Aspen at night

All the approach plates for Aspen are marked "Procedure not authorized
at night" (presumably a result of the G4 crash a few years back). And
yet there are commercial flights scheduled to land as Aspen at night.
How do they do it?

rg

Ron Garret wrote:

All the approach plates for Aspen are marked "Procedure not authorized
at night" (presumably a result of the G4 crash a few years back).
snip

Actually, that night prohibition was in effect when the Gulfstream III
crashed. I recall reading that this was one of the pressures the two
pilots were under to land there, as they were late leaving the LA area.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X00738&key=1

--
Peter

Ron Garret wrote:

All the approach plates for Aspen are marked "Procedure not authorized
at night" (presumably a result of the G4 crash a few years back). And
yet there are commercial flights scheduled to land as Aspen at night.
How do they do it?

rg
Special, carrier-specific authorizations based on specialized,
FAA-approved training and airport familiarity requirements.

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
All the approach plates for Aspen are marked "Procedure not authorized
at night" (presumably a result of the G4 crash a few years back). And
yet there are commercial flights scheduled to land as Aspen at night.
How do they do it?

rg

Maybe they only fly in VMC?

Private non-published approach.



"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
| All the approach plates for Aspen are marked "Procedure
not authorized
| at night" (presumably a result of the G4 crash a few years
back). And
| yet there are commercial flights scheduled to land as
Aspen at night.
| How do they do it?
|
| rg

In article N9luf.38962$QW2.6921@dukeread08,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

Private non-published approach.

Cool. How do I get me one of those?

rg

Originally Posted by Ron Garret

In article N9luf.38962$QW2.6921@dukeread08,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

Private non-published approach.

Cool. How do I get me one of those?

rg

it's not hard. all it takes is $75-150G's of loose change available to burn rather quickly. then you hire a consulting firm specialised in approaches to draw one up and with minimums tailored to your specific on board equipment and flight crew experience levels (and hope that the minimums are not so high that they're actually useful). then you submit about 50 pounds of paper adorned with letters, numbers and pictures arranged in nice color coordinated patters to the FAA, convince them that you've met all the requirements, fly it a few times with an approved FAA rep, and wallah! you (and your co-pilot) can now take your FLIR equipped G5 in at night.

:-)

frank

clipclip 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?

rg


it's not hard. all it takes is $75-150G's of loose change available to
burn rather quickly. then you hire a consulting firm specialised in
approaches to draw one up and with minimums tailored to your specific
on board equipment and flight crew experience levels (and hope that the
minimums are not so high that they're actually useful). then you submit
about 50 pounds of paper adorned with letters, numbers and pictures
arranged in nice color coordinated patters to the FAA, convince them
that you've met all the requirements, fly it a few times with an
approved FAA rep, and wallah! you (and your co-pilot) can now take your
FLIR equipped G5 in at night.

:-)

frank


I like your spin. ;-)

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.

An AV-8B should have no real problem, if the engine works.


--
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:VeGuf.5672$V.531@fed1read04...
| clipclip wrote:
|
| Ron Garret Wrote:
|
| In article N9luf.38962$QW2.6921@dukeread08,
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
|
| Private non-published approach.
|
| Cool. How do I get me one of those?
|
| rg
|
|
| it's not hard. all it takes is $75-150G's of loose
change available to
| burn rather quickly. then you hire a consulting firm
specialised in
| approaches to draw one up and with minimums tailored to
your specific
| on board equipment and flight crew experience levels
(and hope that the
| minimums are not so high that they're actually useful).
then you submit
| about 50 pounds of paper adorned with letters, numbers
and pictures
| arranged in nice color coordinated patters to the FAA,
convince them
| that you've met all the requirements, fly it a few times
with an
| approved FAA rep, and wallah! you (and your co-pilot)
can now take your
| FLIR equipped G5 in at night.
|
| :-)
|
| frank
|
|
| I like your spin. ;-)
|
| 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.

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.