Aspen at night

"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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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." 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

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

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