VOR approach SMO

In article ,
"Bob Gardner" wrote:

I hate to blow Karl's cover, but he flies a jet for the Microsoft
millionaire who just visited the space station for 25 million bucks. He and
I flew for the same FBO before most of you guys were born.

And yet he can look at the (relatively simple) KSMO VOR / GPS approach
chart and misread it to the point where he's confidently heaping crap on
anyone who disagrees with his very basic misreading of it. At least he
finally and graciously appologised for all that.

Seriously, though, can anyone look at the chart and really think it's
safe (let alone legal) to go much below 1120 immediately after BEVEY in
IMC? As I've said earlier in this thread, I've worked in the buildings
that represent the charted obstructions not far from the centerline of
that approach, and it scares the hell out of me that a supposedly
seasoned ATP can be so far off in his reading of that chart.

Hamish

I have never used NACO charts, ever.

From the NACO chart I downloaded, there are four identical asterisks. It is
very easy to read the chart as I did, as one of the asterisk points to
crossing at the lower altitude. Another poster read it that way as well.

The Jeppesen charts show no such ambiguity.

Best,
Karl



"Hamish Reid" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bob Gardner" wrote:

I hate to blow Karl's cover, but he flies a jet for the Microsoft
millionaire who just visited the space station for 25 million bucks. He
and
I flew for the same FBO before most of you guys were born.

And yet he can look at the (relatively simple) KSMO VOR / GPS approach
chart and misread it to the point where he's confidently heaping crap on
anyone who disagrees with his very basic misreading of it. At least he
finally and graciously appologised for all that.

Seriously, though, can anyone look at the chart and really think it's
safe (let alone legal) to go much below 1120 immediately after BEVEY in
IMC? As I've said earlier in this thread, I've worked in the buildings
that represent the charted obstructions not far from the centerline of
that approach, and it scares the hell out of me that a supposedly
seasoned ATP can be so far off in his reading of that chart.

Hamish

"Bob Gardner" wrote:

I hate to blow Karl's cover, but he flies a jet for the Microsoft
millionaire who just visited the space station for 25 million bucks. He
and I flew for the same FBO before most of you guys were born.


Yes, but you do know there's been significant changes since the old A-O
ranges, don't you?

On Jul 24, 1:59 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Jul 24, 8:59 am, 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?

FWIW, my quick and dirty math shows ~5.5 degree slope from CULVE to
threshold @ 1120. If you keep that slope, you would have broken
through the clouds about 6500 ft from the threshold at 800 (625 agl).
The Gulf's approach speed is something like 120 or 130. Calling it
130, that's a 1300-1400fpm descent rate at that slope. If the gulf
can do that, then they could keep a nice steady path to the threshold
@ 5.5 degrees.

Now if you dive at a 6.5 degree slope at CULVE, you are decreasing
your final angle to 5 degrees while extending your distance to
threshold another 500 ft when breaking out.

Of course, this all assumes that you are actually at 1120 when at
culve g

And that your approach speed and threshold crossing speed are the same
(i,e. that you don't need additional room to slow down

Yes, I told you it was quick and dirty (I did it pretty much in my
head. there's *alot* of rounding in there g)

I did a search and can't find any performance characteristics of a
gulf on the web, except an accident report stating the probable cause
of an accident as the pilot's putting the plane in an unstabilized
2500fpm descent profile :-/

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

You keep referring planning. I'm not sure what planning you are
referring to in this context. The fact is that the GulfStream probably
had to have a good 1300 ft/min decent rate (assuming he flew the
approach perfectly). I'm surprised a GulfStream can do that because a
Mooney certainly cannot. I had gear and flaps out with power at idle
and couldn't do anywhere near that.

The point is that is it almost certain that the GulfStream was
familiar with the approach and decided to drop down early. My guess is
that a lot of the jets flying into SMO during low overcast are
dropping down to the MDA before CULVE just because they know its the
only way for them to hit the numbers.


Or perhaps his spoilers were working? Does your Mooney have them?

"Matt Barrow" wrote in
:

Yes, but you do know there's been significant changes since the
old A-O ranges, don't you?

You mean A-N, don't you?



--

In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

I have never used NACO charts, ever.

So?

From the NACO chart I downloaded, there are four identical asterisks. It is
very easy to read the chart as I did, as one of the asterisk points to
crossing at the lower altitude.

No, it doesn't. It points to reduced minimums, which is NOT the same
thing.

Another poster read it that way as well.

That poster was wrong too.

The Jeppesen charts show no such ambiguity.

Neither does the NACO chart.

rg

In article ,
"Bob Gardner" wrote:

I hate to blow Karl's cover, but he flies a jet for the Microsoft
millionaire who just visited the space station for 25 million bucks.

So what? That he works for Charles Simonyi doesn't change the fact that
he is wrong.

(Interesting side note: back in the mid-90's I ran into Charles Simonyi
at a conference in Santa Barbara and ended up giving him a ride back to
the airport since we were both parked at the same FBO. Of course, he
was in his private Falcon jet and I was in a rented C182RG. As I was
preflighting I heard the Falcon's engines spooling up and down, but the
plane didn't move. After a while they shut the engines down, so I went
back into the FBO to see what was going on. Turned out they had a red
light on one of the engines and were grounded. Since he wasn't going
anywhere, Simonyi gave me a tour of the plane. It was the first time I
ever saw a glass cockpit. Sweet! But I couldn't help thinking as I
climbed out of SBA that I was going home while Simonyi, one of the
richest men in the world, was stuck at the airport like any ordinary
shmoe.)

rg

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?

The chart is "clear" as is. Review the LEGEND in the front of the U.S.
Terminal Procedure book. (Page H1 in my approach books.) Bottom left
corner of page: Under "ALTITUDES" 2500 with a line under it - "Minimum
Altitude". Pretty clear!

It's pretty scary to realize that "several" instrument rated pilots were
willing (at least in this discussion group) to descend below a clearly
charted minimum altitude prematurely!

Fly safe!

RAW

Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,
"Bob Gardner" wrote:

I hate to blow Karl's cover, but he flies a jet for the Microsoft
millionaire who just visited the space station for 25 million bucks.

So what? That he works for Charles Simonyi doesn't change the fact that
he is wrong.

Karl is right.

According to the NACO chart I pulled up via Airnav, with DME you can
begin descending to 680 at BEVEY.

You have to stay @ 1120 'till CULVE only if DME is not available.