I'm confusered...approach question

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,431
Location
Castle Rock, CO
Display Name

Display name:
Everything Offends Me
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0810/00800V5.PDF
In case the link doesn't work, its KLBT VOR RWY 5 approach.

I'll step myself through this as I go, someone tell me if I have something wrong, and at the end will be the question:

So, I'm coming from TROCK, flying 074 to LBT VOR. When I get there, I fly outbound on 061 radial, staying above 2000 feet until inbound, where I can descend to 620ft.

So - the question:
The time chart is empty. How do I determine how quickly to descend from 2000 to 620?
 
As I understand it you can descend to 620 (660 if a circling approach) after you complete the procedure turn and are inbound. The time chart is empty probably there is nothing that would trigger a timer start (cross radial from another VOR or some other navaid). since the VOR is on the field, the missed approach is triggered by to/from change on the VOR.

Just my thoughts- I'm not IFR rated.
 
As long as you stay within 10NM on the out bound portion. You can start your decent as soon as you are inbound on the 061 radial.
From that point you can go down to MDA as quickly as you want. I personally subscribe to the "dive it and drive it" method. Which means I try to get to MDA as quickly as possible in the hopes of breaking out early for a "normal" landing.
 
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0810/00800V5.PDF

So - the question:
The time chart is empty. How do I determine how quickly to descend from 2000 to 620?
If you look through a bunch of approach charts, you'll see that the purpose of the time chart is to give you time from the FAF to the MAP because there is no other approved way to identify the MAP.

In this approach, the MAP is at the on-airport VOR, so there is no timing chart.

You won't find timings on approach charts that tell you how much time it will take you to descend from PT outbound to PT inbound or to reach a step-down or in just about any other situation. That takes a bit of mental math, a guestimate, a couple of rules of thumb, or a standard descent rate (aka "dive and drive") that you know will generally work well.
 
All the answers to your question are correct in the legal and safety sense, but perhaps not from a practical perspective.

Assuming you start your descent from 3000 to 2000 after intecepting the LBT 241 radial (BTW that's not the 61 Radial you gave in the OP but I know you meant the 241)

A simple method is to figure how much time you should need to drop from 2000 TO THE GROUND and fly the outbound leg for that amount of time. If you then fly the PT "backwards" (right 45 then left 180) you should have plenty of time to make it down to the MDA well before reaching a good point on the approach for the final visual descent even if there's a tailwind on the inbound leg. OTOH, with a fast airplane and a strong tailwind on the outbound leg I'd probably fly the PT the other way to ensure that I stay within the 10 nm distance from LBT.

To arrive at the time needed for the inbound descent, I normally use a 600 FPM descent rate which means I'd need a little more than 3 minutes to make from 2000 to the approximately 100 MSL runway elevation.
 
Lance has covered the concept -- you have to mentally fly the approach backwards from the touchdown zone back up to the IAF.

In this case, the TDZE is 124, so your intended result is to reach 124 MSL in the TDZ. Note also that the TDZ is about 3/4 mile southwest of the VOR. Therefore, you want to be at 124 feet 3/4 mile from the VOR. The MDA is 620, so you have 500 feet to lose once you spot the field, and that will take about 1-1/4 miles at a "normal rate of descent" (see 91.175(c)(1) for the significance of that phrase). Thus, you want to be at MDA and looking at least 2 miles before reaching the VOR, so you'll have to finish the PT far enough out to get down there at least 2 miles before the VOR.

The PT altitude is 2000 feet, giving you 1380 feet to lose to reach MDA, which (at a typical 500 ft/min) is about 3 minutes (including time to initiate the descent and level off at the bottom). Assuming a 90-knot approach, that's about 4-1/2 miles, which means you must have the PT completed at least 6-1/2 miles from the VOR. Since a "standard" PT at 90 knots will drop you about a mile further out than you start it (you can get out your drafting tools or geometry book and confirm this), you must be at 2000 feet (I hate descending PT's -- they're an invitation to an altitude bust) no later than 5-1/2 miles outbound on the 241 radial. At 90 knots, that's 3:40 after crossing the VOR, which is plenty of time to get down from 3000 to 2000, although if for whatever reason they have you cross the VOR at 4000 rather than 3000, you'll be far enough out before you reach 2000 feet.

Note that if you fly a different speed or descent rate, you can massage the numbers accordingly -- it's the planning that's important, not the specific numbers.

Therefore, if I'm flying this approach, I'll hack the clock when I complete the turn to the heading to intercept the radial outbound (PIC's Turn and then Time concept -- no fiddling with clocks or radios in the turn), and start the PT at 3:40 or reaching 2000, whichever comes last. BTW, if it looks like the controller has set me so high that I can't get down to 2000 by 8 miles from the VOR (the farthest point of a PT at 90 knots being about 2 miles from where you start it), I'll tell the controller up front that I need a turn in holding at the VOR to lose some altitude.

This may seem like a lot, but after you do it a few times, you can do it in your head pretty quickly just looking at the profile view. Before you get to that skill level, sit down before the flight, study all the approaches for your destination, and pencil in your planned outbound time.

One final note -- this approach is an example of why having visibility equal to the published flight vis minimum doesn't necessarily mean you can safely complete the approach to a landing with book-minimum visibility. If you don't see the runway environment until 1 mile slant range from the runway, you will need a pretty good descent rate to lose 500 feet (MDA to TDZE) in less than a mile (ground distance being shorter than slant range, and it takes some distance to get from level at MDA to descending at your desired descent rate). This may result in either something other than "normal maneuvers" or more than the "normal rate of descent" discussed in 91.175(c)(1) -- at 90 knots approach speed, we're talking close to 1000 ft/min to make this work, and that's a bit scary at less than 500 AGL in crummy visibility.
 
Last edited:
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0810/00800V5.PDF
In case the link doesn't work, its KLBT VOR RWY 5 approach.

I'll step myself through this as I go, someone tell me if I have something wrong, and at the end will be the question:

So, I'm coming from TROCK, flying 074 to LBT VOR. When I get there, I fly outbound on 061 radial, staying above 2000 feet until inbound, where I can descend to 620ft.

You should fly outbound on the 241 radial.

So - the question:
The time chart is empty. How do I determine how quickly to descend from 2000 to 620?

Arithmetic. The time table is empty because the MAP is the onfield navaid.
 
Nick, I'd suggest you take a look at AIM 5-4-9:
On U.S. Government charts, a barbed arrow indicates the direction or side of the outbound course on which the procedure turn is made. Headings are provided for course reversal using the 45 degree type procedure turn. However, the point at which the turn may be commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot. Some of the options are the 45 degree procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the tear-drop procedure turn, or the 80 degree $ 260 degree course reversal. Some procedure turns are specified by procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted.

Coming from TROCK it is a hell of a lot easier to use a 'racetrack pattern' to reverse course then try to intercept the 241 outbound and then fly the procedure turn. The 80 / 260 degree turn works nicely as well in other situations. I think the 'standard procedure turn' confuses the hell out of people and causes them to do a lot of maneuvering that really isn't needed. The standard 45 procedure turn is effective if you're trying to buy time which isn't always a bad thing if you feel yourself getting behind.

2000 to 620 feet really isn't that huge of a deal. It is 1,380 feet. At 800 fpm that is 1.7 minutes. You will fly about a mile per minute at 90 knots. So keep that in mind when you do the racetrack and extend it to give you enough time to get down when you turn back inbound and re-intercept. Just stay within 10 miles which isn't very hard in the Arrow you were flying.

You were confused about how to know the rate at which you start down. This is really simple, remember you are starting at the VOR which is the IAF and missed approach point. You *completely control* how much time you have to get down based on how you fly your course reversal.

The most important thing to remember is that if you doubt your ability to get down *slow the hell down*. I've witnessed quite a few pilots that tend to just get way fast when they want to get down in a short amount of distance. For example, to get down through a hole in clouds, I reduce power, throw full flaps, and circle a bit above stall speed. Works nice, beats people that try to rocket themselves down like a fighter jet every time.

Also, I'm no where near as experienced as Lance or Ron--so feel free to correct me If I'm horribly wrong.
 
Last edited:
One final note -- this approach is an example of why having visibility equal to the published flight vis minimum doesn't necessarily mean you can safely complete the approach to a landing with book-minimum visibility. If you don't see the runway environment until 1 mile slant range from the runway, you will need a pretty good descent rate to lose 500 feet (MDA to TDZE) in less than a mile (ground distance being shorter than slant range, and it takes some distance to get from level at MDA to descending at your desired descent rate). This may result in either something other than "normal maneuvers" or more than the "normal rate of descent" discussed in 91.175(c)(1) -- at 90 knots approach speed, we're talking close to 1000 ft/min to make this work, and that's a bit scary at less than 500 AGL in crummy visibility.

Very important point....

I wound up doing some oddball maneuvers to land. I was right about to go missed, when I looked slightly left and down and saw the runway, but I was already about 500-1000ft down the runway. So I slipped down and landed in the last half of the runway.

In real life, I would like to think I would have gone missed and tried the ILS instead...
 

Coming from TROCK it is a hell of a lot easier to use a 'racetrack pattern' to reverse course then try to intercept the 241 outbound and then fly the procedure turn. The 80 / 260 degree turn works nicely as well in other situations. I think the 'standard procedure turn' confuses the hell out of people and causes them to do a lot of maneuvering that really isn't needed. The standard 45 procedure turn is effective if you're trying to buy time which isn't always a bad thing if you feel yourself getting behind.

I'm not at all sure what you are suggesting Jesse, but coming from TROCK you have to get established on the 241 radial outbound from the VOR and THEN make a course reversal to the final approach course. It sounds to me like you were describing the first "reversal" (TROCK feeder to outbound leg) and skipping the second reversal (outbound 241 to inbound) which is where a procedure turn of some kind is needed. I see absolutely no advantage and some disadvantage (mostly the lack of any way to define the fix) to a "racetrack" PT which would essentially be a parallel or teardrop entry. The first "reversal" need be no more than crossing the VOR and making either a 200 degree right or 230 degree left turn and then intercepting the outbound leg.
 
Very important point....

I wound up doing some oddball maneuvers to land. I was right about to go missed, when I looked slightly left and down and saw the runway, but I was already about 500-1000ft down the runway. So I slipped down and landed in the last half of the runway.

In real life, I would like to think I would have gone missed and tried the ILS instead...

Normally, unless you're landing an Archer on a 6000+ ft runway (at low DA) you definitely don't want to attempt a landing when you are closer to the runway than about 1.5 nm when you spot the runway let alone halfway down the runway so your retrospective idea of going missed is indeed the correct action in that situation. What you say happened is one of the classic ways to end up running off the far end of the runway. Add a rain or snow contaminated runway and you'd never be able to stop in time.
 
I'm not at all sure what you are suggesting Jesse, but coming from TROCK you have to get established on the 241 radial outbound from the VOR and THEN make a course reversal to the final approach course.
Not with a "racetrack" pattern -- consider it like a direct entry to a holding pattern with a very long holding pattern -- you do not get on the holding radial until you turn in. Note that this entry is only mentioned, not described, in the AIM, so most folks don't really understand what it is. However, if you look at the PT protected airspace in TERPS, you'll see that crossing the IAF, turning outbound to the outbound course with a standard rate turn (i.e., not intercepting the radial outbound, but instead paralleling the radial about 2nm to the barbed side), timing the distance, and then making a standard rate turn to intercept the radial inbound will stay in that airspace.

Of course, if there's a big wind, you can be blown off significantly during that outbound leg if you don't properly compensate (although that's pretty easy to do with a GPS), and that can create problems trying to intercept the radial inbound, but it is a legal alternative to the "standard" 45-180 PT.
 
Normally, unless you're landing an Archer on a 6000+ ft runway (at low DA) you definitely don't want to attempt a landing when you are closer to the runway than about 1.5 nm when you spot the runway let alone halfway down the runway so your retrospective idea of going missed is indeed the correct action in that situation. What you say happened is one of the classic ways to end up running off the far end of the runway. Add a rain or snow contaminated runway and you'd never be able to stop in time.
...which is why the FAA prohibits this if you're carrying paying passengers. For 121/135 ops, you must not only be able to land using "normal maneuvers and a normal rate of descent," but also be able to land in the normal touchdown zone.
 
Normally, unless you're landing an Archer on a 6000+ ft runway (at low DA) you definitely don't want to attempt a landing when you are closer to the runway than about 1.5 nm when you spot the runway let alone halfway down the runway so your retrospective idea of going missed is indeed the correct action in that situation. What you say happened is one of the classic ways to end up running off the far end of the runway. Add a rain or snow contaminated runway and you'd never be able to stop in time.
Lance, basically Ron says what I was thinking. This is an area it seems people aren't that familiar with primarily because it's not really covered that well in the FAR/AIM. I picked up on this because I read the FAR/AIM cover to cover before my IR checkride.

This is the part that really makes it clear
aim said:
On U.S. Government charts, a barbed arrow indicates the direction or side of the outbound course on which the procedure turn is made. Headings are provided for course reversal using the 45 degree type procedure turn. However, the point at which the turn may be commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot. Some of the options are the 45 degree procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the tear-drop procedure turn, or the 80 degree $ 260 degree course reversal. Some procedure turns are specified by procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted.
 
Lance, basically Ron says what I was thinking. This is an area it seems people aren't that familiar with primarily because it's not really covered that well in the FAR/AIM. I picked up on this because I read the FAR/AIM cover to cover before my IR checkride.

This is the part that really makes it clear

OK but I'd personally be uncomfortable making the entire outbound leg sans guidance, especially at my typical 150 KIAS speed at that point and especially if there were obstacles nearby. A more plausible instance where a "racetrack" entry could be used would be when there's an IAF/FAF (e.g. VOR) that you would base the racetrack on eliminating the need to extend the outbound leg extensively as is the case in this approach.
 
2000 to 620 feet really isn't that huge of a deal. It is 1,380 feet. At 800 fpm that is 1.7 minutes. You will fly about a mile per minute at 90 knots.

90 knots (GS) is a mile and a half per minute. 120 is 2 miles/minute. 150 is 2 1/2 miles/minute. Those make for easy conversions between miles, minutes, and feet (using 500fpm or 1000fpm descent rates).

Also, remember what Ron said - You need to allow for the fact that the end of the runway is almost a mile from the VOR. With that in mind, working backwards from touchdown, TDZE is 124 MSL - We'll call that 100 - And ideally we want to be there 1 mile from the VOR on the way in. Using 500fpm and 90 knots - We basically will need 4 minutes (2000 feet/500 fpm) to touchdown, which is 6 miles (4 min * 1.5 mi/min). Add that extra mile from the VOR, we want to start down 7 miles from the VOR, meaning we'll be about 9 miles out at the most during the turn.

Lacking DME, it might be a bit better to use a higher descent rate as we'll want to ensure that we remain in the 10nm protected ring. So, using 1000fpm, that's 2 minutes of descent on final = 3 miles + the extra mile between the VOR and the touchdown zone. Remember that this is a *minimum* and in reality you really don't want to be descending 1000fpm all the way to the touchdown zone. Especially when you're lacking DME, you want to make sure things are "in the middle". So, while 4 miles is the minimum, 10 from the VOR is still the max and in this case, with winds negligible I'd fly 4 minutes outbound (=6 miles), which should leave me a buffer of 2 miles past the outermost point of my procedure turn and leave me with 7 miles to the VOR inbound.

With this kind of approach, how you decide to fly it will determine how easy it is. If you only give yourself the bare minimum you need to make it down, that will make the approach more difficult. Can you do it that way? Sure, but why would you want to? Make sure you stay inside the 10 mile ring, and the longer you fly outbound within that limitation, the more time you'll have to get down.
 
OK but I'd personally be uncomfortable making the entire outbound leg sans guidance, especially at my typical 150 KIAS speed at that point and especially if there were obstacles nearby. A more plausible instance where a "racetrack" entry could be used would be when there's an IAF/FAF (e.g. VOR) that you would base the racetrack on eliminating the need to extend the outbound leg extensively as is the case in this approach.
Well, obstacle clearance should be assured at the proper altitude as long as you properly correct for wind drift which is trivial with a GPS.

I guess I don't see the difference. Either way you have to maneuver off the final approach course to do the course reversal. Since every person will be doing it from a different position you're still off the final approach course for quite awhile without no real guidance no matter which course reversal technique you choose.

flyingcheesehead said:
90 knots (GS) is a mile and a half per minute. 120 is 2 miles/minute. 150 is 2 1/2 miles/minute. Those make for easy conversions between miles, minutes, and feet (using 500fpm or 1000fpm descent rates).
I know. It was just a typo. Obviously 60 knots equals one mile per minute. 90 1.5 120 2, etc.

Like I said above. The beauty of this approach is that *you completely control how much time you have on the inbound leg*. Since you have that control it shouldn't be difficult to give yourself adequate time to get down.
 
Last edited:
Well, obstacle clearance should be assured at the proper altitude as long as you properly correct for wind drift which is trivial with a GPS.

If you have (IFR) GPS the concern over drift does indeed vanish, but in that case I can't see why you wouldn't use the GPS or ILS approach in the first place.

I guess I don't see the difference. Either way you have to maneuver off the final approach course to do the course reversal. Since every person will be doing it from a different position you're still off the final approach course for quite awhile without no real guidance no matter which course reversal technique you choose.

The difference is that by intercepting and tracking the outbound radial you will be much closer to the protected airspace boundaries as you move away from the VOR than you'd be with an extended racetrack. Don't forget that you'll be descending during that outbound leg as well. Now technically the TERPS should mandate that there's plenty of room for drift on an unguided outbound leg but those same requirements assume things like a maximum crosswind component and minimum heading error. Throw in a precessing heading indicator that was last reset to a wildly oscillating compass 15 minutes ago, a bigger wind than the TERPS expect, some altimeter error due to the big wind over the terrain, plus a little inattention to altitude and heading by the pilot during this busy portion of the flight and IMO it's all too easy to wander outside the protected airspace. By staying on a positive guidance segment of the approach you can drastically improve the margins so why not do it.

All I'm really saying here is that contrary to your earlier post I think this particular approach (and any other that is entirely derived from an on airport navaid) isn't a good place to use a racetrack course reversal simply because on such an approach you need a large distance from that navaid to the reversal. When there's a navaid/FAF to base the reversal on the issues I raised are far less significant because you should be exposed to drift for much less time.
 
If you have (IFR) GPS the concern over drift does indeed vanish, but in that case I can't see why you wouldn't use the GPS or ILS approach in the first place.
Well, it is possible that you might have to fly the full procedure ILS someday and then you could potentially have to do the course reversal.


lancefisher said:
The difference is that by intercepting and tracking the outbound radial you will be much closer to the protected airspace boundaries as you move away from the VOR than you'd be with an extended racetrack. Don't forget that you'll be descending during that outbound leg as well. Now technically the TERPS should mandate that there's plenty of room for drift on an unguided outbound leg but those same requirements assume things like a maximum crosswind component and minimum heading error. Throw in a precessing heading indicator that was last reset to a wildly oscillating compass 15 minutes ago, a bigger wind than the TERPS expect, some altimeter error due to the big wind over the terrain, plus a little inattention to altitude and heading by the pilot during this busy portion of the flight and IMO it's all too easy to wander outside the protected airspace. By staying on a positive guidance segment of the approach you can drastically improve the margins so why not do it.

All I'm really saying here is that contrary to your earlier post I think this particular approach (and any other that is entirely derived from an on airport navaid) isn't a good place to use a racetrack course reversal simply because on such an approach you need a large distance from that navaid to the reversal. When there's a navaid/FAF to base the reversal on the issues I raised are far less significant because you should be exposed to drift for much less time.
All good points Lance. The main reason I threw it out there is because many pilots aren't even aware it was an option so I thought I'd give it some exposure.

As far as terrain, IMIEO (in my inexperienced opinion) it is wise to read the height of the obstacles on the approach plate, low en-route, and sectional before departing/arriving at a destination *when possible*. It seems to me like many people don't do this and the more knowledge about the local terrain you have-- the better you can plan your approach / deparature.
 
As far as terrain, IMIEO (in my inexperienced opinion) it is wise to read the height of the obstacles on the approach plate, low en-route, and sectional before departing/arriving at a destination *when possible*. It seems to me like many people don't do this and the more knowledge about the local terrain you have-- the better you can plan your approach / deparature.
And to add to that, another aspect that is frequently ignored is to check for ODPs. You're cleared to fly these without specific ATC clearance (unless ATC assigns something else) and it's always a good idea to do so unless all the terrain is visible.....
 
OK but I'd personally be uncomfortable making the entire outbound leg sans guidance, especially at my typical 150 KIAS speed at that point and especially if there were obstacles nearby.
There are a lot of reasons why the "recommended" course reversal is the book-standard 45-180 PT, and this is one of them. However, as I said above, if you have GPS, you can fly desired track outbound on a racetrack very easily, killing any wind drift issues other than the one minute in the outbound turn. The protected airspace for a PT is certainly large enough to accommodate anything less than gale force winds even at 150 KIAS (the space is designed based on a maximum 200 KIAS at the depicted altitude).
 
And to add to that, another aspect that is frequently ignored is to check for ODPs. You're cleared to fly these without specific ATC clearance (unless ATC assigns something else) and it's always a good idea to do so unless all the terrain is visible.....

+1. ODP's are mandatory if you like continuing to live, even in "flat" states like Iowa and Wisconsin.
 
Back
Top