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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
VOR Approach - Can you alter it?
The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway
heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see. Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed approach for no reason. Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156 deg? There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
VOR Approach - Can you alter it?
gregscheetah wrote:
The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see. Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed approach for no reason. Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156 deg? There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway. obstruction clearance. It may be clear to you but by the rules of setting up approaches there is something in the way. Michelle |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
VOR Approach - Can you alter it?
In article . com,
"gregscheetah" wrote: The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see. Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed approach for no reason. Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156 deg? There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway. This is often the case with terminal VOR approaches. The VOR is off to the side of the runway, and the final approach course is set up so you intercept the extended runway centerline far enough out that you can safely maneuver to line up with the runway. Notice the visibility minimum of 1 mile; I'll bet if you draw out where the FAC intersects the centerline, it'll be less than a mile from the threshold. Take a look at the GPS-16 to the same runway -- it's lined up perfectly with the centerline. This is one of the big advantages of GPS; it lets you create straight-in segments to any runway end, without having to worry about navaid placement. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
VOR Approach - Can you alter it?
"gregscheetah" wrote in message ups.com... The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see. Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed approach for no reason. Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156 deg? There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway. That wouldn't have you lined up with the runway. That moves the FAC further away from the runway. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
VOR Approach - Can you alter it?
"Michelle P" wrote in message nk.net...
gregscheetah wrote: The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see. Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed approach for no reason. Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156 deg? There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway. obstruction clearance. It may be clear to you but by the rules of setting up approaches there is something in the way. Michelle Obstructions? No, the corn isn't THAT tall in Iowa. :-) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
VOR Approach - Can you alter it?
John R. Copeland wrote:
"Michelle P" wrote in message nk.net... gregscheetah wrote: The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see. Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed approach for no reason. Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156 deg? There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway. obstruction clearance. It may be clear to you but by the rules of setting up approaches there is something in the way. Michelle Obstructions? No, the corn isn't THAT tall in Iowa. :-) Check the chart. Couple of 400+ agl pointy things. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
VOR Approach - Can you alter it?
Roy Smith wrote:
This is often the case with terminal VOR approaches. The VOR is off to the side of the runway, and the final approach course is set up so you intercept the extended runway centerline far enough out that you can safely maneuver to line up with the runway. Notice the visibility minimum of 1 mile; I'll bet if you draw out where the FAC intersects the centerline, it'll be less than a mile from the threshold. The point at which the radial crosses the runway centerline has nothing to do with establishing visibility minimums. Visibility minimums are predicated on whether the MAP is prior to the runway and the height of the MDA above TDZ elevation. This is one of the big advantages of GPS; it lets you create straight-in segments to any runway end, without having to worry about navaid placement. Usually, but not always. If there are no precision minimums the RNAV final can be off by as much as 15 degrees if required by terrain further out. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
VOR Approach - Can you alter it?
On 19 Feb 2007 09:49:06 -0800, "gregscheetah"
wrote: The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see. Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed approach for no reason. Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156 deg? There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway. First take a look at the airport diagram. The VOR is well off to the side of the runway. At a quick glance it appears to be between 1000 and 2000 feet to the side. If you were to come in on a heading of 160 you would be coming in parallel to the runway and well off to the left which would require a side step. I think you will find all things being equal coming in on a heading of 156 would be a lot easier than the side step. Some have mentioned obstacle clearance, but I'd guess it is that way to take you across the extended centerline of the runway Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
VOR Approach - Can you alter it?
Roger wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 09:49:06 -0800, "gregscheetah" wrote: The VOR 16 approach to KEST is about 8deg off from the actual runway heading. It feels like a lot more than this when you are 3 miles out. I flew the approach and with the ground covered in snow, the runway covered in snow, daylight, blowing snow (almost a ground blizzard) so no airport lights, the runway was very difficult to see. Without the handheld GPS telling me exactly where it was, it would have been easy to have been too close to the airport by the time it was seen to make a zig zap adjustment and a normal landing. A missed approach for no reason. Why not adjust the VOR approach to be 160 deg inbound instead of 156 deg? There are no obsticals in the area. Why not fly outbound on 340 and inbound on 160? This way one would be lined up with the runway and the PAPI lights may help visibly locate the runway. First take a look at the airport diagram. The VOR is well off to the side of the runway. At a quick glance it appears to be between 1000 and 2000 feet to the side. If you were to come in on a heading of 160 you would be coming in parallel to the runway and well off to the left which would require a side step. I think you will find all things being equal coming in on a heading of 156 would be a lot easier than the side step. Some have mentioned obstacle clearance, but I'd guess it is that way to take you across the extended centerline of the runway Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com The preferred alignment is for the VOR radial to cross the extending runway centerline 3,000 feet prior to the landing threshold. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
VOR Approach - Can you alter it?
Some have mentioned obstacle clearance, but I'd guess it is that way to take you across the extended centerline of the runway Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com The preferred alignment is for the VOR radial to cross the extending runway centerline 3,000 feet prior to the landing threshold. Here (3BS) they picked a radial off KMBS that crosses the center of the airport making all runways a circle-to-land. OTOH we don't have any runways that come close to lining up with KMBS. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
first approach in IMC | G. Sylvester | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | July 12th 05 02:14 AM |
ILS or LOC approach? | Dan Wegman | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | May 9th 05 11:41 PM |
No FAF on an ILS approach...? | John Harper | Instrument Flight Rules | 7 | December 24th 03 03:54 AM |
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 45 | November 20th 03 05:20 AM |
Brief an approach | Ditch | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | October 14th 03 12:10 AM |