Anyone fly KASE?

[Mxsmanic]

What's it like to fly in and out of Aspen (KASE)?

I've been flying in and out in simulation and it seems challenging. It makes
me wonder what it must be like in real life. What are the most distinctive
characteristics of the airfield? Is it as challenging to fly into or out of
in real life as it seems to be in the simulator? Just the list of remarks on
AirNav for the airport sounds a bit ominous.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Feb 11, 2:38 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> What's it like to fly in and out of Aspen (KASE)?
>
> I've been flying in and out in simulation and it seems challenging. It makes
> me wonder what it must be like in real life. What are the most distinctive
> characteristics of the airfield? Is it as challenging to fly into or out of
> in real life as it seems to be in the simulator? Just the list of remarks on
> AirNav for the airport sounds a bit ominous.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

VFR to Aspen is really not a big deal. From the west, follow the
valley from Carbondale. It is trickier from the east. Independence
pass is not recommended because it has many alleys and blind canyons
that can become a trap. A better route is Hagermann pass to Rudi
reservoir, and then turn south.

I have never flown IFR to Aspen. The MEA's are too high for the
airplanes I fly.

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> VFR to Aspen is really not a big deal.

Every time I've tried it in simulation (which uses real-world weather), it
seems like I'm confronted with IMC at some point. I figure this must have to
do with the mountains and all. It was clear just now, however, but I was IFR.

> From the west, follow the valley from Carbondale. It is trickier from
> the east. Independence pass is not recommended because it has many alleys
> and blind canyons that can become a trap. A better route is Hagermann pass
> to Rudi reservoir, and then turn south.

Thanks. I'll try that on my next flight, weather permitting. I assume all
these spots are marked on the sectional.

Coming from the east it seems to be quite a steep hike over the mountains.
The Baron twin will do it, although it's not happy about it. I haven't tried
in a single-engine plane. Of course I must take plenty of virtual oxygen with
me.

> I have never flown IFR to Aspen. The MEA's are too high for the
> airplanes I fly.

I had a hard time understanding the plate for the LOC/DME approach, especially
since it says "fly visual" at the bottom. And there are apparently no STARs.

I was happy to note today that it seemed a lot easier to land at KASE than it
did a few hundred hours of flying ago. I don't know if I'd risk it in real
life, although the scenery looks fabulous.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Michelle P]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> What's it like to fly in and out of Aspen (KASE)?
>
> I've been flying in and out in simulation and it seems challenging. It makes
> me wonder what it must be like in real life. What are the most distinctive
> characteristics of the airfield? Is it as challenging to fly into or out of
> in real life as it seems to be in the simulator? Just the list of remarks on
> AirNav for the airport sounds a bit ominous.
>
challenging.

[[email protected]]

> I had a hard time understanding the plate for the LOC/DME approach, especially
> since it says "fly visual" at the bottom. And there are apparently no STARs.

At 2.6 miles from the DME you must be visual or do a missed approach.
I'd never seen this before but I'm sure that's what this means.

Mike

[Mxsmanic]

Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:

> I don't know if I'll ever walk on the moon barefoot. I suspect the odds are the
> same for both events.

Your scenario is far more improbable.

I tried flying to KASE tonight, VFR. It was quite a harrowing experience. I
got lost for a time and came very uncomfortably close to a variety of
unfriendly mountains. But I did eventually make it, with only a dozen gallons
or so of fuel left in the tanks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> At 2.6 miles from the DME you must be visual or do a missed approach.
> I'd never seen this before but I'm sure that's what this means.

Thanks. The missed approach would be quite a wild ride with low visibility.
Hmm ... Maybe I'll try the missed approach under exactly those conditions.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:

> Did you file an ASRS form?

No.

> What are the fuel prices?

I let my accountant worry about that.

> Did you stay overnight?

I'm still parked at the airport, but I always stay at home during the night.

> What hotel? Did the FBO get a discounted rate for you?

See above.

> How was the departure, or are you still there?

I'm still there, although I'll probably move back to KDEN and try the flight
again in daylight, and with some revised routing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Lee]

Michelle P > wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> What's it like to fly in and out of Aspen (KASE)?
>>
>> I've been flying in and out in simulation and it seems challenging. It makes
>> me wonder what it must be like in real life. What are the most distinctive
>> characteristics of the airfield? Is it as challenging to fly into or out of
>> in real life as it seems to be in the simulator? Just the list of remarks on
>> AirNav for the airport sounds a bit ominous.
>>
>challenging.

That depends. In a RV-6A from the east I fly up to Leadville then WNW
over Turquoise Lake (I believe) then as Andrew mentioned. Just fly
over the mountains. No canyons to worry about.

Ron Lee

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Lee writes:

> That depends. In a RV-6A from the east I fly up to Leadville then WNW
> over Turquoise Lake (I believe) then as Andrew mentioned. Just fly
> over the mountains. No canyons to worry about.

What altitude do you fly, and what's the ceiling of your aircraft?

Also, do you use oxygen, and if so, at what altitude do you prefer to use it
(over and above FAR requirements)?

I'm about to try a Buena Vista - Turquoise Lake - Hagermann Pass - Ruedi
Reservoir route now, during the day (in real time). I didn't do very well
last night. This time I put lots of user waypoints in the GPS, just in case,
although I'm trying not to do anything that cannot be done with VORs alone.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Lee writes:
>
> > That depends. In a RV-6A from the east I fly up to Leadville then WNW
> > over Turquoise Lake (I believe) then as Andrew mentioned. Just fly
> > over the mountains. No canyons to worry about.
>
> What altitude do you fly, and what's the ceiling of your aircraft?
>
> Also, do you use oxygen, and if so, at what altitude do you prefer to use it
> (over and above FAR requirements)?
>
> I'm about to try a Buena Vista - Turquoise Lake - Hagermann Pass - Ruedi
> Reservoir route now, during the day (in real time). I didn't do very well
> last night. This time I put lots of user waypoints in the GPS, just in case,
> although I'm trying not to do anything that cannot be done with VORs alone.

MX,

Do you use oxygen when you "fly" that sim above 10000 ft? above 150000?

[Mxsmanic]

Orval Fairbairn writes:

> Do you use oxygen when you "fly" that sim above 10000 ft? above 150000?

I use oxygen above 8000 or so, sometimes below. There's always oxygen in the
aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn writes:
>
>> Do you use oxygen when you "fly" that sim above 10000 ft? above
>> 150000?
>
> I use oxygen above 8000 or so, sometimes below. There's always
> oxygen in the aircraft.

What do you do to sim that. Stick a straw or two in your nose?

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> What do you do to sim that. Stick a straw or two in your nose?

I use my imagination.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Rick[_1_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote in message >...
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Orval Fairbairn writes:
>>
>>> Do you use oxygen when you "fly" that sim above 10000 ft? above
>>> 150000?
>>
>> I use oxygen above 8000 or so, sometimes below. There's always
>> oxygen in the aircraft.
>
>What do you do to sim that. Stick a straw or two in your nose?

Plastic bag over the head with a small hole in it?

- Rick

[Roy G Biv]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:
>
>> I don't know if I'll ever walk on the moon barefoot. I suspect the odds
>> are the
>> same for both events.
>
> Your scenario is far more improbable.
>
> I tried flying to KASE tonight, VFR. It was quite a harrowing experience.
> I
> got lost for a time and came very uncomfortably close to a variety of
> unfriendly mountains. But I did eventually make it, with only a dozen
> gallons
> or so of fuel left in the tanks.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Must have been quite an effort.
Was that before or after you had sex with the girls who posted today to
Voyerweb?

[Mxsmanic]

Roy G Biv writes:

> Must have been quite an effort.

It was challenging. I found it interesting and enjoyable.

> Was that before or after you had sex with the girls who posted today to
> Voyerweb?

I don't understand this question.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Blanche]

Oddly enough, in many of the full-motion simulators there's a tank
of O2 that feeds into the cockpit of the trainers. Why, you may ask?
Because when the alarm goes off indicating loss of pressurization,
the pilots grab the fast-donning O2 masks. There were some problems,
such as the fact that the masks fit so well (as they are supposed to
do) that the people couldn't breathe! So when training for loss of
pressure, the staff makes sure the O2 bottles are connected and
turned on.

Acutally, for training purposes, I think they use bottled air,
not O2.

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche writes:

> Oddly enough, in many of the full-motion simulators there's a tank
> of O2 that feeds into the cockpit of the trainers. Why, you may ask?
> Because when the alarm goes off indicating loss of pressurization,
> the pilots grab the fast-donning O2 masks. There were some problems,
> such as the fact that the masks fit so well (as they are supposed to
> do) that the people couldn't breathe! So when training for loss of
> pressure, the staff makes sure the O2 bottles are connected and
> turned on.

You mean they don't realize that they are just playing a game?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Blanche writes:
>
> > Oddly enough, in many of the full-motion simulators there's a tank
> > of O2 that feeds into the cockpit of the trainers. Why, you may ask?
> > Because when the alarm goes off indicating loss of pressurization,
> > the pilots grab the fast-donning O2 masks. There were some problems,
> > such as the fact that the masks fit so well (as they are supposed to
> > do) that the people couldn't breathe! So when training for loss of
> > pressure, the staff makes sure the O2 bottles are connected and
> > turned on.
>
> You mean they don't realize that they are just playing a game?

No -- they are training either to check out in the real thing or are
taking recurrency raining. It is NOT a game there!

[Mxsmanic]

Orval Fairbairn writes:

> No -- they are training either to check out in the real thing or are
> taking recurrency raining. It is NOT a game there!

But it's a simulation ... and all simulations are games, right? How foolish
they are to grab oxygen masks! Real Pilots wouldn't mistake a game for the
real thing, would they?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn writes:
>
>> No -- they are training either to check out in the real thing or are
>> taking recurrency raining. It is NOT a game there!
>
> But it's a simulation ... and all simulations are games, right? How
> foolish they are to grab oxygen masks! Real Pilots wouldn't mistake
> a game for the real thing, would they?

No, the one you play with is a game.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> No, the one you play with is a game.

What makes my simulator different?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gary[_2_]]

On Feb 14, 6:16 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
> > No, the one you play with is a game.
>
> What makes my simulator different?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You are discussing a full-motion simulator with drop down oxygen
masks. And you have to ask how it differs from MSFS on your PC?

[Mxsmanic]

Gary writes:

> You are discussing a full-motion simulator with drop down oxygen
> masks. And you have to ask how it differs from MSFS on your PC?

No, I'm discussing the attitudes engendered by the simulation. Why is it okay
when a "real pilot" treats a simulation realistically, but not when a
non-pilot does so?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Philip Morten]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> No, the one you play with is a game.
>
> What makes my simulator different?
>
Look at the URL for Microsoft's own website for the product,

<http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx>

Note the word 'games' in the path.

Philip Morten

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Gary writes:
>
> > You are discussing a full-motion simulator with drop down oxygen
> > masks. And you have to ask how it differs from MSFS on your PC?
>
> No, I'm discussing the attitudes engendered by the simulation. Why is it okay
> when a "real pilot" treats a simulation realistically, but not when a
> non-pilot does so?

because the REAL pilot is doing it for the purpose of flying a REAL
plane -- to practice cockpit fam, procedures, CRM, etc. In that case, it
is NOT a game, but a tool.

[Mxsmanic]

Orval Fairbairn writes:

> because the REAL pilot is doing it for the purpose of flying a REAL
> plane -- to practice cockpit fam, procedures, CRM, etc. In that case, it
> is NOT a game, but a tool.

How does that make it okay? Why is it not okay to simulate for the sake of
simulation, with no intention of flying for real?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Philip Morten writes:

> Look at the URL for Microsoft's own website for the product,
>
> <http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx>
>
> Note the word 'games' in the path.

URLs don't define the purpose of software.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn writes:
>
> > because the REAL pilot is doing it for the purpose of flying a REAL
> > plane -- to practice cockpit fam, procedures, CRM, etc. In that case, it
> > is NOT a game, but a tool.
>
> How does that make it okay? Why is it not okay to simulate for the sake of
> simulation, with no intention of flying for real?

You asked what the difference is -- I explained it. One is a training
air -- the other is just a game.

[Viperdoc]

If you like simulation for the sake of simulation alone, and have no intent
of flying, you should direct your questions to a sim group, which would be
more in line with your interests.

[Mxsmanic]

Orval Fairbairn writes:

> You asked what the difference is -- I explained it. One is a training
> air -- the other is just a game.

Because you say so?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> If you like simulation for the sake of simulation alone, and have no intent
> of flying, you should direct your questions to a sim group, which would be
> more in line with your interests.

Not if the simulation is of aviation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Philip Morten writes:
>
>> Look at the URL for Microsoft's own website for the product,
>>
>> <http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx>
>>
>> Note the word 'games' in the path.
>
> URLs don't define the purpose of software.

No but the owner of the software, and that is MS not you, does make that
determination.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 1:13 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Philip Morten writes:
> > Look at the URL for Microsoft's own website for the product,
>
> > <http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx>
>
> > Note the word 'games' in the path.
>
> URLs don't define the purpose of software.
>

Then click on the link and look at the top left corner to find out
who develops and engineers your "simulator". Microsoft Game Studios.
They also develop "simulations" of fighting aliens on other planets.
Hahaha!

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> No but the owner of the software, and that is MS not you, does make that
> determination.

No, he does not. The purpose of the software is the purpose for which I use
it. Besides, it's called Flight Simulator, not Flight Game.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Then click on the link and look at the top left corner to find out
> who develops and engineers your "simulator". Microsoft Game Studios.
> They also develop "simulations" of fighting aliens on other planets.

Many of the developers of MSFS have been Real Pilots, who, as we know from
this newsgroup, can do no wrong. Therefore you are on dangerous ground if you
criticize the software.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> have been Real Pilots, who, as we know from
> this newsgroup, can do no wrong.
>

Did they let you out of kindergarten early again?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)