The MIA VOR/DME is 1912 ft further from the IMA DME, the location of the MIA VOR/DME is on the southern side of the 06/24 opposite E2, 193.66M FM RWY06/24 CL and 117.83M FM extended RWY13/31 CL. The IMA DME is located on the southern side on 06/24 opposite E1.
From the Philippines AIP (RPLL AD 2) the position of
MIA is 14 30 28.7 N 121 01 18.2460 E,
IMA DME 14 30 39.6330 N 121 01 34.2590 E,
ZULU 14 35 31.60 N 121 10 35.44 E
From MIA to ZULU the GPS distance is 62,672 ft, when at a true altitude of 3,500 ft, the calculated slant (DME) distance is 10.33 nm. ZULU is actually 10 GPS from IMA DME, I calculated it to be 10.01 IMA DME.
Be careful with the profile views, 3.01 vs 2.81 degree approach paths.
Thanks for the explanation. A couple of observations;
Be careful with the profile views, 3.01 vs 2.81 degree approach paths.
That isn't the source of the discrepancy here. The difference between 2.81 degree glidepath and a 3.06 degree glide path only makes about a 3 ft difference in horizontal distance at 2 nm (the MAP on the VOR approach) even out at ZULU, the difference is about 13 ft. For that matter the difference between the Slant Range and the and horizontal ground distance out at ZULU is less than 100 ft, which isn't meaningful in the context of navigation and obviously not the source of the difference here.
As far as your distances based on the geographic positions, that all checks. However. you're still going to be above the glideslope. Not a lot, and not too hard to push it over and catch it, but you aren't approaching it from below. The GS altitude at ZULU is, like I said earlier, going to be 3316, and as you approach ZULU, you're going to be at D10.3 MIA, still within the 3500 MVA sector, and still not established on a published portion of the approach (until passing ZULU). As AtoBsafely noted, higher than standard temperatures which are the norm there will place you even further above the GS. So, you're either going to have to capture the GS from above, or after crossing ZULU, descend rapidly until below the GS, then capture it from below. I'm not sure that the latter is really "better" than the former in any meaningful way.
As for my earlier claim that MIA and IMA distances were coincident, I agree that seems to not be the case. Apparently the distances on the VOR Z Rwy 24 profile which I used to are simply in error. Just looking at the Taxi Diagram, the location of the VOR appears to be more than 0.2 nm (1200 ft) from the Rwy 24 threshold. Measuring it in Google Earth, shows the VOR is about 0.5 nm from the runway threshold, so there's the missing 0.3 nm.