Crossing a stepdown fix high

Why would you want to add extra work? The approaches are published that way
for a reason. Also, another poster commented about staying at an altitude
(above the published one) until intersecting the 'GP.' I can only assume
"GP" means glide path (or glide slope). Your example was a VOR appch I
believe, but in the case of an ILS approach, it is not wise to stay above,
as you can intercept a false glideslope.

If you do the approach your way then you have to account for wind, etc to
figure out if you are at the right descent speed, etc. Just descend as
published - it is easier than figuring out a descent rate to match the winds
and airplane speed.

The bottom line is the approach is the approach - I don't think it is
intended as a "suggestion." - why stay above the heights? Wouldn't you
rather get down as fast as possible than be in the clouds? The altitudes on
the approach chart guarantee more than reasonable obstacle clearance - not
performing the approach as published would also lead me to wonder if there
are other things you would make up your own procedures for and as a DE I
would consider that a bad thing...

tim

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
Is there any problem with controllers or examiners if I cross a stepdown
fix
several hundred feet above the depicted altitude? I believe that,
legally,
I can be at any altitude above the crossing minimum, but would this be a
bust of the PTS +/-100 tolerance, or cause a problem for ATC?

For example, take the SEA VOR 34L/R approach. Assume you are cleared for
the
approach at 5000ft. Profile is 5000 at FACTS - 6nm - 3000 at MILLT -
6.7nm -
1600 at DONDO, which is the last fix before descent to the MDA. I can set
up
a nice smooth descent at 300fpnm, arrive at 1600ft well before DONDO, and
avoid even thinking about a level-off by crossing MILLT something above
3200ft. Would that be a checkride ding?

-- David Brooks

For the VOR approaches, you probably want to get down more or less on the
steps. You'll need the time to find the airport if you do break out in many
cases. You don't however have to execute the approach as steps unless the
altitudes are depicted as mandatory altitudes (line above and below the
number). If it is a long approach, there is no need to go bombing down to the
next altitude as you cross each stepdown. Bby the same token you don't want to
be too far above the min crossing altitude when you cross it, otherwise you're
not going to have enough room to get down with a reasonable descent rate.
Ideally, you would decend at a rate that got you to the min crossing altitude as
you passed the next stepdown fix, but that usually won't happen.

Now on an ILS, you should be following the glideslope if it is working. The
stepdowns there are for a localizer only approach. Note that staying high on
the ILS until intercepting the GS will never put you in a position to get a
false GS: You'll still intersect the glideslope from underneath.

Tim J wrote:

tim

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
Is there any problem with controllers or examiners if I cross a stepdown
fix
several hundred feet above the depicted altitude? I believe that,
legally,
I can be at any altitude above the crossing minimum, but would this be a
bust of the PTS +/-100 tolerance, or cause a problem for ATC?

For example, take the SEA VOR 34L/R approach. Assume you are cleared for
the
approach at 5000ft. Profile is 5000 at FACTS - 6nm - 3000 at MILLT -
6.7nm -
1600 at DONDO, which is the last fix before descent to the MDA. I can set
up
a nice smooth descent at 300fpnm, arrive at 1600ft well before DONDO, and
avoid even thinking about a level-off by crossing MILLT something above
3200ft. Would that be a checkride ding?

-- David Brooks



--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:36:18 GMT, "Tim J"
wrote:

Also, another poster commented about staying at an altitude
(above the published one) until intersecting the 'GP.' I can only assume
"GP" means glide path (or glide slope). Your example was a VOR appch I
believe, but in the case of an ILS approach, it is not wise to stay above,
as you can intercept a false glideslope.

Well of course you don't want to intercept a GP from above, but that has
nothing to do with remaining above the published GP intercept altitude
miles from the FAF where the GP will be above you.

For example, look at the ILS 14 at Nashua, NH (KASH). The GP intercept
altitude is 1800' and the precision FAF is about five miles from the
runway. It would not be unusual to be vectored to the vicinity of MUGGY at
an altitude of 3000' (or even 2500' if memory serves me) and then cleared
for the approach. At that point in space, you are well below the GP (so no
danger of intercepting a false glideslope). I would prefer to remain
straight and level until intercepting the GP, and then just do the one
reconfiguration to a descent. The alternative is more work as you
configure for a descent, level off at 1800' and reconfigure for straight
and level, and then reconfigure again for a descent just outside of CHERN.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Tim J wrote:



The bottom line is the approach is the approach - I don't think it is
intended as a "suggestion." - why stay above the heights? Wouldn't you
rather get down as fast as possible than be in the clouds? The altitudes on
the approach chart guarantee more than reasonable obstacle clearance - not
performing the approach as published would also lead me to wonder if there
are other things you would make up your own procedures for and as a DE I
would consider that a bad thing...

Another "bottom line" is that the stepdown altitude in a NPA profile is a
*minimum* altitude.

If you think in terms of getting down to a stepdown to "get out of the clouds"
that is a good way to find granite or trees instead of water vapor. This is not
just my view; the industry/government accident stats are replete.

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

Is there any problem with controllers or examiners if I cross a stepdown
fix
several hundred feet above the depicted altitude? I believe that,
legally,
I can be at any altitude above the crossing minimum, but would this be a
bust of the PTS +/-100 tolerance, or cause a problem for ATC?


Assuming ATC hasn't issued an altitude restriction it's not a problem for
them, it shouldn't be a problem for an examiner as you're not wavering from
an assigned altitude.

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:PZCjb.795942$uu5.139761@sccrnsc04...

When I was an examiner, I would have expected you to fly the approach
profile as published. Once upon a time I decided to forego the "descent
and
maintain 2200 feet" on the way in to BFI's ILS 13R, thinking that I would
stay at 3000 and intercept the glideslope high....got chided by Seattle
Approach for doing so. Over the years I have learned that ATC expects you
to
do the expected.


There's nothing in this scenario that suggests he was issued a hard altitude
prior to the approach clearance, it may have been at pilot's discretion.

wrote in message
...

If you think in terms of getting down to a stepdown to "get out of the
clouds"
that is a good way to find granite or trees instead of water vapor. This
is not
just my view; the industry/government accident stats are replete.


Only if the published altitudes are wrong.

That is ridiculous. If I follow the approach procedures I will stay away
from the granite. I would recommend reading TERPS. Maybe I am an idiot for
following the procedures as published, but it lets me work on the other
parts of flying and I have more time and effort left for the rest of the
work during an approach.

wrote in message
...


Tim J wrote:



The bottom line is the approach is the approach - I don't think it is
intended as a "suggestion." - why stay above the heights? Wouldn't you
rather get down as fast as possible than be in the clouds? The
altitudes on
the approach chart guarantee more than reasonable obstacle clearance -
not
performing the approach as published would also lead me to wonder if
there
are other things you would make up your own procedures for and as a DE I
would consider that a bad thing...

Another "bottom line" is that the stepdown altitude in a NPA profile is
a
*minimum* altitude.

If you think in terms of getting down to a stepdown to "get out of the
clouds"
that is a good way to find granite or trees instead of water vapor. This
is not
just my view; the industry/government accident stats are replete.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...

If you think in terms of getting down to a stepdown to "get out of the
clouds"
that is a good way to find granite or trees instead of water vapor. This
is not
just my view; the industry/government accident stats are replete.


Only if the published altitudes are wrong.

I guess the stats and industry/government studies are all wet then.

The published altitudes weren't wrong at KBDL when the AAL MD80 hit the trees
near the stepdown fix.

Tim J wrote:

That is ridiculous. If I follow the approach procedures I will stay away
from the granite. I would recommend reading TERPS. Maybe I am an idiot for
following the procedures as published, but it lets me work on the other
parts of flying and I have more time and effort left for the rest of the
work during an approach.

Good idea. I'll read those TERPs.