Aspen at night

FYI

For those of you not familiar with the Aspen airport or haven't
seen a chart --- think of it as a U shape, opening to the NW, and
the rest of the U is 12-14K foot mountains. A small single can
physically take off to the SW and make the turn to get out to the
NW but not too many other aircraft (other than helicopter). Landings
are to the SE, takeoffs to the NW with an immediate turn N for the
missed.

No, I've never flown into Aspen, but I live in Colorado and drive out
there to ski (well, I used to. No more skiing -- gotta pay for the
airplane)


(just to help everyone else visualize what's going on)

"Blanche" wrote in message ...

.... A small single can
physically take off to the SW and make the turn to get out to the
NW but not too many other aircraft (other than helicopter). Landings
are to the SE, takeoffs to the NW with an immediate turn N for the
missed.

You are technically correct, Blanche, but don't take off to the SW
without observing this note from the KASE Airport Information Chart:
"Take-off not authorized on Rwy 15 without written permission
from airport manager."
Though I'm not certain, I think noise issues affect that operation, too.

BTW, Blanche, have you ever visited the huge localizer antenna array
up at the top of Ajax, near the restaurant?
Impressive, isn't it?

: 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.

In many places, that type of operation is S.O.P. Southeast Alaska comes to
mind. People who live and fly there generally don't get into trouble... the
statistics are generally people from Outside flying in.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Jim Macklin wrote:
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.

Nothing in TERPs, including missed approach procedures, consider engine
out climb.

wrote:

In many places, that type of operation is S.O.P. Southeast Alaska comes to
mind. People who live and fly there generally don't get into trouble... the
statistics are generally people from Outside flying in.

Yes, bush pilots are an incredible lot. I was thinking of your standard
issue GA pilot, which includes me.

There was a good book I read last year describing the life and times of an
Adirondack Mountains (NY State, USA) bush pilot. In it are stories about
spotting a hole in the clouds and confidentially dropping through that hole
to land his floatplane on a lake, discharging his passengers, then taking
off and circling back up through the hole.



--
Peter

Me neither, when I fly into the mountains, I want to be VFR
1,000 above the peaks. But so far I've been lucky, my trips
to Aspen and Angel Fire have been in widely scattered
cirrus.


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

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
| 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

Standard climb gradients are based on 150'/ NM (if I
remember correctly) and if a departure is greater than that,
it will be noted on the chart. FAR 135 and 121 require that
the most adverse performance be considered when operating,
gross weight must be reduced to meet the performance
requirement. Often you will see airliners with half the
seats empty because the airplane can't meet the take-off
requirements.

I did not say it very well the first time.



--
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.


wrote in message
news:3NWuf.6579$V.94@fed1read04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| 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.
|
| Nothing in TERPs, including missed approach procedures,
consider engine
| out climb.

Jim Macklin wrote:
Standard climb gradients are based on 150'/ NM (if I
remember correctly) and if a departure is greater than that,
it will be noted on the chart. FAR 135 and 121 require that
the most adverse performance be considered when operating,
gross weight must be reduced to meet the performance
requirement. Often you will see airliners with half the
seats empty because the airplane can't meet the take-off
requirements.

I did not say it very well the first time.



Departures are standard if they do not exceed 200 feet per mile.

Missed approach surfaces are 40:1, which is 152 feet per mile. That is
probably the 150 per mile you're thinking of. The current FAA thinking
is that a missed approach requires 200 feet per mile, and the AIM so
states. (AIM 5-4-20 b)

One-engine climb gradient requirements apply on the commercial
operators. (121.189 for air carriers). But, the air carrier, under
121.189, is not required to look at the missed approach procedure's
entire area of protected airspace. If the carrier finds that will not
penalize them they are free to simply accept the missed approach as a
missed-approach OEI flight path.

As you know, the 121.189 issues are far more pronounced on departure
than they are on the typical missed approach.

KISS WAG SWAG PDC

150/152 even 200 ft/nm is shallow, but most light aircraft
and many jets with an engine out can't do it at altitudes
above 5,000 feet.


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

wrote in message
news:AJYuf.6585$V.412@fed1read04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| Standard climb gradients are based on 150'/ NM (if I
| remember correctly) and if a departure is greater than
that,
| it will be noted on the chart. FAR 135 and 121 require
that
| the most adverse performance be considered when
operating,
| gross weight must be reduced to meet the performance
| requirement. Often you will see airliners with half the
| seats empty because the airplane can't meet the take-off
| requirements.
|
| I did not say it very well the first time.
|
|
|
| Departures are standard if they do not exceed 200 feet per
mile.
|
| Missed approach surfaces are 40:1, which is 152 feet per
mile. That is
| probably the 150 per mile you're thinking of. The current
FAA thinking
| is that a missed approach requires 200 feet per mile, and
the AIM so
| states. (AIM 5-4-20 b)
|
| One-engine climb gradient requirements apply on the
commercial
| operators. (121.189 for air carriers). But, the air
carrier, under
| 121.189, is not required to look at the missed approach
procedure's
| entire area of protected airspace. If the carrier finds
that will not
| penalize them they are free to simply accept the missed
approach as a
| missed-approach OEI flight path.
|
| As you know, the 121.189 issues are far more pronounced on
departure
| than they are on the typical missed approach.

Jim Macklin wrote:
KISS WAG SWAG PDC

150/152 even 200 ft/nm is shallow, but most light aircraft
and many jets with an engine out can't do it at altitudes
above 5,000 feet.


Then, there are the high-end biz jets that can do 700 feet per mile (SL,
standard day) with OEI.