Beards,I didn't say we used the inop GS just were curious why it wasn't flagged but centered. The plane behind us was using it and got low. Atis at Burbank is always difficult to receive to the north because the same freq is used up north and the mountains to the north of there.
- yes, it would be - you would be above the platform altitude of 4470'..........................
3 degree slope equates, roughly, to 300' per nm which, at 8 miles, would be 2400'. With an airfield elevation of 1688' and a slope at 8 miles of 2400' makes 4088' (QNH) which, unless I'm mistaken, is below the platform of 4470' QNH (2795 QFE if you wish). Obviously this needs to be moderated if there is high ground under the approach. But, that's what we are paid for no?
Where's the 'thunk'?
Also, 500' at 11 DME based on the IRK when you should be at 3300' should be setting massive alarm bells off, G/S Loc or not!
Through adveristy to the stars?
Last edited by Wirbelsturm; 20th Jul 2012 at 21:47.
Maybe this is the wrong thread for the opposite problem. Have a look at LGW webtrack 28 June from about 1003. Apparently it dawned on ATC when the a/c was at 3 miles 1700ft with a ground speed of 250kts on 08 that the approach was "unstable" and a go around was ordered. The go around was pretty non standard just like the approach. Would have been well set up for a run in and break or maybe that old ex Stuka pilot I used to fly with in Canada with is still around. Is there still a 250 below 10,000 speed restriction? It's 20 years since I last had to bother with that, my glider can't manage more than 150kts.
Welcome to Russia! This is a normal setup, normally used for a '2 NDB Appoach'. Keep de needles aligned with eachother and you fly straight to the THR (like in Smolensk). Nowadays Russian airfields get VOR/DME more and more. They don't use it in any procedure except to crosscheck the distance on final. It's also helpful for old FMS systems which use DME updating only to calculate the position. Until roughly 2 years ago there weren't any, so no way you knew your distance to the field and whether or not you captured the correct G/S until coming overhead the OM (exept maybe FMS position which reverted to IRS-only at least 15 mins before due to missing navaids). Add to that the controllers instuction: "Descent to height 850m by QFE 939hPa" and you do the math.
Very interesting. Never heard of a 2 NDB approach. Certainly is interesting.
Not sure about your other info about the VOR just entering service. The plate shows an effective date of 16 Dec 2011. Perhaps the NOTAM was for a slight change in the coordinates?
sloping ground ounder the arrival. Whats the problem. Monitor your height above the terrain with the rad alt and cross refer it to the chart to ensure that the glideslope is giving you correct information.
Basic airmanship.
The ground appears to be 2500' under the IAF thus I would expect to be at 1900' AGL on the rad alt with the 2500' check coming in before the IAF and the descent point. Then I would brief falling terrain toward the airfield. Glasgow 05 has it, Gatwick has it, Salzburg circling is a wonder and Innsbruk is great fun. Seems like a total lack of SA to me.
Maybe its only a change in coordinates, in that case disregard my last posting please. I never flew to UIII, but to many other Russian places where VOR's were installed recently. The usual sequence is that such a NOTAM is issued some time before it's incorporated in the procedures/charts, that was the reason for my assumption.
Don't miss the fact that the glideslope is setup at an angle of 3.33 degrees instead of our standard 3.00 degrees! So, BOAC, I realize you have some deficiencies in mathematics: 330 ft/NM * 8.7NM = roughly 2900ft difference in altitude. Add the THR elevation and you get to about 4600ft. Easy, isn't it? Maybe you should go back to the books to review basic IFR procedures and how to check the profile of an approach...
Just line up the needles and its as good as a LOC......
The old Russian system, and it worked very very well.
Twice in Moscow actually made the 2 NDB approach, its very very precise.
Also the +/-2nm position for the Inner Marker, is traditional....missed approach point, as well as a VRP...in olde worlde flying.
Does the reference to 8nm, refer to the VOR/DME and not distance to threashold, (as per plate)..
A few years ago, when conducting an approach here, a beautiful clean night thank goodness, we descended to join the procedure, and at 4000ft +/- there was a fantastic temperature inversion, the AT logic could not cope with a dramatic change in temperate, and just went to idle......
glf
Last edited by Gulfstreamaviator; 21st Jul 2012 at 10:41.
Wirbel - aeons ago on PPR we had a discussion on the merits of a 'surveyed' RadAlt figure printed on a chart as a check - I still think it would be a positive advance in safety, but I don't think it happened.
Poor old eatmyshorts is so busy chewing he/she has failed to notice that GS intercept at 8.7 is 4470' or that is is not 8.7 from threshold - ah well!
