Aspen at night

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 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

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

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

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....

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

"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."

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

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.

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