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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Hardest approach flown so far
Everett M. Greene wrote:
.. Having no experience with or data about the Helena IFR procedures, but having experience with the high Sierras and Rockies, I would find it hard to believe the someone would "hit some granite" without being way out of bounds. I'd describe the terrain around Helena as gently rolling, not mountainous. Even the mountains to the west are little more than big hills. Well, you need to look at the charts. It indeed is an open valley with room for a "200 and 1/2" ILS but it has terminal routes over terrain some 5,000 feet higher than the airport. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Hardest approach flown so far
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. It was in a piston twin. "q" wrote in message ... You don't really provide enough specifics about exact route, center handling while still in radar contact, handoff, etc. Having said that, at a terrain-laden airport like HLN, a piston aircraft is often up against the limits (shock cooling, icing limitations, etc.) compared to turbine aircraft. Viperdoc wrote: Recently, on a long cross country from Portland, OR to Wisconsin, we stopped at Helena, MT for a gas and pit stop. Coming from the West with the winds calm, I chose the loc DME BC approach to runway 9. Even though it's the capitol (is it capital?) of the state, there is no radar coverage. First, I had to descend and intercept the DME arc. Once on the arc, we were in turbulence and IMC, and started picking up ice (my Baron had KI certification). Once on the loc BC, there are several step down fixes, but since we were given the approach clearance several thousand feet high, I had a hard time reaching the DME fixes at a low enough altitude. Of course, without radar, the tower was asking us to report position, and I had to keep telling him I was unable to reach the desired altitudes due to the excessive descent rate required. Finally, before the last fix we broke out into VMC, with the valley below and the airport in sight, still several thousand feet high. We circled once, and then landed without difficulty. It was a great learning experience, but I'm not sure what to have done differently. I already had the approach flaps out, and contemplated putting down the gear to help the descent, but hesitated doing this in icing conditions (what if I needed to pull up the gear again for some reason during the approach covered in ice?) I could have chopped the power (was already at 15 inches) and descending at over 1,000 fpm near Va, but I felt a stabilized approach in ice and in mountainous terrain was safer than making even more radical pitch and power changes. I felt like I was behind the eight ball from the start. Is there a better way to have handled the approach? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. ;-) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Hardest approach flown so far
Yes, I looked at and could have chosen that approach. However, how often
does one get to fly a DME arc loc BC approach in a non-radar environment? I was not necessarily looking for what was easier, and this particular approach offered a lot of interesting challenges. The gear in my plane, which is also KI equipped, definitely simplified the matter, but it was still a challenge and learning experience. "q" wrote in message ... 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. ;-) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Hardest approach flown so far
Yes, Helena is the capitol of Montana. Visit the refurbished
capitol building. Very casual atmosphere when the legislature is not in session. Not that it matters much (or at all), but "capitol" is the commonly accepted spelling for the building in which the state or federal legislature is located; "capital" is the usual spelling of the word used when referring to the town where the capitol building is located, such as Helena, or Washington, D.C. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Hardest approach flown so far
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 06:30:41 -0700, q wrote:
Mountainous terrain is modeled for percipitious terrain additives. Mr Q, can you fill us in on what the additives are? For initial, intermediate, and final segments? Thanks, Stan |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Hardest approach flown so far
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Hardest approach flown so far
bluenosepiperflyer writes:
Yes, Helena is the capitol of Montana. Visit the refurbished capitol building. Very casual atmosphere when the legislature is not in session. Not that it matters much (or at all), but "capitol" is the commonly accepted spelling for the building in which the state or federal legislature is located; "capital" is the usual spelling of the word used when referring to the town where the capitol building is located, such as Helena, or Washington, D.C. I stand corrected. Your statement is almost a verbatim quote of what I find in The American Heritage Dictionary about usage of "capital". [Isn't English a fun language!] |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Hardest approach flown so far
Everett M. Greene wrote:
bluenosepiperflyer writes: Yes, Helena is the capitol of Montana. Visit the refurbished capitol building. Very casual atmosphere when the legislature is not in session. Not that it matters much (or at all), but "capitol" is the commonly accepted spelling for the building in which the state or federal legislature is located; "capital" is the usual spelling of the word used when referring to the town where the capitol building is located, such as Helena, or Washington, D.C. I stand corrected. Your statement is almost a verbatim quote of what I find in The American Heritage Dictionary about usage of "capital". [Isn't English a fun language!] In our nation's capital a bunch of self-serving white-collar criminals sit in our capitol building and **** away our capital. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Hardest approach flown so far
"frank" wrote in message ... Everett M. Greene wrote: bluenosepiperflyer writes: Yes, Helena is the capitol of Montana. Visit the refurbished capitol building. Very casual atmosphere when the legislature is not in session. Not that it matters much (or at all), but "capitol" is the commonly accepted spelling for the building in which the state or federal legislature is located; "capital" is the usual spelling of the word used when referring to the town where the capitol building is located, such as Helena, or Washington, D.C. I stand corrected. Your statement is almost a verbatim quote of what I find in The American Heritage Dictionary about usage of "capital". [Isn't English a fun language!] In our nation's capital a bunch of self-serving white-collar criminals sit in our capitol building and **** away our capital. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |