 3 miles outside of CULVE. Maybe for Burbank
traffic?? Remeber this is VERY busy airspace and ATC has very small
windows for you.

ATC is keeping you at 4K until 1.3 miles inside the FAF?