Help understanding Aspen VOR/DME approach

[SimGuy]

The plate is here-

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF

While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!

Could someone please confirm this or help with my interpretation of
the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.

TIA

[Sam Spade]

SimGuy wrote:
> The plate is here-
>
> http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
>
> While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
> relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
> without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
> must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
> 1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
>
> Could someone please confirm this or help with my interpretation of
> the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.
>
> TIA
It is circling only minimums because of the steep descent angle.

It is a form of "Let the buyer beware."

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>The plate is here-
>http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
>
>While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
>relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
>without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
>must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
>1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!

Well, yes, if you don't see the runway until the MAP and then want to land
on the runway ahead, you will have a very steep descent. But there are
two factors mitigating that:
- you might see the runway earlier and
- it's a circling approach, so you can circle around airport to descend if
you need to.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.

[Sam Spade]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, said:
>
>>The plate is here-
>>http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
>>
>>While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
>>relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
>>without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
>>must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
>>1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
>
>
> Well, yes, if you don't see the runway until the MAP and then want to land
> on the runway ahead, you will have a very steep descent. But there are
> two factors mitigating that:
> - you might see the runway earlier and
> - it's a circling approach, so you can circle around airport to descend if
> you need to.
>
>
At Aspen, circling around the airport is very risky business.

[SimGuy]

On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 23:13:21 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, said:
>>The plate is here-
>>http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
>>
>>While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
>>relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
>>without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
>>must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
>>1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
>
>Well, yes, if you don't see the runway until the MAP and then want to land
>on the runway ahead, you will have a very steep descent. But there are
>two factors mitigating that:
>- you might see the runway earlier and
>- it's a circling approach, so you can circle around airport to descend if
> you need to.

Even if the runway is spotted well before the MAP, say at, ALLIX, it's
a very steep descent. At 100kts it is 1140fpm.

I'm not an expert, but this looks like a tough approach; the MA looks
challenging too. Would it even be possible in a 172 or would it would
too under-powered? I imagine you would want something with plenty of
extra oomph.

[Bob Gardner]

You get a clue from the fact that there are no straight-in minimums. Then
there is the "C" in the title. When there is no runway number, one of two
things is evident: either the runway is not aligned with the final approach
course (not in this case, of course), or the descent rate does not meet the
400-foot per mile maximum allowable descent rate. You have to circle.

Bob Gardner

"SimGuy" > wrote in message
...
> The plate is here-
>
> http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
>
> While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
> relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
> without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
> must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
> 1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
>
> Could someone please confirm this or help with my interpretation of
> the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.
>
> TIA

[Sam Spade]

SimGuy wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 23:13:21 +0000 (UTC),
> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
>
>>In a previous article, said:
>>
>>>The plate is here-
>>>http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
>>>
>>>While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
>>>relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
>>>without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
>>>must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
>>>1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
>>
>>Well, yes, if you don't see the runway until the MAP and then want to land
>>on the runway ahead, you will have a very steep descent. But there are
>>two factors mitigating that:
>>- you might see the runway earlier and
>>- it's a circling approach, so you can circle around airport to descend if
>> you need to.
>
>
> Even if the runway is spotted well before the MAP, say at, ALLIX, it's
> a very steep descent. At 100kts it is 1140fpm.
>
> I'm not an expert, but this looks like a tough approach; the MA looks
> challenging too. Would it even be possible in a 172 or would it would
> too under-powered? I imagine you would want something with plenty of
> extra oomph.

This airport is death for IFR opes by normally-aspirated piston aircraft.

[John R. Copeland]

"SimGuy" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 23:13:21 +0000 (UTC),
> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
>>In a previous article, said:
>>>The plate is here-
>>>http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
>>>
>>>While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
>>>relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
>>>without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
>>>must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
>>>1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
>>
>>Well, yes, if you don't see the runway until the MAP and then want to land
>>on the runway ahead, you will have a very steep descent. But there are
>>two factors mitigating that:
>>- you might see the runway earlier and
>>- it's a circling approach, so you can circle around airport to descend if
>> you need to.
>
> Even if the runway is spotted well before the MAP, say at, ALLIX, it's
> a very steep descent. At 100kts it is 1140fpm.
>
> I'm not an expert, but this looks like a tough approach; the MA looks
> challenging too. Would it even be possible in a 172 or would it would
> too under-powered? I imagine you would want something with plenty of
> extra oomph.

Yes, it *is* a tough approach.
I've flown it for real a few times, and I'm pretty sure it's *possible* to get
down without circling, but I've never actually done that.
(I have excuses, of course. :-))
Approach Control is accustomed to hearing requests for something
like a left 360 to lose altitude during final approach.
They've always let me maneuver however I've needed.

I wouldn't expect to see a loaded 172 making the 14000-ft initial altitude.
I've had 172s higher than that, but only when lightly loaded.

I suggest crossing Red Table slow, with gear and flaps already extended.
Set prop(s) at high RPM to increase drag, too, if applicable.
If you don't do that, you'll need to circle somewhere over the Roaring Fork River.
You don't need to reach the airport before circling, just be in VMC.
Remember that the northeast bank of the river is a high plateau,
and it's a noise-sensitive area that you should try to respect.

If you *do* circle the airport, you will scare the daylights
out of your passengers as you approach the base-to-final turn.
A rock wall fills your windshield!
You can look it up on Google Earth, if you wish, but I can tell you
that it looks worse in real life than it appears on Google Earth.

[SimGuy]

>
>"SimGuy" > wrote in message
...
>> The plate is here-
>>
>> http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
>>
>> While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
>> relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
>> without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
>> must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
>> 1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
>>
>> Could someone please confirm this or help with my interpretation of
>> the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.
>>
>> TIA

On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:09:35 -0700, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>You get a clue from the fact that there are no straight-in minimums. Then
>there is the "C" in the title. When there is no runway number, one of two
>things is evident: either the runway is not aligned with the final approach
>course (not in this case, of course), or the descent rate does not meet the
>400-foot per mile maximum allowable descent rate. You have to circle.
>
>Bob Gardner

(you top-posted so I moved your message)

Thanks, that makes much more sense. But I have a question- the
circling minimum is 10,200', this applies up to the MAP right?
Obviously in circling the runway one would need to get lower.

[Jim Macklin]

Because you must be in visual conditions from the MDA and at
all time while circling. Bob Gardner gave the correct
answer. If you are fly a plane, such as a Helio Courier or
a similar STOL, you can land straight in, but most airplanes
will have to circle to land. Mountain flying is very nice
and also dangerous.



"SimGuy" > wrote in message
...
|
| >
| >"SimGuy" > wrote in message
| ...
| >> The plate is here-
| >>
| >>
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
| >>
| >> While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to
the MAP with
| >> relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to
make the runway
| >> without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems
a drop of 2380'
| >> must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral
distance of
| >> 1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
| >>
| >> Could someone please confirm this or help with my
interpretation of
| >> the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.
| >>
| >> TIA
|
| On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:09:35 -0700, "Bob Gardner"
>
| wrote:
|
| >You get a clue from the fact that there are no
straight-in minimums. Then
| >there is the "C" in the title. When there is no runway
number, one of two
| >things is evident: either the runway is not aligned with
the final approach
| >course (not in this case, of course), or the descent rate
does not meet the
| >400-foot per mile maximum allowable descent rate. You
have to circle.
| >
| >Bob Gardner
|
| (you top-posted so I moved your message)
|
| Thanks, that makes much more sense. But I have a question-
the
| circling minimum is 10,200', this applies up to the MAP
right?
| Obviously in circling the runway one would need to get
lower.

[SimGuy]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 01:33:35 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> wrote:

>
>"SimGuy" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 23:13:21 +0000 (UTC),
>> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>>
>>>In a previous article, said:
>>>>The plate is here-
>>>>http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
>>>>
>>>>While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
>>>>relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
>>>>without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
>>>>must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
>>>>1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
>>>
>>>Well, yes, if you don't see the runway until the MAP and then want to land
>>>on the runway ahead, you will have a very steep descent. But there are
>>>two factors mitigating that:
>>>- you might see the runway earlier and
>>>- it's a circling approach, so you can circle around airport to descend if
>>> you need to.
>>
>> Even if the runway is spotted well before the MAP, say at, ALLIX, it's
>> a very steep descent. At 100kts it is 1140fpm.
>>
>> I'm not an expert, but this looks like a tough approach; the MA looks
>> challenging too. Would it even be possible in a 172 or would it would
>> too under-powered? I imagine you would want something with plenty of
>> extra oomph.
>
>Yes, it *is* a tough approach.
>I've flown it for real a few times, and I'm pretty sure it's *possible* to get
>down without circling, but I've never actually done that.
>(I have excuses, of course. :-))
>Approach Control is accustomed to hearing requests for something
>like a left 360 to lose altitude during final approach.
>They've always let me maneuver however I've needed.
>
>I wouldn't expect to see a loaded 172 making the 14000-ft initial altitude.
>I've had 172s higher than that, but only when lightly loaded.
>
>I suggest crossing Red Table slow, with gear and flaps already extended.
>Set prop(s) at high RPM to increase drag, too, if applicable.
>If you don't do that, you'll need to circle somewhere over the Roaring Fork River.
>You don't need to reach the airport before circling, just be in VMC.
>Remember that the northeast bank of the river is a high plateau,
>and it's a noise-sensitive area that you should try to respect.
>
>If you *do* circle the airport, you will scare the daylights
>out of your passengers as you approach the base-to-final turn.
>A rock wall fills your windshield!
>You can look it up on Google Earth, if you wish, but I can tell you
>that it looks worse in real life than it appears on Google Earth.

Thanks! Your explanation really helped. I will now go and try it in
the sim again, this time in a 182.

[Bob Gardner]

Yes. The minimum descent altitude is 10,200...either land (good luck!),
circle, or do the miss at the MAP. I've never done this approach in a sim or
in real life, so I'm just going by the plate.

As a general rule, not limited to this approach, nothing regulatory keeps
you from landing straight in if you are in position to do so, even with
circling-only minima. Doing so will always be tough.

Bob Gardner


Bob Gardner

"SimGuy" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>>"SimGuy" > wrote in message
...
>>> The plate is here-
>>>
>>> http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
>>>
>>> While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
>>> relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
>>> without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
>>> must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
>>> 1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
>>>
>>> Could someone please confirm this or help with my interpretation of
>>> the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.
>>>
>>> TIA
>
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:09:35 -0700, "Bob Gardner" >
> wrote:
>
>>You get a clue from the fact that there are no straight-in minimums. Then
>>there is the "C" in the title. When there is no runway number, one of two
>>things is evident: either the runway is not aligned with the final
>>approach
>>course (not in this case, of course), or the descent rate does not meet
>>the
>>400-foot per mile maximum allowable descent rate. You have to circle.
>>
>>Bob Gardner
>
> (you top-posted so I moved your message)
>
> Thanks, that makes much more sense. But I have a question- the
> circling minimum is 10,200', this applies up to the MAP right?
> Obviously in circling the runway one would need to get lower.

[Mark Hansen]

On 08/05/06 20:16, Bob Gardner wrote:
> Yes. The minimum descent altitude is 10,200...either land (good luck!),
> circle, or do the miss at the MAP. I've never done this approach in a sim or
> in real life, so I'm just going by the plate.
>
> As a general rule, not limited to this approach, nothing regulatory keeps
> you from landing straight in if you are in position to do so, even with
> circling-only minima. Doing so will always be tough.

Well, they say you must be able to complete the approach and land using
"normal" maneuvers. They don't define "normal", but I would think a really
steep descent would not be normal.

>
> Bob Gardner
>
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "SimGuy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>>
>>>"SimGuy" > wrote in message
...
>>>> The plate is here-
>>>>
>>>> http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
>>>>
>>>> While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
>>>> relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
>>>> without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
>>>> must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
>>>> 1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
>>>>
>>>> Could someone please confirm this or help with my interpretation of
>>>> the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.
>>>>
>>>> TIA
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:09:35 -0700, "Bob Gardner" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>You get a clue from the fact that there are no straight-in minimums. Then
>>>there is the "C" in the title. When there is no runway number, one of two
>>>things is evident: either the runway is not aligned with the final
>>>approach
>>>course (not in this case, of course), or the descent rate does not meet
>>>the
>>>400-foot per mile maximum allowable descent rate. You have to circle.
>>>
>>>Bob Gardner
>>
>> (you top-posted so I moved your message)
>>
>> Thanks, that makes much more sense. But I have a question- the
>> circling minimum is 10,200', this applies up to the MAP right?
>> Obviously in circling the runway one would need to get lower.
>
>



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Jim Macklin]

Note that the angle is given on then chart, at about 10
degrees. This is possible for some STOL aircraft, but 3
degrees is an average.


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

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
| On 08/05/06 20:16, Bob Gardner wrote:
| > Yes. The minimum descent altitude is 10,200...either
land (good luck!),
| > circle, or do the miss at the MAP. I've never done this
approach in a sim or
| > in real life, so I'm just going by the plate.
| >
| > As a general rule, not limited to this approach, nothing
regulatory keeps
| > you from landing straight in if you are in position to
do so, even with
| > circling-only minima. Doing so will always be tough.
|
| Well, they say you must be able to complete the approach
and land using
| "normal" maneuvers. They don't define "normal", but I
would think a really
| steep descent would not be normal.
|
| >
| > Bob Gardner
| >
| >
| > Bob Gardner
| >
| > "SimGuy" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >>
| >>>
| >>>"SimGuy" > wrote in message
| ...
| >>>> The plate is here-
| >>>>
| >>>>
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
| >>>>
| >>>> While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to
the MAP with
| >>>> relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to
make the runway
| >>>> without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it
seems a drop of 2380'
| >>>> must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a
lateral distance of
| >>>> 1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
| >>>>
| >>>> Could someone please confirm this or help with my
interpretation of
| >>>> the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.
| >>>>
| >>>> TIA
| >>
| >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:09:35 -0700, "Bob Gardner"
>
| >> wrote:
| >>
| >>>You get a clue from the fact that there are no
straight-in minimums. Then
| >>>there is the "C" in the title. When there is no runway
number, one of two
| >>>things is evident: either the runway is not aligned
with the final
| >>>approach
| >>>course (not in this case, of course), or the descent
rate does not meet
| >>>the
| >>>400-foot per mile maximum allowable descent rate. You
have to circle.
| >>>
| >>>Bob Gardner
| >>
| >> (you top-posted so I moved your message)
| >>
| >> Thanks, that makes much more sense. But I have a
question- the
| >> circling minimum is 10,200', this applies up to the MAP
right?
| >> Obviously in circling the runway one would need to get
lower.
| >
| >
|
|
|
| --
| Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
| Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
| Sacramento, CA

[Doug[_1_]]

At Aspen, by the time you get to the MAP you will have so much ice,
decending at the required 10 degrees will be no problem (hah, hah).

Extra points given for knowing which way to read the localizer on the
missed approcah (is it normal or reversed, answer quick now....)

[Jim Macklin]

With an HSI, it is always right if you set the front course.
With a cheap CDI it is reversed, unless the airplane has a
reverse switch.


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

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| At Aspen, by the time you get to the MAP you will have so
much ice,
| decending at the required 10 degrees will be no problem
(hah, hah).
|
| Extra points given for knowing which way to read the
localizer on the
| missed approcah (is it normal or reversed, answer quick
now....)
|

[Sam Spade]

Doug wrote:

> At Aspen, by the time you get to the MAP you will have so much ice,
> decending at the required 10 degrees will be no problem (hah, hah).
>
Not even a concern in a light aircraft. The ice and downdrafts will
likely have you in your final resting place at least 5 miles north of
the airport, if not atop the 11,775' peak upon which Red Table sits.


> Extra points given for knowing which way to read the localizer on the
> missed approcah (is it normal or reversed, answer quick now....)
>
Most of the birds that can fly this approach when it is needed have LNAV
and moving maps. They don't tune the missed approach LOC.

[Peter R.]

Sam Spade > wrote:

> Most of the birds that can fly this approach when it is needed have LNAV
> and moving maps. They don't tune the missed approach LOC.

Wouldn't it be a requirement that the missed approach LOC be tuned and used
as primary navigation by all pilots (serious question, as I am not at all
familiar with IFR regulations as they pertain to 135 or 121 operations).

--
Peter

[Brad[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> With an HSI, it is always right if you set the front course.
> With a cheap CDI it is reversed, unless the airplane has a
> reverse switch.

Flying outbound on a backcourse gives "normal" course indications on a
CDI. Look at the shaded side of the arrow.

[Brad[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> With an HSI, it is always right if you set the front course.
> With a cheap CDI it is reversed, unless the airplane has a
> reverse switch.

Flying outbound on a backcourse gives "normal" course indications on a
CDI. Look at the shaded side of the arrow.

[Michelle[_1_]]

SimGuy wrote:
> The plate is here-
>
> http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
>
> While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
> relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
> without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
> must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
> 1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
>
> Could someone please confirm this or help with my interpretation of
> the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.
>
> TIA

Having actually flow this approach in a real airplane, a T182RG. It is a
real SLAM DUNK. We ended up circling to get down. Spoilers would be a
huge help.

Michelle

[Ron Natalie]

Peter R. wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>> Most of the birds that can fly this approach when it is needed have LNAV
>> and moving maps. They don't tune the missed approach LOC.
>
> Wouldn't it be a requirement that the missed approach LOC be tuned and used
> as primary navigation by all pilots (serious question, as I am not at all
> familiar with IFR regulations as they pertain to 135 or 121 operations).
>
No such requirement. Not even sure you need one of you've got GPS
(provided this isn't your alternate).

[Sam Spade]

Peter R. wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>Most of the birds that can fly this approach when it is needed have LNAV
>>and moving maps. They don't tune the missed approach LOC.
>
>
> Wouldn't it be a requirement that the missed approach LOC be tuned and used
> as primary navigation by all pilots (serious question, as I am not at all
> familiar with IFR regulations as they pertain to 135 or 121 operations).
>

Because the LOC is not part of a final approach segment, the limitation
that RNAV (GPS) cannot be used to substitute for the LOC does not apply
in that sense. The standard practice would be to revert to LNAV for the
missed approach procedure, irrespective of underlying nav aids. In the
case of 121 or 135 the FAA *could* prohibit this at Aspen if they chose
to. I doubt they would, or have.

The protected airspace on each side of that missed approach back course
is much larger than the protected airspace for a LOC (front or back
course) final approach segment.

Using the Garmin 430 or 530 as an example, the workload during the
missed approach at Aspen would be very high to revert to the missed
approach back course LOC as opposed to using LNAV (RNAV/GPS).

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

A common misunderstanding I have seen from IFR students is the concept
that transition to visual begins at the MAP. MAP is where the missed
approach begins; it is not where the visual segment begins. You should
be in visual well prior to the MAP, otherwise a normal descent and
landing may not be possible. This is why some approaches designate a
VDP (Visual Descent Point), a point from where you can make a 3-deg
descent to the runway.

Aspen is not the only example. There are plenty of examples where the
MAP is on top of the runway (or even past the runway), so a straight-in
landing is clearly not possible from that point.



SimGuy wrote:
> The plate is here-
>
> http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
>
> While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
> relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
> without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
> must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
> 1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
>
> Could someone please confirm this or help with my interpretation of
> the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.
>
> TIA

[SimGuy]

>
>SimGuy wrote:
>> The plate is here-
>>
>> http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
>>
>> While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
>> relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
>> without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
>> must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
>> 1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
>>
>> Could someone please confirm this or help with my interpretation of
>> the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.
>>
>> TIA

On 6 Aug 2006 09:08:33 -0700, "Andrew Sarangan" >
wrote:

>A common misunderstanding I have seen from IFR students is the concept
>that transition to visual begins at the MAP. MAP is where the missed
>approach begins; it is not where the visual segment begins. You should
>be in visual well prior to the MAP, otherwise a normal descent and
>landing may not be possible. This is why some approaches designate a
>VDP (Visual Descent Point), a point from where you can make a 3-deg
>descent to the runway.
>
>Aspen is not the only example. There are plenty of examples where the
>MAP is on top of the runway (or even past the runway), so a straight-in
>landing is clearly not possible from that point.
>
>

I must admit this has confused me. Is it the case that once I have the
field in sight I can dip below the minimums on the chart?

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Absolutely! Once the field is in sight, with enough flight visibility,
you can descend below the minimum (FAR 91.175). If you couldn't, many
nonprecision approaches would be simply unflyable.


SimGuy wrote:
> >
> >SimGuy wrote:
> >> The plate is here-
> >>
> >> http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
> >>
> >> While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
> >> relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
> >> without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of 2380'
> >> must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
> >> 1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
> >>
> >> Could someone please confirm this or help with my interpretation of
> >> the chart. I am a PP beginning instrument training.
> >>
> >> TIA
>
> On 6 Aug 2006 09:08:33 -0700, "Andrew Sarangan" >
> wrote:
>
> >A common misunderstanding I have seen from IFR students is the concept
> >that transition to visual begins at the MAP. MAP is where the missed
> >approach begins; it is not where the visual segment begins. You should
> >be in visual well prior to the MAP, otherwise a normal descent and
> >landing may not be possible. This is why some approaches designate a
> >VDP (Visual Descent Point), a point from where you can make a 3-deg
> >descent to the runway.
> >
> >Aspen is not the only example. There are plenty of examples where the
> >MAP is on top of the runway (or even past the runway), so a straight-in
> >landing is clearly not possible from that point.
> >
> >
>
> I must admit this has confused me. Is it the case that once I have the
> field in sight I can dip below the minimums on the chart?

[Blanche Cohen]

When you come to Aspen, stop in Denver and pick up a CFII who
knows the approach to Aspen *really well*.

And yes, everything on the plate is real. As for circling minimum...
let me *strongly* suggest you get the Denver sectional or
take a look at the area on aeroplanner. Don't rely exclusively
on the IFR chart. If you do, you'll be unprepared.

[Blanche Cohen]

In article <kH9Bg.513$0F5.178@fed1read04>, Sam Spade > wrote:
>At Aspen, circling around the airport is very risky business.

Unless you're at 20,000 ft. Ok, maybe 18K.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Spade ]
> Posted At: Saturday, August 05, 2006 6:19 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Help understanding Aspen VOR/DME approach
> Subject: Re: Help understanding Aspen VOR/DME approach
>
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
> > In a previous article, said:
> >
> >>The plate is here-
> >>http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-
> tpp/0608/05889VDGC.PDF
> >>
> >>While trying to fly the approach in the sim I flew to the MAP with
> >>relative ease but had trouble getting low enough to make the runway
> >>without getting too hot. Looking at the plate it seems a drop of
2380'
> >>must be made between MAFMU and the runway in a lateral distance of
> >>1.4NM, this is a descent angle of 15 degrees!
> >
> >
> > Well, yes, if you don't see the runway until the MAP and then want
to
> land
> > on the runway ahead, you will have a very steep descent. But there
are
> > two factors mitigating that:
> > - you might see the runway earlier and
> > - it's a circling approach, so you can circle around airport to
descend
> if
> > you need to.
> >
> >
> At Aspen, circling around the airport is very risky business.

No kidding!! Isn't that why we all learned steep-turns-about-a-point? ;)
Even the 360-overhead would be thrilling at Aspen.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Blanche Cohen ]

> Posted At: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:25 PM

> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr

> Conversation: Help understanding Aspen VOR/DME approach

> Subject: Re: Help understanding Aspen VOR/DME approach

>

> . Don't rely exclusively

> on the IFR chart. If you do, you'll be unprepared.



Going into FSM on Saturday, I overheard a Hawker also landing at FSM on
Razorback Approach:



Hawker: "Razorback, what's that river off our left wing?"



App: "Say again?"



Hawker: "Razorback, Hawker xyz, what's that river off our left wing
please?"



App: "ah, that's the Arkansas River"



Some other wag (not me I promise): "Yep, on my VFR chart too"



There's a case of relying on the enroutes and plates to tell you
everything you need to know...

[Sam Spade]

Blanche Cohen wrote:
> In article <kH9Bg.513$0F5.178@fed1read04>, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>At Aspen, circling around the airport is very risky business.
>
>
> Unless you're at 20,000 ft. Ok, maybe 18K.
>
>
But, those altitudes are in Class A airspace. ;-)

17,000 feet will provide legal en route (and circling ;-) altitude for
the entire 48 states.

[Sam Spade]

Jim Carter wrote:

>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Sam Spade ]
>>Posted At: Saturday, August 05, 2006 6:19 PM
>>Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
>>Conversation: Help understanding Aspen VOR/DME approach
>>Subject: Re: Help understanding Aspen VOR/DME approach
>>

>>
>>At Aspen, circling around the airport is very risky business.
>
>
> No kidding!! Isn't that why we all learned steep-turns-about-a-point? ;)
> Even the 360-overhead would be thrilling at Aspen.
>
If a pilot is going to do those types of maneuvers at Aspen, then he or
she better have the right airplance and be very familiar with the airport.

Those two factors always greatly improve the safety margin. But, that
becomes, more or less, a special-qualification circumstance, as opposed
to "plain old TERPS."

[Denny]

Just for grins fly the sim approach in the Baron, without circling...
It can be done but you need to be determined...

denny

[Sam Spade]

Denny wrote:

> Just for grins fly the sim approach in the Baron, without circling...
> It can be done but you need to be determined...
>
> denny
>

I can do it quite nicely in MSFS using the B737. That doesn't mean it
would work in the real airplane in the real world.

There are issues like suffiicent bleed air for anti-ice and perhaps wing
de-ice, and engine spool up time, not to mention sink rate. Bill Gates
doesn't worry about any of those critical issues.

[Peter R.]

Sam Spade > wrote:

> Because the LOC is not part of a final approach segment, the limitation
> that RNAV (GPS) cannot be used to substitute for the LOC does not apply
> in that sense.
<snip>

Thanks for setting me straight.

--
Peter