How do I fly this approach?

Kindly take a look at the ILS runway 26 approach to Astoria (KAST). I tried
to fly this in my sim and I'm not at all sure that I did it correctly.

In my case, this is what I did: I was on V187 from Seattle at 6000. Once I
was within 25 nm of AST, I descended to 4300. About 12 nm away from AST, I
turned roughly north and flew back out to 19 DME from AST, then turned east to
follow the 19 DME arc until I was within a few degrees of the localizer
course. At that point I started a turn towards the localizer and armed the
autopilot, which captured the localizer and glide slope immediately and took
over. About a mile away from the airport I disengaged the AP and flew the
landing by hand.

Was this correct? I'm confused by the references to the NDB and the pointers
towards the east and the procedure turn. Do I have multiple options for this
approach? Was the way I flew it one of them? Or what?

I almost thought that maybe I was supposed to fly to the VOR then outbound to
the NDB then make a procedure turn and come back in. But the DME arc had IAFs
at each end so I finally figured I could just come in towards the VOR then fly
back out to the arc and finally turn towards the airport, which is what I did.

Why would you fly 12 miles from the VOR and then turn around to go back out
and intercept the 19 DME arc? V187 does not appear to be depicted on the
approach plate. What was the IAF?

Your best answer to this question would be to get a PPL, and then and IR
with a competent instructor, who could easily answer the questions.

Otherwise, why start another ridiculous discourse when you blatantly are
announcing your naivete to the world?

Viperdoc writes:

Why would you fly 12 miles from the VOR and then turn around to go back out
and intercept the 19 DME arc? V187 does not appear to be depicted on the
approach plate. What was the IAF?

I was already inside the 19 DME arc while I was still trying to figure out
what to do next. The MSA was 4300, and I saw that the arc was 4000, so I flew
back out to the arc to descend to 4000, since I figured terrain clearance
would be guaranteed along the arc but not elsewhere.

I saw three IAFs, one at the PEN NDB, and two at either end of the DME arc. I
wasn't sure if I was supposed to go all the way to the IAF at the end of the
arc to use it.

V187 isn't marked on approach plates. It's on the en-route charts and
sectionals. AST is on the airway, and I was coming from OLM, also on the
airway.

Your best answer to this question would be to get a PPL, and then and IR
with a competent instructor, who could easily answer the questions.

That would be tremendous overkill, extremely time-consuming and expensive. I
was hoping someone here would be able to help. It's a bit like suggesting
that one become a surgeon in order to learn the effects of aspirin.

That would be tremendous overkill, extremely time-consuming and expensive.
I
was hoping someone here would be able to help. It's a bit like suggesting
that one become a surgeon in order to learn the effects of aspirin.


You seem to forget that the purpose of approach plates is to help do
instrument approaches while flying an airplane. Yes, it can be time
consuming and expensive, but it's the price of actually flying.

Surgeons in general don't use a lot of aspirin, but of course that's another
subject about which you know little.

Warning - troll alert.

Yes, here we go again- he will start arguing how people with instrument
ratings that are actually pilots don't know the answers, or he will tell us
why we are wrong.

Anthony is so boringly predictable, yet some do gooder will either defend
him or try to provide an honest answer, and then it's off to the races.

Viperdoc wrote:

Yes, here we go again- he will start arguing how people with instrument
ratings that are actually pilots don't know the answers, or he will tell us
why we are wrong.

Anthony is so boringly predictable, yet some do gooder will either defend
him or try to provide an honest answer, and then it's off to the races.


It will be difficult for him to rationalize his way out of this one.

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:08:50 -0500, Viperdoc wrote:

Yes, here we go again- he will start arguing how people with instrument
ratings that are actually pilots don't know the answers, or he will tell us
why we are wrong.

Anthony is so boringly predictable, yet some do gooder will either defend
him or try to provide an honest answer, and then it's off to the races.

Of course your incessant posting in his threads is OK dokey.

**** you and your hypocritical horse you rode in on.
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

On Mar 21, 5:39*pm, Dan Camper wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:08:50 -0500, Viperdoc wrote:
Yes, here we go again- he will start arguing how people with instrument
ratings that are actually pilots don't know the answers, or he will tell us
why we are wrong.

Anthony is so boringly predictable, yet some do gooder will either defend
him or try to provide an honest answer, and then it's off to the races.

Of course your incessant posting in his threads is OK dokey.

**** you and your hypocritical horse you rode in on.
--http://tr.im/1f9p

Probably more hypercritical than hypo, but MX does manage to bring out
the worst in some people regarding aviation related issues. He manages
to inspire the internet equivalent of road rage, it's his gift, a
skill that is augmented by extensive practice. I heard Homi Bhabha
(look him up, it's worthwhile) recently give a lecture titled "Also, I
Know That a Man Can Become of an Incredible Wickedness Very Suddenly".
MX is a catayst (Viper, think of him has an enzyme!) in that reaction.

Public discussions of a troll are as satisfying to him as argument.