Aspen at night

[Ron Garret]

All the approach plates for Aspen are marked "Procedure not authorized
at night" (presumably a result of the G4 crash a few years back). And
yet there are commercial flights scheduled to land as Aspen at night.
How do they do it?

rg

[Peter R.]

Ron Garret > wrote:

> All the approach plates for Aspen are marked "Procedure not authorized
> at night" (presumably a result of the G4 crash a few years back).
<snip>

Actually, that night prohibition was in effect when the Gulfstream III
crashed. I recall reading that this was one of the pressures the two
pilots were under to land there, as they were late leaving the LA area.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010412X00738&key=1

--
Peter

[[email protected]]

Ron Garret wrote:

> All the approach plates for Aspen are marked "Procedure not authorized
> at night" (presumably a result of the G4 crash a few years back). And
> yet there are commercial flights scheduled to land as Aspen at night.
> How do they do it?
>
> rg
Special, carrier-specific authorizations based on specialized,
FAA-approved training and airport familiarity requirements.

[John Clonts]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> All the approach plates for Aspen are marked "Procedure not authorized
> at night" (presumably a result of the G4 crash a few years back). And
> yet there are commercial flights scheduled to land as Aspen at night.
> How do they do it?
>
> rg

Maybe they only fly in VMC?

[Jim Macklin]

Private non-published approach.



"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
| All the approach plates for Aspen are marked "Procedure
not authorized
| at night" (presumably a result of the G4 crash a few years
back). And
| yet there are commercial flights scheduled to land as
Aspen at night.
| How do they do it?
|
| rg

[Ron Garret]

In article <N9luf.38962$QW2.6921@dukeread08>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> Private non-published approach.

Cool. How do I get me one of those?

rg

[[email protected]]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article <N9luf.38962$QW2.6921@dukeread08>,
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>
>
>>Private non-published approach.
>
>
> Cool. How do I get me one of those?
>
> rg

Form an airline, then meet all the special crew, aircraft, and training
requirements.

[Ron Lee]

Ron Garret > wrote:

>In article <N9luf.38962$QW2.6921@dukeread08>,
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>
>> Private non-published approach.
>
>Cool. How do I get me one of those?

You look at a sectional of that area and plot a course. Input
appropriate points into your GPS unit flight plan. With each point is
an associated minimum altitude. Flight check in VFR conditions before
use. Verify that you won't kill anyone on the ground if off course.
Don't carry passengers when in IMC conditions flying the approach. Of
course this would be "illegal."

I just read the full narrative of the screwup (accident). I missed
where they went wrong. Since they impacted short of the runway I
would have to assume that they went below MDA too soon. However it
seemed like they were saying they had the airport in sight.

Ron Lee

[Jim Macklin]

Spend a lot of money on surveys and FAA flight evaluations
flight testing.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
| In article <N9luf.38962$QW2.6921@dukeread08>,
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > Private non-published approach.
|
| Cool. How do I get me one of those?
|
| rg

[Jim Macklin]

You design an approach, have special equipment and training,
have the FAA flight check the approach. You do not just
look at a sectional and make up something.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
| Ron Garret > wrote:
|
| >In article <N9luf.38962$QW2.6921@dukeread08>,
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
| >
| >> Private non-published approach.
| >
| >Cool. How do I get me one of those?
|
| You look at a sectional of that area and plot a course.
Input
| appropriate points into your GPS unit flight plan. With
each point is
| an associated minimum altitude. Flight check in VFR
conditions before
| use. Verify that you won't kill anyone on the ground if
off course.
| Don't carry passengers when in IMC conditions flying the
approach. Of
| course this would be "illegal."
|
| I just read the full narrative of the screwup (accident).
I missed
| where they went wrong. Since they impacted short of the
runway I
| would have to assume that they went below MDA too soon.
However it
| seemed like they were saying they had the airport in
sight.
|
| Ron Lee

[clipclip]

In article N9luf.38962$QW2.6921@dukeread08,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

Private non-published approach.

Cool. How do I get me one of those?

rg

it's not hard. all it takes is $75-150G's of loose change available to burn rather quickly. then you hire a consulting firm specialised in approaches to draw one up and with minimums tailored to your specific on board equipment and flight crew experience levels (and hope that the minimums are not so high that they're actually useful). then you submit about 50 pounds of paper adorned with letters, numbers and pictures arranged in nice color coordinated patters to the FAA, convince them that you've met all the requirements, fly it a few times with an approved FAA rep, and wallah! you (and your co-pilot) can now take your FLIR equipped G5 in at night.

:-)

frank

[Ron Lee]

Of course someone fails to see the humor in my post which was in
response to the humor of the prior poster (no smiley needed to detect
sarcasm)

Ron Lee



"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

>You design an approach, have special equipment and training,
>have the FAA flight check the approach. You do not just
>look at a sectional and make up something.
>
>
>--
>James H. Macklin
>ATP,CFI,A&P
>
>--
>The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
>But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
> some support
>http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
>See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
>
>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>| Ron Garret > wrote:
>|
>| >In article <N9luf.38962$QW2.6921@dukeread08>,
>| > "Jim Macklin" >
>wrote:
>| >
>| >> Private non-published approach.
>| >
>| >Cool. How do I get me one of those?
>|
>| You look at a sectional of that area and plot a course.
>Input
>| appropriate points into your GPS unit flight plan. With
>each point is
>| an associated minimum altitude. Flight check in VFR
>conditions before
>| use. Verify that you won't kill anyone on the ground if
>off course.
>| Don't carry passengers when in IMC conditions flying the
>approach. Of
>| course this would be "illegal."
>|
>| I just read the full narrative of the screwup (accident).
>I missed
>| where they went wrong. Since they impacted short of the
>runway I
>| would have to assume that they went below MDA too soon.
>However it
>| seemed like they were saying they had the airport in
>sight.
>|
>| Ron Lee
>
>

[Peter R.]

Ron Lee > wrote:

> Since they impacted short of the runway I
> would have to assume that they went below MDA too soon. However it
> seemed like they were saying they had the airport in sight.

I recall reading that the pilots never really positively sighted the
runway. Instead, the cockpit voice recorder captured the pilots speaking
in an uncertain tone that they thought they saw it.



--
Peter

[John R. Copeland]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message ...
>
> I just read the full narrative of the screwup (accident). I missed
> where they went wrong. Since they impacted short of the runway I
> would have to assume that they went below MDA too soon. However it
> seemed like they were saying they had the airport in sight.
>
> Ron Lee

The MDA at KASE is more than 2000 feet above the airport surface.
I wouldn't simplistically blame descending "below MDA too soon".
I think there probably was more to it than that.
I've flown approaches into Aspen several times, and they're not easy.

All of the approaches to KASE follow the Roaring Fork valley upstream.
I can definitely assure you that it gets dark early in the Aspen Valley,
and also that the final descent is very steep.
A complicating feature is the upsloping runway 15, which can give the
visual illusion to the pilot of seeming to be higher than actual.
Not only that, but also the 7000-foot runway is only 100 feet wide.
That can further aggravate the tendency to feel too high on final.

Under marginal visual conditions, it would be quite easy to drop too low
into the river valley, lose visual contact with the runway lights,
and then impact the highway on the high southwest bank of the river,
a fraction of a mile short of the runway.

There's good cause for that note on the KASE Airport chart which reads:
"Operations during periods of reduced visibility discouraged
for pilots unfamiliar with area."

[Robert M. Gary]

They saw the freeway and thought it was the runway as I recall. They
got off the gauges too soon. A mistake most of us have made at least
once in our career (not the aiming for the highway part, the getting
off the gauges too soon part). For part 135 IFR operations one pilot is
required to stay on the guages while the other pilot is allowed to look
outside for a positive ID on the airport. Not a good thing when both
start looking outside.

-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

I've been talking with a number of aircraft accident
investigators who have found the homemade approach in the
cockpit that led directly to the accident.

Don't find that much humor in giving instruction for
suicide.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
| Of course someone fails to see the humor in my post which
was in
| response to the humor of the prior poster (no smiley
needed to detect
| sarcasm)
|
| Ron Lee
|
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| >You design an approach, have special equipment and
training,
| >have the FAA flight check the approach. You do not just
| >look at a sectional and make up something.
| >
| >
| >--
| >James H. Macklin
| >ATP,CFI,A&P
| >
| >--
| >The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
| >But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
| > some support
| >http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
| >See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and
duties.
| >
| >
| >"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
| ...
| >| Ron Garret > wrote:
| >|
| >| >In article <N9luf.38962$QW2.6921@dukeread08>,
| >| > "Jim Macklin" >
| >wrote:
| >| >
| >| >> Private non-published approach.
| >| >
| >| >Cool. How do I get me one of those?
| >|
| >| You look at a sectional of that area and plot a course.
| >Input
| >| appropriate points into your GPS unit flight plan.
With
| >each point is
| >| an associated minimum altitude. Flight check in VFR
| >conditions before
| >| use. Verify that you won't kill anyone on the ground
if
| >off course.
| >| Don't carry passengers when in IMC conditions flying
the
| >approach. Of
| >| course this would be "illegal."
| >|
| >| I just read the full narrative of the screwup
(accident).
| >I missed
| >| where they went wrong. Since they impacted short of
the
| >runway I
| >| would have to assume that they went below MDA too soon.
| >However it
| >| seemed like they were saying they had the airport in
| >sight.
| >|
| >| Ron Lee
| >
| >
|

[[email protected]]

Ron Lee wrote:
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
>
>>In article <N9luf.38962$QW2.6921@dukeread08>,
>>"Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Private non-published approach.
>>
>>Cool. How do I get me one of those?
>
>
> You look at a sectional of that area and plot a course. Input
> appropriate points into your GPS unit flight plan. With each point is
> an associated minimum altitude. Flight check in VFR conditions before
> use. Verify that you won't kill anyone on the ground if off course.
> Don't carry passengers when in IMC conditions flying the approach. Of
> course this would be "illegal."

Nor to mention the topographical resolution of a sectional doesn't quite
cut it.

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> You design an approach, have special equipment and training,
> have the FAA flight check the approach. You do not just
> look at a sectional and make up something.
>
>
Before the FAA will flight-check the approach, they will examine every
bit of your design's obstacle clearance, which they well should.

....especially at Aspen....

[[email protected]]

clipclip wrote:

> Ron Garret Wrote:
>
>>In article N9luf.38962$QW2.6921@dukeread08,
>>"Jim Macklin" wrote:
>>
>>Private non-published approach.
>>
>>Cool. How do I get me one of those?
>>
>>rg
>
>
> it's not hard. all it takes is $75-150G's of loose change available to
> burn rather quickly. then you hire a consulting firm specialised in
> approaches to draw one up and with minimums tailored to your specific
> on board equipment and flight crew experience levels (and hope that the
> minimums are not so high that they're actually useful). then you submit
> about 50 pounds of paper adorned with letters, numbers and pictures
> arranged in nice color coordinated patters to the FAA, convince them
> that you've met all the requirements, fly it a few times with an
> approved FAA rep, and wallah! you (and your co-pilot) can now take your
> FLIR equipped G5 in at night.
>
> :-)
>
> frank
>
>
I like your spin. ;-)

Actually, NetJets has been trying for about three years to get an RNP
advanced procedure into ASE. Their approach path is great, but the
missed approach requires sterling, uninterrupted climb performance.

And, even as good as their concept is, once you get below MDA (or
perhaps DA) and get further behind, missed approach wise, at ASE you are
screw blue missing in a balked landing scenerio.

ASE simply should not be an IFR airport, politics aside.

[Jim Macklin]

An AV-8B should have no real problem, if the engine works.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


> wrote in message
news:VeGuf.5672$V.531@fed1read04...
| clipclip wrote:
|
| > Ron Garret Wrote:
| >
| >>In article N9luf.38962$QW2.6921@dukeread08,
| >>"Jim Macklin"
wrote:
| >>
| >>Private non-published approach.
| >>
| >>Cool. How do I get me one of those?
| >>
| >>rg
| >
| >
| > it's not hard. all it takes is $75-150G's of loose
change available to
| > burn rather quickly. then you hire a consulting firm
specialised in
| > approaches to draw one up and with minimums tailored to
your specific
| > on board equipment and flight crew experience levels
(and hope that the
| > minimums are not so high that they're actually useful).
then you submit
| > about 50 pounds of paper adorned with letters, numbers
and pictures
| > arranged in nice color coordinated patters to the FAA,
convince them
| > that you've met all the requirements, fly it a few times
with an
| > approved FAA rep, and wallah! you (and your co-pilot)
can now take your
| > FLIR equipped G5 in at night.
| >
| > :-)
| >
| > frank
| >
| >
| I like your spin. ;-)
|
| Actually, NetJets has been trying for about three years to
get an RNP
| advanced procedure into ASE. Their approach path is
great, but the
| missed approach requires sterling, uninterrupted climb
performance.
|
| And, even as good as their concept is, once you get below
MDA (or
| perhaps DA) and get further behind, missed approach wise,
at ASE you are
| screw blue missing in a balked landing scenerio.
|
| ASE simply should not be an IFR airport, politics aside.

[Ron Lee]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

>I've been talking with a number of aircraft accident
>investigators who have found the homemade approach in the
>cockpit that led directly to the accident.
>
>Don't find that much humor in giving instruction for
>suicide.
>
Jim, we both know that pilots can and do commit errors that kill them
and others. Only an idiot would have taken my comment seriously and
made such an approach to an area like Aspen.

Ron Lee

[Jim Macklin]

Sad fact is there are idiots out there and on-line.
Sometimes I feel like an idiot too, but the feeling will
pass.

Jim


"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| >I've been talking with a number of aircraft accident
| >investigators who have found the homemade approach in the
| >cockpit that led directly to the accident.
| >
| >Don't find that much humor in giving instruction for
| >suicide.
| >
| Jim, we both know that pilots can and do commit errors
that kill them
| and others. Only an idiot would have taken my comment
seriously and
| made such an approach to an area like Aspen.
|
| Ron Lee

[[email protected]]

Tim, is the US possible going to accept the Panops method of allowing
the application of climb gradients to missed approach segments? After
all, we're expected to be able to perform this ** sterling,
uninterrupted climb performance ** that you mention, on a departure
anyway. So to apply a missed approach gradient requirement when an
aircraft is generally lighter than on departure would be something a
lot of aircraft would be able to execute. Of course, I realize that
those in power would bring up many other issues, but it works in
Europe, and Burbank in Calif already seems to have a waiver for a
gradient greater than 2.5%

Or is Netjets talking less obstacle clearance than present RNAV (gps
or waas) approaches.

Stan

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:18:40 -0800, wrote:


>
>Actually, NetJets has been trying for about three years to get an RNP
>advanced procedure into ASE. Their approach path is great, but the
>missed approach requires sterling, uninterrupted climb performance.
>
>And, even as good as their concept is, once you get below MDA (or
>perhaps DA) and get further behind, missed approach wise, at ASE you are
>screw blue missing in a balked landing scenerio.
>
>ASE simply should not be an IFR airport, politics aside.

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> An AV-8B should have no real problem, if the engine works.
>
>
There is no transport aircraft, biz jet or air carrier, that can safely
extract from Aspen below 800 feet or so.

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> Tim, is the US possible going to accept the Panops method of allowing
> the application of climb gradients to missed approach segments? After
> all, we're expected to be able to perform this ** sterling,
> uninterrupted climb performance ** that you mention, on a departure
> anyway. So to apply a missed approach gradient requirement when an
> aircraft is generally lighter than on departure would be something a
> lot of aircraft would be able to execute. Of course, I realize that
> those in power would bring up many other issues, but it works in
> Europe, and Burbank in Calif already seems to have a waiver for a
> gradient greater than 2.5%
>
> Or is Netjets talking less obstacle clearance than present RNAV (gps
> or waas) approaches.
>
> Stan

There is no comparable "sterling" climb gradient requirement at ASE,
because there are no Runway 15 departures. ;-)

The 950 feet per mile for Runway 33 is rather "sterling" to say the least.

As to climb gradients on missed approach procedures, historically the
FAA has been committed to the 40:1, particularly because of the vast
number of low-performance light aircraft conducting IFR ops in this country.

Burbank was driven by airline politics many years ago. It is a nominal
situation compared to some of the ICAO stuff.

The industry/FAA group (the PARC) that is working the emerging RNP
criteria has already approved missed approach climb gradients of up to
400 feet per mile on RNAV (RNP) SAAAR IAPs. The new IAP at KSUN has a
climb gradient as does one of the new PSP RNP IAPs.

The PARC has yet to work through non-SAAAR RNAV (RNP) IAP criteria. The
issue of climb gradients will be debated again because light aircraft
will use these procedures. As a practical matter, the SAAAR procedures
are limited to advanced biz jet and airliners, that have no issue with a
climb gradient of 400 feet per mile, or less.

And, with RNP a lot of the climb gradient issues are avoided by using
RNP missed approach areas (avoiding terrain to the sides). But, RNP in
the missed approach requires the most demanding equippage so RNP can be
sustained in the event of a loss of GPS. Thus far, only the KSUN RNP
IAP has an RNP requirement for the missed approach.

[Jim Macklin]

All missed approach gradients are based on engine out climb,
which is very weak because jets climb at high speed and thus
have a lower gradient. The simple fact is that with an MDA
that is above VFR, but below surrounding terrain, it is a
very big problem because those people with ski and snow
boards have a strange desire to die in the mountains.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

> wrote in message
news:56Ruf.6564$V.4922@fed1read04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > An AV-8B should have no real problem, if the engine
works.
| >
| >
| There is no transport aircraft, biz jet or air carrier,
that can safely
| extract from Aspen below 800 feet or so.

[Peter R.]

Jim Macklin > wrote:

> The simple fact is that with an MDA
> that is above VFR, but below surrounding terrain,

What does this mean? I understand the "MDA below surrounding terrain"
part, but not the "MDA above VFR" part.


--
Peter

[Ron Lee]

"Peter R." > wrote:

>Jim Macklin > wrote:
>
>> The simple fact is that with an MDA
>> that is above VFR, but below surrounding terrain,
>
>What does this mean? I understand the "MDA below surrounding terrain"
>part, but not the "MDA above VFR" part.

Here is one approach chart that shows the MDA for this approach to be
10,200 feet.

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0513/05889VDGC.PDF

Ron Lee

[Jim Macklin]

VFR is 1,000 foot ceiling, the MDA on many mountain
approaches is as high as 2,000 feet above the runway.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin > wrote:
|
| > The simple fact is that with an MDA
| > that is above VFR, but below surrounding terrain,
|
| What does this mean? I understand the "MDA below
surrounding terrain"
| part, but not the "MDA above VFR" part.
|
|
| --
| Peter

[Peter R.]

Jim Macklin > wrote:

> VFR is 1,000 foot ceiling, the MDA on many mountain
> approaches is as high as 2,000 feet above the runway.

OK. I cannot imagine flying VFR under a 1,000 foot ceiling in the
mountains, where peaks extend well into the ceiling.


--
Peter

[Blanche]

FYI

For those of you not familiar with the Aspen airport or haven't
seen a chart --- think of it as a U shape, opening to the NW, and
the rest of the U is 12-14K foot mountains. A small single can
physically take off to the SW and make the turn to get out to the
NW but not too many other aircraft (other than helicopter). Landings
are to the SE, takeoffs to the NW with an immediate turn N for the
missed.

No, I've never flown into Aspen, but I live in Colorado and drive out
there to ski (well, I used to. No more skiing -- gotta pay for the
airplane)


(just to help everyone else visualize what's going on)

[John R. Copeland]

"Blanche" > wrote in message ...
>
> .... A small single can
> physically take off to the SW and make the turn to get out to the
> NW but not too many other aircraft (other than helicopter). Landings
> are to the SE, takeoffs to the NW with an immediate turn N for the
> missed.
>
You are technically correct, Blanche, but don't take off to the SW
without observing this note from the KASE Airport Information Chart:
"Take-off not authorized on Rwy 15 without written permission
from airport manager."
Though I'm not certain, I think noise issues affect that operation, too.

BTW, Blanche, have you ever visited the huge localizer antenna array
up at the top of Ajax, near the restaurant?
Impressive, isn't it?

[[email protected]]

: > VFR is 1,000 foot ceiling, the MDA on many mountain
: > approaches is as high as 2,000 feet above the runway.

: OK. I cannot imagine flying VFR under a 1,000 foot ceiling in the
: mountains, where peaks extend well into the ceiling.

In many places, that type of operation is S.O.P. Southeast Alaska comes to
mind. People who live and fly there generally don't get into trouble... the
statistics are generally people from Outside flying in.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> All missed approach gradients are based on engine out climb,
> which is very weak because jets climb at high speed and thus
> have a lower gradient.

Nothing in TERPs, including missed approach procedures, consider engine
out climb.

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> In many places, that type of operation is S.O.P. Southeast Alaska comes to
> mind. People who live and fly there generally don't get into trouble... the
> statistics are generally people from Outside flying in.

Yes, bush pilots are an incredible lot. I was thinking of your standard
issue GA pilot, which includes me.

There was a good book I read last year describing the life and times of an
Adirondack Mountains (NY State, USA) bush pilot. In it are stories about
spotting a hole in the clouds and confidentially dropping through that hole
to land his floatplane on a lake, discharging his passengers, then taking
off and circling back up through the hole.



--
Peter

[Jim Macklin]

Me neither, when I fly into the mountains, I want to be VFR
1,000 above the peaks. But so far I've been lucky, my trips
to Aspen and Angel Fire have been in widely scattered
cirrus.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin > wrote:
|
| > VFR is 1,000 foot ceiling, the MDA on many mountain
| > approaches is as high as 2,000 feet above the runway.
|
| OK. I cannot imagine flying VFR under a 1,000 foot
ceiling in the
| mountains, where peaks extend well into the ceiling.
|
|
| --
| Peter

[Jim Macklin]

Standard climb gradients are based on 150'/ NM (if I
remember correctly) and if a departure is greater than that,
it will be noted on the chart. FAR 135 and 121 require that
the most adverse performance be considered when operating,
gross weight must be reduced to meet the performance
requirement. Often you will see airliners with half the
seats empty because the airplane can't meet the take-off
requirements.

I did not say it very well the first time.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


> wrote in message
news:3NWuf.6579$V.94@fed1read04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > All missed approach gradients are based on engine out
climb,
| > which is very weak because jets climb at high speed and
thus
| > have a lower gradient.
|
| Nothing in TERPs, including missed approach procedures,
consider engine
| out climb.

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Standard climb gradients are based on 150'/ NM (if I
> remember correctly) and if a departure is greater than that,
> it will be noted on the chart. FAR 135 and 121 require that
> the most adverse performance be considered when operating,
> gross weight must be reduced to meet the performance
> requirement. Often you will see airliners with half the
> seats empty because the airplane can't meet the take-off
> requirements.
>
> I did not say it very well the first time.
>
>
>
Departures are standard if they do not exceed 200 feet per mile.

Missed approach surfaces are 40:1, which is 152 feet per mile. That is
probably the 150 per mile you're thinking of. The current FAA thinking
is that a missed approach requires 200 feet per mile, and the AIM so
states. (AIM 5-4-20 b)

One-engine climb gradient requirements apply on the commercial
operators. (121.189 for air carriers). But, the air carrier, under
121.189, is not required to look at the missed approach procedure's
entire area of protected airspace. If the carrier finds that will not
penalize them they are free to simply accept the missed approach as a
missed-approach OEI flight path.

As you know, the 121.189 issues are far more pronounced on departure
than they are on the typical missed approach.

[Jim Macklin]

KISS WAG SWAG PDC

150/152 even 200 ft/nm is shallow, but most light aircraft
and many jets with an engine out can't do it at altitudes
above 5,000 feet.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

> wrote in message
news:AJYuf.6585$V.412@fed1read04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Standard climb gradients are based on 150'/ NM (if I
| > remember correctly) and if a departure is greater than
that,
| > it will be noted on the chart. FAR 135 and 121 require
that
| > the most adverse performance be considered when
operating,
| > gross weight must be reduced to meet the performance
| > requirement. Often you will see airliners with half the
| > seats empty because the airplane can't meet the take-off
| > requirements.
| >
| > I did not say it very well the first time.
| >
| >
| >
| Departures are standard if they do not exceed 200 feet per
mile.
|
| Missed approach surfaces are 40:1, which is 152 feet per
mile. That is
| probably the 150 per mile you're thinking of. The current
FAA thinking
| is that a missed approach requires 200 feet per mile, and
the AIM so
| states. (AIM 5-4-20 b)
|
| One-engine climb gradient requirements apply on the
commercial
| operators. (121.189 for air carriers). But, the air
carrier, under
| 121.189, is not required to look at the missed approach
procedure's
| entire area of protected airspace. If the carrier finds
that will not
| penalize them they are free to simply accept the missed
approach as a
| missed-approach OEI flight path.
|
| As you know, the 121.189 issues are far more pronounced on
departure
| than they are on the typical missed approach.

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> KISS WAG SWAG PDC
>
> 150/152 even 200 ft/nm is shallow, but most light aircraft
> and many jets with an engine out can't do it at altitudes
> above 5,000 feet.
>
>
Then, there are the high-end biz jets that can do 700 feet per mile (SL,
standard day) with OEI.

[Jim Macklin]

Yes, the modern biz jet is very over-powered and they can
climb at moderate speed. But with an engine out, even the
hot-rod Lear jet climbs out flat.

Just as a point, I once had the opportunity to depart
Wichita (1332 feet MSL) single pilot in a King Air 300, no
passengers or baggage and only 1/2 fuel. I was taking the
plane to Oklahoma City for a salesman to show. Departed
runway 1R and did a 130 kt. IAS chandelle to the right from
rotation, circling around the airport radar antenna. Rolled
out southbound at 5,000 over the Cessna plant. Approach
asked where I was, apparently I stayed in their dead zone
from just after lift-off until I rolled out of my turn,
about 45 seconds after take-off.

I could have been higher but 5,000 was my take-off limit,
approach cleared my to 15,000 and I was there before I was
10 miles south. Love that big King Air, only problem was my
chart bag ended up in the baggage area, lucky for me, it was
a route I flew weekly and the necessary charts were on my
knee. I use a cheap steno pad holder with a "third-hand"
from Sporty's, cost very little, has a clear window on the
flap and a 5x8 yellow pad.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


> wrote in message
news:26_uf.6816$V.287@fed1read04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > KISS WAG SWAG PDC
| >
| > 150/152 even 200 ft/nm is shallow, but most light
aircraft
| > and many jets with an engine out can't do it at
altitudes
| > above 5,000 feet.
| >
| >
| Then, there are the high-end biz jets that can do 700 feet
per mile (SL,
| standard day) with OEI.
|

[Blanche]

John R. Copeland > wrote:
>"Blanche" > wrote in message
>>
>> .... A small single can
>> physically take off to the SW and make the turn to get out to the
>> NW but not too many other aircraft (other than helicopter). Landings
>> are to the SE, takeoffs to the NW with an immediate turn N for the
>> missed.
>>
>You are technically correct, Blanche, but don't take off to the SW
>without observing this note from the KASE Airport Information Chart:
>"Take-off not authorized on Rwy 15 without written permission
>from airport manager."
>Though I'm not certain, I think noise issues affect that operation, too.
>
>BTW, Blanche, have you ever visited the huge localizer antenna array
>up at the top of Ajax, near the restaurant?
>Impressive, isn't it?

Top of Ajax is about the only place to put the antennas!

As for the SW takeoff, the noise issues are complaints from the
McMansions at the SW end of the valley. Once upon a time Babs had
a ranch there, don't know if she still does or not.

(you know you're a local when you call it Ajax and Buttermilk)

[John Clonts]

> (you know you're a local when you call it Ajax and Buttermilk)

Is there another name for Buttermilk? (I have skied all the Aspen
areas but it was years ago)

And, where is the localizer antenna? I have a vague recollection of a
structure extending across the top of the ski run "Buckhorn", almost
blocking it (i.e. you had to ski around it to get to the run). Is that
it? (trail map:
<http://www.rsn.com/util/trail_map_disp.html?permcode=303003> )

--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[John R. Copeland]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message oups.com...
>> (you know you're a local when you call it Ajax and Buttermilk)
>
> Is there another name for Buttermilk? (I have skied all the Aspen
> areas but it was years ago)
>
> And, where is the localizer antenna? I have a vague recollection of a
> structure extending across the top of the ski run "Buckhorn", almost
> blocking it (i.e. you had to ski around it to get to the run). Is that
> it? (trail map:
> <http://www.rsn.com/util/trail_map_disp.html?permcode=303003> )
> --
> Cheers,
> John Clonts
>
Yes, John, that's where the localizer is.
It's maybe 16 ruggedized VHF Yagis over a big metal-mesh groundplane.
The first time I saw it from a distance, I thought it might be
some sort of a picnic platform!

Buttermilk = Tiehack, maybe?
Isn't that just a bus stop between the airport and Highlands? :-)
Did you ever eat at Krabloonik on the west slope of Snowmass?
Mmmmm!

[John Clonts]

>Yes, John, that's where the localizer is.
>It's maybe 16 ruggedized VHF Yagis over a big metal-mesh groundplane.
>The first time I saw it from a distance, I thought it might be
>some sort of a picnic platform!


Ok, thanks!

Here it is from the satellite:
<http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.153617,-106.821581&spn=0.003802,0.007006&t=k>

[John R. Copeland]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message oups.com...
> >Yes, John, that's where the localizer is.
>>It's maybe 16 ruggedized VHF Yagis over a big metal-mesh groundplane.
>>The first time I saw it from a distance, I thought it might be
>>some sort of a picnic platform!
>
>
> Ok, thanks!
>
> Here it is from the satellite:
> <http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.153617,-106.821581&spn=0.003802,0.007006&t=k>
>
Cool!
You can zoom that out and pan northwest, to see how the beam fires
across the edge of the airport, pointing toward LINDZ!

[Blanche]

John R. Copeland > wrote:
>"John Clonts" > wrote in message
>>> (you know you're a local when you call it Ajax and Buttermilk)
>>
>> Is there another name for Buttermilk? (I have skied all the Aspen
>> areas but it was years ago)
>>
>> And, where is the localizer antenna? I have a vague recollection of a
>> structure extending across the top of the ski run "Buckhorn", almost
>> blocking it (i.e. you had to ski around it to get to the run). Is that
>> it? (trail map:
>> <http://www.rsn.com/util/trail_map_disp.html?permcode=303003> )
>>
>Yes, John, that's where the localizer is.
>It's maybe 16 ruggedized VHF Yagis over a big metal-mesh groundplane.
>The first time I saw it from a distance, I thought it might be
>some sort of a picnic platform!
>
>Buttermilk = Tiehack, maybe?
>Isn't that just a bus stop between the airport and Highlands? :-)
>Did you ever eat at Krabloonik on the west slope of Snowmass?
>Mmmmm!

There are 4 mountains that comprise "Aspen" and all are connected
by shuttle but that's the only way to get from one to another.
The 4 are Aspen Mountain, Aspen Highlands, Buttermilk and
Snowmass. Buttermilk is mostly for beginners. The original name
for Aspen Mountain was Ajax.

Useful for winning trivia contests!

[John R. Copeland]

"Blanche" > wrote in message ...
> John R. Copeland > wrote:
>>"John Clonts" > wrote in message
>>>> (you know you're a local when you call it Ajax and Buttermilk)
>>>
>>> Is there another name for Buttermilk? (I have skied all the Aspen
>>> areas but it was years ago)
>>>
>>> And, where is the localizer antenna? I have a vague recollection of a
>>> structure extending across the top of the ski run "Buckhorn", almost
>>> blocking it (i.e. you had to ski around it to get to the run). Is that
>>> it? (trail map:
>>> <http://www.rsn.com/util/trail_map_disp.html?permcode=303003> )
>>>
>>Yes, John, that's where the localizer is.
>>It's maybe 16 ruggedized VHF Yagis over a big metal-mesh groundplane.
>>The first time I saw it from a distance, I thought it might be
>>some sort of a picnic platform!
>>
>>Buttermilk = Tiehack, maybe?
>>Isn't that just a bus stop between the airport and Highlands? :-)
>>Did you ever eat at Krabloonik on the west slope of Snowmass?
>>Mmmmm!
>
> There are 4 mountains that comprise "Aspen" and all are connected
> by shuttle but that's the only way to get from one to another.
> The 4 are Aspen Mountain, Aspen Highlands, Buttermilk and
> Snowmass. Buttermilk is mostly for beginners. The original name
> for Aspen Mountain was Ajax.
>
> Useful for winning trivia contests!
>
Don't forget that other bit of trivia, Blanche...
"What percentage of Aspen Mountain is rated for Beginners?"
Obviously, you and many others here already know the answer.

I still miss the après-ski rowdiness on the old deck at Little Nell. :-(