Length of Final Approach
- Thread starter NYCDooDahMan
- Start date
Mr_Creepy
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
LGA 22 can be a royal pain. Went in there a few times and we'd fly by the airport (severe clear) and it would be another 20 minutes before we landed because of the traffic. Occasionally they'd vector 22 traffic to the East, instead of sending you up the river.
[/ QUOTE ]
I remember lots of cool approaches for 22 at LaGarbage.
It was interesting to see all these airline types doing the LDA approach when you just knew it was not on their ops certificate
Bog you remember the Statue of Liberty Visual? I actually heard a controller say "plan to go to the bitch and up the ditch" one night.
I always asked for 2000' over the hudson - this gave the passengers on the right a fantastic view of the NY skyline, and the WTC pre 9-11.
LGA 22 can be a royal pain. Went in there a few times and we'd fly by the airport (severe clear) and it would be another 20 minutes before we landed because of the traffic. Occasionally they'd vector 22 traffic to the East, instead of sending you up the river.
[/ QUOTE ]
I remember lots of cool approaches for 22 at LaGarbage.
It was interesting to see all these airline types doing the LDA approach when you just knew it was not on their ops certificate
Bog you remember the Statue of Liberty Visual? I actually heard a controller say "plan to go to the bitch and up the ditch" one night.
I always asked for 2000' over the hudson - this gave the passengers on the right a fantastic view of the NY skyline, and the WTC pre 9-11.
Tired
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, par4 arrival looks like fun in a jet. set up on a nice stable descent and then set up from 32 miles out from 10000ft to truck on down the glide slope.....i wonder how long that would take in a c172.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to long since you'd get run over in about two minutes.
Above 10 the usually make you go 280kts+, and typically they also want 180kts to the marker. You also have to make about seven different crossing restrictions.
Got to fly the Loop.4 departure for the first time out of LAX last night...now that is a fun one.
Yeah, par4 arrival looks like fun in a jet. set up on a nice stable descent and then set up from 32 miles out from 10000ft to truck on down the glide slope.....i wonder how long that would take in a c172.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to long since you'd get run over in about two minutes.
Above 10 the usually make you go 280kts+, and typically they also want 180kts to the marker. You also have to make about seven different crossing restrictions.
Got to fly the Loop.4 departure for the first time out of LAX last night...now that is a fun one.
Bog
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
I remember lots of cool approaches for 22 at LaGarbage. ... you remember the Statue of Liberty Visual? I actually heard a controller say "plan to go to the bitch and up the ditch" one night.
[/ QUOTE ]
When I was flying outta CMH, we never got the 'Lady Visual. Used to take so many pics going up the River. I remember the first time up the river after 9/11. What a sight. Very somber mood on the radios.
I remember lots of cool approaches for 22 at LaGarbage. ... you remember the Statue of Liberty Visual? I actually heard a controller say "plan to go to the bitch and up the ditch" one night.
[/ QUOTE ]
When I was flying outta CMH, we never got the 'Lady Visual. Used to take so many pics going up the River. I remember the first time up the river after 9/11. What a sight. Very somber mood on the radios.
Ralgha
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that there's no need to fly a 4-mile downwind to a 4-mile final. However, the whole "Always be in a position to land" thing is...well, to open myself up to the flames of the purists, silly.
You can't always be in a position to land on the runway. I don't care how you twist it, it's impossible. If that's your logic, I can only support it 100% if you climb to 10,000 circleing above the airport, and then you plan your route in such a way as to always be within gliding distance of a runway.
[/ QUOTE ]
The idea isn't to always be within gliding distance of a runway when you're flying.
If you're in a traffic pattern with the intention to land, then you have a beautiful runway right there and you'd probably be laughed at if you missed it because your engine died and your pattern was to far away to make it.
Not to mention it keeps you in practice for the busier airports when the tower tells you to keep it in close and expects you to stand your 152 on a wing to land ahead of a 757.
I agree that there's no need to fly a 4-mile downwind to a 4-mile final. However, the whole "Always be in a position to land" thing is...well, to open myself up to the flames of the purists, silly.
You can't always be in a position to land on the runway. I don't care how you twist it, it's impossible. If that's your logic, I can only support it 100% if you climb to 10,000 circleing above the airport, and then you plan your route in such a way as to always be within gliding distance of a runway.
[/ QUOTE ]
The idea isn't to always be within gliding distance of a runway when you're flying.
If you're in a traffic pattern with the intention to land, then you have a beautiful runway right there and you'd probably be laughed at if you missed it because your engine died and your pattern was to far away to make it.
Not to mention it keeps you in practice for the busier airports when the tower tells you to keep it in close and expects you to stand your 152 on a wing to land ahead of a 757.
Aaron_Kearney
New Member
If you're on the CIVET4 into LAX, "final" can start the moment you're told to "descent via the CIVET4 arrival"; the STAR leads you straight onto the 25L localizer. Talk about simple
