VOR approach SMO

Just for kicks I flew this approach in MS FSX with the CRJ700. I set
the wx to 800 & 3 (no wind) and figured I'd see what kind of
acrobatics I would have to do. I crossed CULVE at 1100' with 130 kts
and flaps 45. I descended for 680 MDA at around 1800 fpm, which
surprisingly did not require any deploy of the spoilers. I broke out
of the clouds and continued this descent until reaching the VASI
glideslope at around 450' and 1/2 mile out. From here on it was a
normal descent and I was able to plop down on the aiming point
markers. For what it's worth, FSX had the threshold being at 0.9 DME.

I know FSX isn't the same as the real world, and I'm not sure I would
want to be dropping that fast at such a low altitude, but it seems
like it wouldn't be a stretch for that Gulfstream to make it in on the
numbers if they were on top of their game....

Erik
CFII, MEI


On Jul 23, 12:39 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
The other day I shot the VOR approach into SMO for the first time in
low actual. I've often looked at that approach as one of the most
difficult I've seen published so it was interesting to actually try
it. The weather was 008OVC with something like 3sm HZ. I touched down
about 3/4 down the runway and was able to stop without a problem.
However, while taxiing back, I noticed a Gulf Stream land right on the
numbers. There is no way you can tell me he properly flew the approach
and was able to touch on the numbers.
The approach is published as a circle to land (I assume because of the
extreme nature of the decent) but they certainly were not offering to
allow anyone to circle. In fact there was a steady line of jets coming
in, it would probably have been unlikely to get a circle approved.

Last night I departed. AWOS was reporting 005OVC. I took off right
around 21:10. There was a large Citation right behind me picking up
his clearance. I didn't ever hear him depart on approach frequency so
I'm assuming he missed his curfew and his execs got stranded.

-Robert

On Jul 27, 6:39 pm, TakeFlight wrote:
Just for kicks I flew this approach in MS FSX with the CRJ700. I set
the wx to 800 & 3 (no wind) and figured I'd see what kind of
acrobatics I would have to do. I crossed CULVE at 1100' with 130 kts
and flaps 45. I descended for 680 MDA at around 1800 fpm, which
surprisingly did not require any deploy of the spoilers.

FWIW, I believe I remember reading an NTSB report of a Gulf crash (at
i believe Aspen). While it wasn't in the POH, the policy of the
charter company was that spoilers were not to be deployed when landing
gear or flaps were extended...It was mentioned in the report because
investigation revealed that the spoilers were extended on impact...

I broke out
of the clouds and continued this descent until reaching the VASI
glideslope at around 450' and 1/2 mile out. From here on it was a
normal descent and I was able to plop down on the aiming point
markers.

Out of curiosity, what was your "speed" at 1800 fpm? I thought SMO
had a PAPI on 21 but it is FSX...

For what it's worth, FSX had the threshold being at 0.9 DME.


Sounds about right (maybe a bit long...)

I was able to hold 130 kts all the way down. My intent was to pin the
speed and see what kind of descent rate I would get (and need) to pull
it off. I wasn't expecting to get that much without dropping the
spoilers at least 1/4, but I was at idle, which probably isn't
SOP...In all fairness, I've never flown a "real" jet, unless the 737
sim at UAL counts

You're right about the lights...it is a PAPI in FSX.


Out of curiosity, what was your "speed" at 1800 fpm? I thought SMO
had a PAPI on 21 but it is FSX...

For what it's worth, FSX had the threshold being at 0.9 DME.

Sounds about right (maybe a bit long...)

Robert M. Gary wrote:


Maybe easy in a 172 but not in my Mooney. With gear and flaps out and
power at idle I don't think I can do 885 ft/min without a lot of
slipping. Even if I could there is still the issue of going from 90
knots approach speed down to 70 knots threshold crossing speed.

Go ahead and slow to 70 earlier. Your angle of descent is steeper at 70
than at 90.

DB

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Of course I came in high and fast. That's really the point of this
thread, that the approach requires you to be high and fast (my minimum
IFR approach speed is 90 knots) and of course I was 1120 about 2 miles
from the end of the runway as required by the approach.

What's the rationale for the minimum IFR approach speed of 90 knots? A
slower approach speed will get you the required descent angle.

Try flying approaches at different speeds in VMC and see what you get.

DB

Robert M. Gary wrote:

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

There's no reason they can't be the same, e.g. 70 knots, if that's what
you need to make the descent angle.

DB

karl gruber wrote:
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.

I agree, Karl. With the benefit of all this discussion and sitting
comfortably at my workstation, the chart is unambiguous. If I were
prepping the approach while trying to fly the airplane (which *does*
happen sometimes) I'm not sure I couldn't have been similarly misled. I
think NACO could find a better way to convey the correct information.

DB

In article ,
Dave Butler wrote:

karl gruber wrote:
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.

I agree, Karl. With the benefit of all this discussion and sitting
comfortably at my workstation, the chart is unambiguous. If I were
prepping the approach while trying to fly the airplane (which *does*
happen sometimes) I'm not sure I couldn't have been similarly misled. I
think NACO could find a better way to convey the correct information.

As a long-time NACO chart user, I found it unambiguous, but that wasn't
the point I was concentrating on the later parts of this thread, which
was: didn't *anyone* who advocated going below 1120 immediately after
BEVEY notice the obstructions? Doesn't anyone else look at things like
that as well as the bare minimums? Unlike Karl, I'm no ATP, but it's
typically one of the first things I look at with an unfamiliar
approach...

Hamish

In article ,
Hamish Reid wrote:
As a long-time NACO chart user, I found it unambiguous, but that wasn't
the point I was concentrating on the later parts of this thread, which
was: didn't *anyone* who advocated going below 1120 immediately after
BEVEY notice the obstructions? Doesn't anyone else look at things like
that as well as the bare minimums? Unlike Karl, I'm no ATP, but it's
typically one of the first things I look at with an unfamiliar
approach...

I too am a long time NACO chart user and didn't see any ambiguity in
reading the SMO VOR approach. It's very clear from the cross-section view
that you are not to descend below 2600' until crossing BEVEY, and are not
to descent below 1120' until crossing CULVE. Furthermore, you can only
descend below 1120' if you have DME to identify CULVE or are under
postivie radar contol from ATC.

I also don't see the ambiguity that the previous poster had mentioned
regarding the three asterisks - they all pertain to the same piece of
information. Namely, that when the tower is closed, DME is required
to descend below 1120 for the circle to land (or that you are under
postivie radar contol when the tower is open).

All of that said, this is still definitely a slam-dunk kind of approach.

I guess it's a matter of perference with respect to NACO vs. Jepp.
Sorta like Apple vs. Microsoft, or vi vs. emacs.
(Oh, and I'm a NACO/Apple/vi kind of guy...)

-- Dane

Dave Butler wrote:
karl gruber wrote:

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.


I agree, Karl. With the benefit of all this discussion and sitting
comfortably at my workstation, the chart is unambiguous. If I were
prepping the approach while trying to fly the airplane (which *does*
happen sometimes) I'm not sure I couldn't have been similarly misled. I
think NACO could find a better way to convey the correct information.

DB

This was brought to the FAA's attention. The asterisk has no business
being associated with the 1120 minimum altitude. That does suggest the
minimum altitude is conditional.

Here is the FAA response:

"They are going to remove the asterisk by the stepdown fix altitude and
leave it at the fix and with the minimums line. Don't know where they
got it, but they will check their source to see where it came from."