Toughest Approach

[Guest]

I like to fly in the carribean and the approaches at SABA and TFFJ (St. Barth) are incredibly tough in any kind of crosswind. I have flight 1's West Indies scenery so its realistic (unlike the flat pancakes MS made them). Give them a shot in windy conditions and see if you can stop your plane in time on Saba's 400 foot runway.

[MM 424]

And of course Catacamas (MHCA) in Honduras is an old favorite. A few broken bones, but other than that no danger at all. :-eekM.

[someone 0]

I just have to ask, as I have flown to both of those airports in real life, what did you find difficult about those approaches?

[Geofa 108]

I suppose the proximity of mountains as the shot shows, and no glideslope. But then I live in the flatlands of the US.Breaking out of the clouds over El Capitan:http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

[Azapata87 173]

hi, I hope I have my information correct... but hasent runway 27 at KSAN had a new ILS system installed recentlly (with glideslope) for superbowl Sunday? AndrewKRAL

[Guest]

St Bart's is still my all time toughest approach to fly because it sucks you in to thinking it is just a normal visual approach to a short field. Then if you don't stay high the field disappears, If you do then you better be right at stall speed and drop her in by pulling back on the yoke, flying way on the backside of the power curve, or you will never make it. To make it worse the runway is very narrow and you are dropping like a rock at stall speed, and have to add a bunch of power at the bottom to arrest your descent, all the while looking at that Tiki bar at the nude beach, at the end of the field, which runs steeply downhill, approaching very fast! Having flown in there with a properly liscenced Pilot in an Aztec, and having sat on the hill with a Twin Otter almost putting his mains into your Jeep's roll bar it is a very scary ordeal from either view.EDIT: The only other approach that scared me this badly in all my years of flying is the TACAN A to Navy Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Get it wrong and you will drive your wing tip into the ground on Base leg, or fly over the Fence line and be shot at by the Cuban Soilders who sit there and wait for someone to screw up. I once saw a DC9 cartwheel onto the approach end of the field, not a pretty sight.http://www.ktone.org/images/FSD_ken.jpg

[Guest]

thanks for the clarification there, that makes much more sense!speedbird

[Guest skylanepilot]

>>That's why it's identified with an alpha identifier -- >"VOR/DME-C" instead of "VOR/DME Rwy 15. An alpha identifier >alerts you that due to terrain or obstructions, "normal" >glideslope or stepdown altitudes are not feasible and you >will be left so high at the MAP that a normal descent and >landing may not be possible. If the weather is higher than >minimums, you are permitted to start descending before the >MAP if the runway environment is clearly visible. >Otherwise, circling is your only choice. Although legal, >circling at this airport gives me the puckers. Technically, the alpha identifier makes this a circling approach. Note the minimums at the bottom of the chart do not have "straight in" mininums -- only circling mins. The requirement to circle is based on the fact that a "normal" straight in landing is not possible if you break out at minimums. That can be due to height above touchdown - as in this case - or due to course alignment with the runway.Take a look at the VOR-A approach at TEB which drops you down to 1000' but on a 60 to 90 degree intercept angle to the runways. If the approach course is more than 30 degrees off the runway heading, it makes it a circling approach.In the Aspen case, once you break out, you would probably fly a modified pattern or an overhead break. In a modified pattern, you would want to side step about 1/4 mi to the right of the runway and descend while paralleling the runway. Turn crosswind over the field (about midfield) while continuing the descent to set up for a tight left downwind. In the overhead break you fly just over the runway threshold and break into a descending 180 degree turn which (hopefully) will put you on short final at a reasonable height. Remember, if vis is low and you lose sight of the runway, you have to go missed.Have fun ...Martin JensenPP-ASEL-IAN182LU - KBED

[someone 0]

I was refering to the MEI and LIT aproaches. I shot the LOC-D into SEE on FS with the weather set to minimums. I didn't pick up GRIGG, so I had to lose 2000+ ft. of altitude when I spotted the runway. I can see how that would be tough in a faster plane.

[Guest]

So happens I flew two of these in the past couple of days (using FS2002): into Valdez, AK (PAVD) on Saturday, and then into Kodiak (PADQ) this morning. I guess there is something to be said between a "dangerous airport" and "toughest approach." Valdez is a bit of both, with the loc-only LDA-DME approach, and the mountains all around, especially hugging the north side of the airfield. The ILS approach to Kodiak is not particularly tough, but it is a dangerous airport because of the surrounding mountains and winds. When I flew into Kodiak this morning I had winds 100 at 17 kts, which made the approach to Runway 25 pretty hairy. Visibility was 4 miles in rain, with the ceiling at 2600, so I probably should have landed on Runway 10 once I could see the airport.Point is, real weather can make any approach tough, and any airport dangerous, especially when there are mountains around.-Basil

[sskoup 0]

Sai87,No, San Diego did not install a new ILS system just for the Superbowl. It is still just a Localizer approach for 27. Do you really think the Government would cater to a sporting event which really amounts to a Big Business Corporate version of 'Spring Break'? There were so many BizJets parked at Lindbergh that ones coming in late to pick up clients after the game were being diverted to Gillespie (KSEE) and Brown (KSDM). Montgomery (KMYF) was closed due to the 'No Fly Zone' but its transient parking was pretty full also. N562Z, The approach to Lindbergh is worse than what the default FS2002 scenery depicts. In the default scenery that 'parking garage' is slightly North of the 'Centerline' of the runway. Actually that parking garage is right on the centerline, and if you are at the proper altitude the runway behind the displaced threshold is obscured by the parking garage. Can you imagine seeing that parking garage sticking up there out the front windscreen of a 747 on that approach? I use to go down there occasionally to watch the British Airways 747 come in and I would swear that they only missed the parking garage by less that 100 ft.

[N562Z 4]

sskoup:So glad you brought my attention to this reply! I've seen the location of that building in real life as well, and you are exactly tright, I remember it being ON the centerline too! And as far as 747's approaching, a retired airline captain acquaintance of mine told me that they have to come in high on the GS or else they run a real risk of tearing off their mains on that structure!! Great city planning!Alex ChristoffN562ZMinneapolis, MNThermobulb@aol.com