P
paul123
Guest
Was looking at the VOR/DME approach to KASE someone had posted and I noticed a possible error. The descent angle on final says 9.67 degrees but its more like 3 degrees. I'm I missing something or is it wrong?
paul123 said:Was looking at the VOR/DME approach to KASE someone had posted and I noticed a possible error. The descent angle on final says 9.67 degrees but its more like 3 degrees. I'm I missing something or is it wrong?
Have flow this one 28 times, many times in IMC. The last 1.4 nm involve a descent of 2415 feet in 7400 horizontal feet. Do the math.paul123 said:Was looking at the VOR/DME approach to KASE someone had posted and I noticed a possible error. The descent angle on final says 9.67 degrees but its more like 3 degrees. I'm I missing something or is it wrong?
yes, but you wouldn't call it a 'stabilized' approach!HPNPilot1200 said:2,380 feet in 1.4 miles....I do not know an airplane that can do that...do you?
I did that once- fly all the way to the MAP but the only way down was slower than Vmc. I added power for the flare but dropped it from about 3 feet (on the mains, thank heaven). Never again. Many Moons ago.Let'sgoflying! said:yes, but you wouldn't call it a 'stabilized' approach!
jdwatson said:So... how does one lose 2380' in 1.4nm ? Even in VFR conditions if one were to fly this approach, we'd still have to drop like a rock. I would think little planes would have an advantage since they aren't travelling over the ground as quickly.
Does one need spoilers and a reversible prop ?
That's why is doesn't have straight-in minimums, only circling minimums.jdwatson said:So... how does one lose 2380' in 1.4nm ?
Rudder to the floor, all drag hanging out on a heavily wing loaded twin, maybe. If there is the usual requisite 5 kt NW wind landing 15, NO.NickDBrennan said:Wouldn't an aggressive slip do the trick though?