Help understanding Aspen VOR/DME approach

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://.../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.

"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://.../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.

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://.../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.

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.

-----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: 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...

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
news
The plate is here-

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://.../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" wrote in message
news
The plate is here-

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://.../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.

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
| news | The plate is here-
|
|
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://.../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.

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
news
The plate is here-

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://.../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.

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
news The plate is here-

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://.../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