Challenger crash at KASE

[awblain]

Well… while it doesn't seem to have a MAK report, I think there's a very straightforward explanation.

It doesn't prove anything to legal/regulatory levels, but I would be surprised if the same broad processes weren't at work in that L410 on the steppes in 2006 and in Aspen this year.

[Machinbird]

I think we all understand that nose down inputs in the flare are potentially dangerous,
but I would like to again remind of the possibility of large scale chaotic turbulent flows from the adjacent terrain significantly interfering with the flare. I agree that it did not seem to be a good day to be landing at Aspen.

I haven't flown into Aspen enough to be able to characterize the turbulence possibilities, but the flare portion of the video is so busy/unstable that it seems to indicate the presence of significant turbulence. (Lets just say that it put me in mind of one of my prior experiences that resulted in a diversion.)

Perhaps some of those with a lot of trips into Aspen would care to comment on the turbulence possibilities.

[Desert185]

Machinbird

Perhaps some of those with a lot of trips into Aspen would care to comment on the turbulence possibilities.

My experience at Aspen is limited to high DA work with a Twin Otter in a simulator, but mountain flying is a hobby of mine. Anyone with much mountain experience would tell you, that given the terrain around Aspen with the winds that day, the mechanical turbulence would have been at least moderate with downdrafts/updrafts.

Personally, I would not have made that approach with those conditions. As I mentioned in a previous post, Rifle, Eagle, Montrose or Grand Junction would have been viable alternates to consider. Have the pax drive out, or wait until the winds/weather subside, then fly back for the pickup. Love the mountains, but there are limits.

[Jet Jockey A4]

You seem to know this aircraft well. Is the pusher inhibited at low altitude (less than maybe 200' AGL or so)

The answer is no.

The only way to disable the pusher is to have either one or both pusher switches to the "OFF" position.

You can also deactivate the pusher by pushing and holding the A/P disconnect switch on either control yoke.

[RatherBeFlying]

The last bounce is high enough that they likely picked up an increased tailwind and lost a chunk of airspeed.

Conversely the decrease in tailwind in the last 20' or so is analogous to an increased headwind and a prolonged float -- presenting the temptation to force it down.

We should also remember that people get caught out finishing low level downwind beatups with steep climbouts into increased tailwind.

[glendalegoon]

I have to add the possibility that one guy flying was being over ridden by one guy monitoring and a brief confusion over who was DRIVING THE FREAKING PLANE ensued.


That is a really nice video of the L410. Either have the will power to hold it off or go around;-)

[bubbers44]

We landed a Lear jet there one day to pick up the passengers of another Lear that went through the fence on landing off the side. It is not a difficult airport landing many times but you have to pay attention. Do not land fast or with a tailwind.

[bubbers44]

As far as descent angle to runway back then we just looked out the window. It worked every time.

[West Coast]

Are you familiar with ASE wind patterns? Not landing with a tailwind would preclude you landing a large percentage of the day. Early am and night time would be your only windows.

Landing with tailwinds in ASE is fine, I do it weekly. Landing with tailwinds that take you beyond limitations is a problem.

[bubbers44]

I didn't mean you could not land with TW. One day we arrived with a report of severe turbulence on 2mile final to the south runway so just switched to the north one. That day you could land either direction with the wind report.

[lifeafteraviation]

@bubbers44...You know....the definition of severe turbulence implies that the aircraft could be momentarily out of control. If there are reports of severe turbulence at low altitude two miles from the airport that's a real problem. Granted many people report severe turbulence when it's not because of inexperience but you should still take such reports seriously. Landing in the other direction isn't much of a solution especially if you have to go around.

Circling to land on the opposite direction is not an option at ASE for most jets and operators. I really can't recall exactly what the specific limitations are but often (typically) it will be disallowed in company procedures regardless.

[bubbers44]

It was a localized turbulence report so avoided knowing reports can be reported by a Cessna 150 by a student pilot. Close proximity to the wind coming over the close in terrain to the east on this crosswind was most likely the cause. We had no turbulence by the way.

[West Coast]

Not many student pilots in ASE flying 150's. What does a localized turn report look like? Been flying in there for years, have yet to get one of those.

[galaxy flyer]

West Coast,

Serious question, assuming you fly CRJs, do you circle to 33? If not, how do you deal with days where the winds are varying to 330 at 15?

[bubbers44]

Localized turn report? I said localized turbulence in a certain spot. C 152 aircraft were not out in the 70's. I know they don't perform as well at Aspen as Sea level but they can operate out of there. It is quite easy to do a visual on a left down wind there in a jet landing to the NW. We had no restrictions.

Anybody can do it if they don't need the magenta line to fly.

[West Coast]

GF

I do. We don't circle. We carry enough fuel to try and wait it out the winds. If it's not happening we head to GJT or DEN.if the winds are strong enough and the TAF and experience concurs, we just don't go.

[West Coast]

A left downwind to 33? You're thinking of a different airport if so.

Localized turbulence report is what I meant.

[bubbers44]

I meant left traffic landing NW. Looking at the sectional chart I see plenty of room to land either way. By the way I never said what Rwy. We landed north. I don't remember the runway number. It has been over 30years. New procedures probably don't allow visual approaches to not straight in approaches for some operators. We could just do a visual to any runway we desired.

[West Coast]

The mountains were the same 30 years ago. The established traffic pattern for RY33 is right traffic in the valley. From a risk standpoint, there would be no reason to try to make left traffic for 33.

Given as you said you landed to the NW and that there's only one piece of concrete, I pretty much nailed it as landing on 33.

[bubbers44]

So we get left and right straight how about we descended onto downwind west of the airport and made a left turn with tons of room to make a stabilized approach to 33 with towers clearance. An uneventful event.

[galaxy flyer]

Bubbers,

If you did a left traffic, west side of the airport, to final on 33, it wasn't Aspen that you landed at. Only a Harrier could do that and everyone walk into the terminal.

[West Coast]

My sentiments exactly. Bud Holland mentality of anyone who would consider it.

[lifeafteraviation]

I'd also like to see a student pilot fly a circa 1970s Cessna 150 out of there with high winds reported. Actually I wouldn't.

What's a localized turbulence report exactly? Especially in the traffic pattern.

I have to agree you are thinking of an entirely different airport from your memory.

[bubbers44]

http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KASE/IAP/all/pdf

If you keep your downwind about 2 miles out all I see is a 300 ft AGL hill to deal with. Doesn't look that scarey to me. Of course if your ops specs say no, then you can't do a circle to 33. This was the airport by the way.

[lifeafteraviation]

Ops Specs are not the document you're thinking of.

That's a ski resort a half mile out off of 33. It's not a 300' hill.

No, circling to 33 isn't practical unless maybe you are in a turboprop. I know people who've done it but they usually say they'll never try it again.

[West Coast]

Look at google earth not a chart. Flying into ASE and other mountainous airports is what I do for a living. Any pilot who would would choose left traffic to 33 when the its quite obvious the proper way to go is right traffic is lacking in judgement. My memory of ASE isn't 30 years old, it's from last week. I don't need to pull up an approach plate of all things to look terrain to know whether its feasible or not.

[galaxy flyer]

If you were to fly a 2 mile wide left downwind at less than 5,000' AGL, you'd have to have a tunnel boring machine in front of you.

GF

[bubbers44]

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kase/KASE-Jan-05-2014-1900Z.mp3

This ATC audio starts about 40 minutes prior to the crash and continues after. I noticed one arrival tower offered him either right or left traffic to 15. I haven't been there for 30 years before all the procedures now but I don't think they have moved any hills and the road into Aspen doesn't appear to have any terrain and gets you within 30 degrees of rwy line up. It verifies the wind shear and tailwind reports posted here.

[con-pilot]

No, circling to 33 isn't practical unless maybe you are in a turboprop. I know people who've done it but they usually say they'll never try it again.

I've done it a few times due to winds. No real problem, aircraft were Westwind II, Saber 65 and Falcon 50. Weather was very, very good VMC.

One just has to keep the runway downward slope in mind and plant the aircraft in the touchdown zone.

Oh, right traffic only for 33.

[West Coast]

Yup, seen that plenty, just not as you say left traffic to 33

[bubbers44]

Right traffic to 33 would have put us near the severe turbulence area so stayed high on downwind using left traffic concurring with tower and using visual avoidance of terrain to set up a normal approach. Since some have to land on 15 I guess they would just proceed to alternate and call it a day.

[West Coast]

I guess its normal not to recall the runway numbers and other details on what you term a "normal" approach from 30 years ago. That you can remember where the "localized" turbulence report was three decades later on an otherwise "normal" approach is very curious.

I appreciate you have a story for every thread, but this whopper isn't ready for prime time.

[bubbers44]

I used the term localized because the turbulence was only reported at one location so merely avoided it and had a smooth approach. Wind swirles around certain terrain but is local in nature and since flying through a zone of know severe turbulence is illegal chose not to do so and the only option to still land at Aspen was circle VFR to 33. You would have to have gone to your alternate because you couldn't have landed without flying through an area of severe turbulence. Then how do you know when it is gone?

There were not so many op specs back then so the pilots were given a lot of latitude. Now with magenta lines and rules I know some operators can't do that.

Amazingly 23,000 hrs later, no bent metal, no violations and no injured passengers or close calls. We flew our way, you fly any way you want.

[galaxy flyer]

Give it up, there is no conceivable way to fly a left downwind to land on 33 at KASE in a jet. Downwind would have to be flown about 7,000' above the runway. There isn't anything like room enough to fly downwind below the ridges on the west side.

[porterhouse]

That you can remember where the "localized" turbulence report was three decades later on an otherwise "normal" approach is very curious.
Typical gibberish from wannabe pilots on this forum. ;)

[Turbine D]

Interesting pilot discussion relative to landing a jet on 33 instead of coming up the valley or following the Roaring Fork River to land on 15. My daughter has lived down valley for 25 years and has worked in Aspen for this time period. She says it is rare that a jet circles to land on 33, there is little room to safely do it given the nearby terrain, no matter what the charts might look like. Smaller turbo-props and pistons do it more frequently. So if you have done it in a jet, you are one of the rare ones who have. Aspen proper folks are really not keen on the jet noise approaching 33, either. West Coast has the prevailing winds during the day correct. In the summer time in the afternoon or early evening, be prepared for thunderstorms that generate nearly everyday when the monsoon season reigns, moisture from the Southwest.

Mrs TD and I have taken to flying into Eagle, more reliable to get in and out.

[Turbine D]

Original Quote by porterhouse: Typical gibberish from wannabe pilots on this forum.
You should be more careful here, the pilot you term as "wannabe" is making a career of flying into one of the tougher mountain airports in the Americas. Hope your piloting judgements are better...

[porterhouse]

the pilot you term as "wannabe" is making a career of flyingAnd how do you know that, what's your evidence counsel :confused:

[bubbers44]

Thanks, TD, tough croud here. Please send me a personal message because I don't know who you are.

I spent the last several years flying to Tegucigalpa, Honduras TGU which makes a circle to 33 at Aspen a cake walk. After over 600 landings with no problems was able to do my retirement flight there 10 years ago.

I loved the airport, the challenge and the people there. No magenta lines there, strictly visual with reference to terrain as your only guidance.

Flightlevel350.com shows my last approach and landing there on my retirement flight with my wife in the jump seat and my two neighbors, both pilots as FO and video operator. Search MHTG and look about 7 videos down with the picture out the cockpit of the 757. My usual copilot who has a family house down there cleared me to land.

Yes, we did left traffic to 33 in a Lear Jet with no problem referencing terrain.
It was a lot easier than this approach.

[bubbers44]

Evidence provided in above post. DJ Aug 31, 2003. AA retiree.

[Turbine D]

@ porterhouse
And how do you know that, what's your evidence counsel
As I observed and commented on, this is an interesting discussion among pilots flying into Aspen, is there anything you would like to contribute?

[porterhouse]

No, because I don't fly jets nor I ever flew into Aspen, but you never answered my question, but that's OK. :}

[bubbers44]

I think I did. Did flightlevel350.com search MHTG and look about 7 videos down with the cockpit view out the 757 look like it was photo faxed? Yes, I was what I said and he tried to back me up. You can't make this stuff up.

[West Coast]

Winter Wonderland. Aspen, Colorado in the Rocky Mountains | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/69116039@N07/8097240993)

The far side of the runway would be the left downwind that blubbery flew to a "normal" landing. The two mil left base puts you on the ski lift.

[misd-agin]

Porter- he's retired AA. Fact.

What's your profession? Anyone that can back it up?

[westhawk]

Left downwind to 33 isn't something I'd like to be seen doing in the jets I've flown into ASE! (Lear 60, Hawker and Westwind) A C-185 or PA-18 on floats though, yeah I've done terrain following approaches like that into back country rivers and lakes. That's for fun. Yee Haw!!!

But flying into the mountain resort airports in bizjets is... well... business! While there are times, places and situations which might call for some skillful flying, prudent planning and flight operations standards generally seek to reduce these instances to a minimum.

Landing at ASE on a nice day need not especially challenging when you know the airport and have properly planned the arrival. But it's certainly more demanding than your average flatland aerodrome. Now throw in some weather and things can get a bit more interesting. The day this accident happened was one of those days where the wind was variable in direction and intensity. Some airplanes got in. Some of them might have landed during a lull in the wind and some of then may have used up some of their runway safety factor landing with a tailwind component in excess of 10 kts. That can definitely turn up the heat for a mission oriented pilot to take on more than they should.

From my comfortable chair here at home after the fact, and knowing what the outcome was, the decision to bag it and divert somewhere else is an easy one to make. But up there in the airplane on the day, it takes real discipline to make the safer call and divert when you're getting in a little too deep.

Now the way I see it, that's what you're really being paid for as a pilot. Prudent judgment resulting in safe outcomes that were never in serious doubt. But there is sometimes great temptation to allow prudent decision-making to be overridden by "go-mission syndrome" (gethtereitis) in the heat of the moment. The NTSB reports are rife with a wide variety of examples of this particular human failing. Like any working pilot, I've felt that temptation to push harder and even pushed a little more than (upon further reflection) was really prudent at times. Any pilot who says they haven't is either lying or completely devoid of any capacity for introspection. Neither should be trusted! The question is: Can other pilots truly learn from the mistakes of others or do they have to learn prudent judgment by scaring the hell out of themselves? Like Forrest Gump said in the movie: I think it's a little of both...

[deefer dog]

good post westhawk!

[glendalegoon]

When I see words of wisdom about mountain airports,I think we should put nice strobe lights in well thought out tracks to lead to such airports final approach.

They might be similiar to those lights at JFK or Missoula , Montana.

And if a community wants an airport, and want it quiet, then they really don't want an airport that functions with safety first.

[West Coast]

Butte Montana at one point had circling guidance lights, not sure if they still do. Kellowna BC has something similar.

[glendalegoon]

west coast

I'm not even sure missoula has them anymore, just tried to find them on a chart.

somebody probably complained that they were too bright near their house!

[galaxy flyer]

At ASE, a laser light show of the ridges and a sign "DO NOT LAND HERE" on the butte short of 15 would be great.

[West Coast]

The giant light at the end of 15 during the Winter X games during night landings pretty much serves that purpose.

[lifeafteraviation]

@westhawk ...yes....nice post.

It makes me wonder when someone comes here and brags about some crazy flying he may have done years ago when there are less experienced pilots around who may be impressionable and think doing a left downwind to 33 at KASE is ok if you've got the skill.

I've done plenty of crazy skillful flying in the past and mostly I won't talk about it because looking back I realize it wasn't the best judgement but times have changed a lot and these days I think pilots should have a more careful attitude. That may be why overall safety records improve over time, because we learn not necessarily how to be more skilled but how to be less stupid.

I'd like to think a guy who claims to have tens of thousands of hours as a professional pilot would know better than to say that flying a 757 into KASE circling to 33 would be a "cakewalk." Really? I'm not saying it's not possible for a skilled pilot but ....really? Would you also do that with a report of severe turbulence "localized" near your missed approach path?

[glendalegoon]

lifeafteraviation

maybe I missed something but the person you are writing about didn't say he took a 757 into aspen, he was talking about an early lear jet. He said it was in the early 70's and the 757 wasn't out by then.

On these forums I take people at their word. After all the accusers may not be telling the truth either and you really don't know.

We could ask questions like: what is the dead dog switch?

or

We could ask questions like: how many holes are in the speaker grill over the captain's head on a 737?


Would that prove anything?

And if one person says something and another disagrees, it may just be the differences in ways of doing things in one airline's ops manual over another.

[bubbers44]

LAA , who ever he is, has made his mind up so forget about changing it. I have.

[lifeafteraviation]

maybe I missed something but the person you are writing about didn't say he took a 757 into aspen

You didn't miss anything....he didn't say that and I never said he did.

...he was talking about an early lear jet. He said it was in the early 70's and the 757 wasn't out by then.

You're correct, and early Learjets don't have jumpseats...Go back and read it slowly....several times....I had to.

what is the dead dog switch?

Also called a "puppy snuffer" depending on the particular airline lingo but you might be able to Google that info. Why are you asking this?

And if one person says something and another disagrees, it may just be the differences in ways of doing things in one airline's ops manual over another.

Not really sure what you're trying to say or ask me with any of this. Maybe this part wasn't to me personally?

@bubbers ...what would you want to change my mind about? I was lecturing you, not arguing with you.

[1Bingo]

Yep, that's the really sad part. They aborted a 30 kt tailwind approach only to try it again.

[glendalegoon]

life

most every transport jet has some sort of a jump seat, or somewhere for an FAA examiner to observe. I never flew the lear, I don't think I could fit in it. But someone told me there is a small sort of bench thing you can put in. Do correct me if I am wrong.

and in some ways I do think it would be easier to get a 757 into aspen (I'd like to think a guy who claims to have tens of thousands of hours as a professional pilot would know better than to say that flying a 757 into KASE circling to 33 would be a "cakewalk." Really? I'm not saying it's not possible for a skilled pilot but ....really? Would you also do that with a report of severe turbulence "localized" near your missed approach path?)

It has leading edge devices, alot of umph and most likely a very well trained crew.


I like calling the dead dog switch the pup cicle (as in popcicle) switch.

Bubbers has written enough for me to be pretty darn sure he is who he says he is.

Getting in and out of a mountain airport can be a challenge and some are up to it more than others. Using spirals, course reversals of many kinds and being with it.

[West Coast]

757 vs lrjet and some of the other things blubbers claims, I'll leave to others. Circing west (left traffic ) to 33 is something however that stretches his credibility past the breaking point. I say this as someone who flies into ASE weekly. Other posters who are familar with the airport agree.
He claims they turned a two mile left base to a runway that sits just below 8000 ft MSL. The mountains that sit on a two mile left base are about 14,000 ft. I've seen some crazy stuff from some of the operators in there, but none so blatantly stupid as to even try that. I'm sure there have been those who turned a two base leg at 6000 ft AGL to a then short runway, I can't imagine any of them described it as a normal landing as blubbers has.

Either you question the veracity of his story or you question his judgement if this was even tried. This isn't someone who should be held up as an example of old school airmenship. The valley in ASE contains plenty of examples of the foolhardy venturing where they shouldn't.

[misd-agin]

Westcoast - I've never been to Aspen. I take some of blubbers' stories with a huge grain of salt. But you're big on credibility so how can you say the mountains are 14,000 when the topo map shows the distance on a 2 mile left base to be closer to 8800' (+/-)?


Mayflower Mine, CO - N39.19974° W106.87182° (http://www.topoquest.com/map.php?lat=39.19974&lon=-106.87182&datum=nad27&zoom=8&map=auto&coord=d&mode=zoomin&size=m)


So it's not a 6000' AGL base turn like you're alleging. It could be as low as 800' (+/-). Suddenly it's not the impossible event you're trying to make it out to be.


Would I recommend a left base? Absolutely not from looking at the pictures, charts, and topo charts. Why would someone fly that? IDK. But here's the flipside - does it look impossible? No, it looks possible. Dumb maybe but maybe not impossible.

[flyboyike]

most every transport jet has some sort of a jump seat, or somewhere for an FAA examiner to observe. I never flew the lear, I don't think I could fit in it...


Lears are not transport-category.

[glendalegoon]

hi flyboyike
http://d16bsf97ryvc45.cloudfront.net/Media/2013/01/learjet_24f.pdf

says the lear 24 is a transport cat.


now I'm not going to argue the point. but there it is.

if there are any learjet guys out there, maybe they can settle it. I do agree that the very first lear 23 was not a transport cat.

[M-ONGO]

Lears are not transport category?

What's FAR25 then?

BTW, the Lear 24 was the first ever Bizjet certified under FAR25.

[flyboyike]

I stand corrected, I was under the impression transport category applied only to aircraft with more than 19 seats and/or payload of greater than 6,000lbs.

[glendalegoon]

thanks mongo

often times pilots say jumpseat, when perhaps they just mean any available seat in back. some faa guy told me that in a beech 1900 they had to take the first seat in the cabin to give check rides. so I really don't know.

[galaxy flyer]

Nineteen seats/6,000 pounds is, I think, where a 135 operation becomes a 121 operation or when private operations become a 125 operation.

[M-ONGO]

It's where a part 91 operation becomes a part 125 operation, but we digress.

Background
Part 125 was issued to establish a uniform set of certification and operational rules for large airplanes having a seating capacity of 20 or more passengers or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, when common carriage is not involved. These rules substantially upgrade the level of safety applicable to large airplanes formerly operated under Part 91.

[galaxy flyer]

BTW, the Lear 24 was the first ever Bizjet certified under FAR25.

While Lear guys love quoting that, it's not precisely correct. The Sabreliner, the Jetstar and the DH125 (Hawker 125, later) were all certified under CAR 4b, the Transport Category before FAR 25 was promulgated. The original L23 was CAR 3 cert.

[bubbers44]

You said I turned a two mile left base, I didn't. I said the chart I posted showed high terrain over 2 miles west. Being so long ago have no memory of when we made our left turn. It could have been by Aspen somewhere following the road in. The severe turbulence on final to 15 stuck in my mind. You don't hear that much in a career.

Actually the owner of our charter company was flying that day and asked me what to do. He wasn't the ace of the base and did fine. We cancelled IFR about 30 miles NW so we could turn anyway we wanted on a go around.

I remember the Aspen trees west of the airport and they seemed less than a mile away.

[lifeafteraviation]

The old Learjets typically had a toilet right behind the copilot seat which was used as a makeshift jumpseat but most Feds would sit in the back for take off and landing and then move up to the toilet seat after wheels up to observe the checkride. Most of the time the toilet wasn't set up as a legal passenger seat or jumpseat. In the very old days before simulators check airmen would sit right seat and conduct a full FAR.293b or 297 from the right seat. Simulator time in the Lear 20-30 series was relatively cheap after a while and it made no sense not to use them. Still, some operators continued old school.

I used to conduct such full checkrides in airplanes as a check airman but since I was on the company certificate I would always do it from the right or left seat. Looking back I think it was crazy and stupid not to use simulators but I did my job. A few accidents occurred during this type of aircraft training and checking. When I started flying larger jets I would often conduct line checks from the actual jumpseat, all other checks were done in the sim.

I can't even recall the certification stuff but what was said by glendalegoon and GF sounds about right.

Ten years of flying business jets in and out of KASE I never once considered landing in the opposite direction but I always felt I should set an example of conservative safety, not show off so I can brag about my skills. The runway was shorter back then but the mountains were just as high...I've hiked up them so I know.

Getting back on topic...considering the obvious intense pressure these Mexican pilots faced to land in Aspen that fateful day despite conditions, they probably would have been better off circling to 33. Even though it would have been dangerous and poor judgement, they probably would have had a better chance at surviving. Even if they had crashed, they wouldn't have been going so fast. Of course the correct decision was to divert.

Never place yourself in a situation you can't get out of if things don't work out.

[galaxy flyer]

As a 135 Lear pilot said to me, at RIFLE having breakfast after we diverted the night before, "my chief pilot told me, 'if I hear you circled to 33, you are fired'".

GF

[bubbers44]

I conducted some Lear type checks with a Fed in that seat. We took off with V1 failures so that was an approved seat for takeoff. A toilet would never be put in front of the cabin exposed.

[westhawk]

Just to be clear about it, I didn't say the left downwind to 33 at ASE couldn't be done, I said I wouldn't want to be seen doing it in a bizjet! (subtlety alert!) Obvious reasons. Right traffic to 33 is another matter. I've only done that a couple of times and only in clear weather. Yeah, you gotta do a little of that pilot stuff, but it's not as if you need the stick & rudder skills of the uber talented Bob Hoover to make it work!

We let the FAA inspectors ride on the divan in our Lears and Westwinds for check rides. It's near the front so they can kinda see. They would strap into their seats for takeoff and landing and kneel behind the center console for airborne work. The Hawker I flew for awhile had a jump seat, but the inspectors didn't like to sit in it for takeoff and landing since it would be difficult to egress in a hurry. When I was a check airman, our POI had to observe every tenth checkride I gave. Poor guy. They don't really want to go unless they actually have to! I usually gave combined .293/.297/.299 rides so following the oral exam, we'd be gone at least a couple of hours. We'd order them a crew meal and set out a well stocked snack basket just to make them feel a little better about having to ride along...

Anyway, as far as this Challenger deal goes, I can almost imagine what it was like. With the FDR traces, the visualization will seem all too real. I still remember how sick I felt while I was sitting with our chief pilot listening to the raw unedited CVR playback from N303GA almost 13 years ago. I hope all pilots reading that report and the final report on this crash can picture themselves in the same situation and learn from it rather than repeating it for real. In the end though, the temptation to push on will always be there.

westhawk

[lifeafteraviation]

A toilet would never be put in front of the cabin exposed.

Why are you so argumentative bubbers? If I'm telling you they placed the toilet there ...they placed the toilet there. Right behind the co pilot and opposite the door. Yes it was exposed and was rarely used (although I've heard some stories). It was usually where the jepps were stacked. It's not the only configuration but it was common. If you don't know this you can't have flown many 20 series Learjets. This is why people always question your stories because you say stuff like this.

[West Coast]

Photos: Gates Learjet C-21A (35A) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Gates-Learjet-C-21A/1710020/M/)

Look like this?

[glendalegoon]

boys

lets not argue.

maybe bubbers didn't fly so many learjets, but he probably has a type and moved on to the airlines.

life, you seem to be picking fights.

There are lots of ways to fly. Let's all learn from each other.

The only people recently that I question about flying ability seem not to be on this forum.

[bubbers44]

Lr 23, 24, 25, 35 and 36,captain in all, but then moved on before the latest so no, I didn't fly them all.

[ksjc]

Not sure this is relevant but I remember a LR 35 crash at ASE many years ago. Stalled during a right traffic circling maneuver to Rwy 15.

DEN91FA043 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001212X16437&key=1)

[misd-agin]

Ksjc - would right downwind for 15 be the same as left downwind for 33?
Obviously blubbers not the only guy who's flown that downwind.

[West Coast]

Given the way the valley opens up towards the North, comparing a right downwind to 15 and a left downwind to 33 isn't the apples to apples comparison you're trying to make it out to be.

[galaxy flyer]

But, either one, being on the west side of the airport are, by today's standards dubious to insane, ideas. For jets, straight-in 15 landings, weather and winds permitting. Turboprops and pistons, the circuit in the valley to 33 is probably fine.

GF

[West Coast]

You wouldn't catch me doing it anything other than a helicopter, to either end.

[glendalegoon]

I have to admit that I have never been to aspen. So I did some research including looking at googlemaps satellite view.

while I would call it a modified right downwind to be sure, it really doesn't seem that bad. There is a road to follow towards the southeast over a flat area and then another road to follow back angling in towards the airport's runway 33.

googlemap allows for zooming up so close as to see everything you might want to see.

it would have to be done in VMC but some preplanning and practice might work out ok.

[roulishollandais]

BANK OF UTAH TRUSTEE SALT LAKE CITY, UT (Corporation) More and more aircrafts belong to Banks or Operators are dependant of Leasing . Is it a statistic factor of danger?

[His dudeness]

belong to Banks or Operators are dependant of Leasing . Is it a statistic factor of danger?

I don´t know any pilot flying careless because his airplane belongs to a bank.

I do know operations with leased airplanes and I sometimes freelance on airplanes that are leased.

Its a sign of creative accounting and limiting liability and maybe sometimes a sign of corporations and individuals owning airplanes they might not be able to afford them if they´d have to pay for it in one chunk.

A sign of our times.

[roulishollandais]

True... or half-true : The first advantage for operators to use leased aircrafts is to share in two different companies the benefits for the owner and the losses for the operators !
Sometimes the fisc does not accept to consider they are independant : exemple Euralair and Avialair and it may lead to a Criminal Court

Air Safety Regulations have been writen in the idea that responsability concerns the company who makes money : in the former time it was the operator, today it is the owner in the leasing system. Insurers make money too.

Regulations must be adapted to protect Air Safety and say that these who get money have responsibility. Immatriculations too often are lying. So inquiries are modified in case of crash.

When the owner is a Bank it is still worse, because a Bank does not know how to do an aircraft safe, their profession is to take a percent on every penny, cent passing in their hands. They have no technical skills.

It seems the question may be put on the table of discussion now and fora.
roulishollandais

[flyboyike]

I'm sorry, roulishollandais, what are you actually asking?

[His dudeness]

Air Safety Regulations have been writen in the idea that responsability concerns the company who makes money : in the former time it was the operator, today it is the owner in the leasing system. Insurers make money too.

Regulations must be adapted to protect Air Safety and say that these who get money have responsibility. Immatriculations too often are lying. So inquiries are modified in case of crash.

I think I can´t follow you.... does a bank make a pilot trying to land in gusting tailwinds about three times over the limit with a swept wing jet ...? After the first attempt was already unsuccesful ?

Sometimes I find it easier to just accept that some pilots do stupid things then to try and find someone else to blame....and btw....I can't stand the bloody "we need more regulation" thing... to bust limitations is already illegal, making it more illegal than illegal just won´t work.....

[deefer dog]

to bust limitations is already illegal, making it more illegal than illegal just won´t work.....

Some common sense on this thread at last!:D

This is another accident that should never have happened, and it's not too dissimilar to the one that happened in Ireland recently following three attempts at landing in actual wx that was below minimums.

Regulations to prohibit the busting of existing regulations........yeah, let's have some of those. Makes perfect sense, and likely to appeal to the mind numbingly stupid EASA regulators.

[deefer dog]

duplicated post

[roulishollandais]

does a bank make a pilot trying to land in gusting tailwinds about three times over the limit with a swept wing jet ...? After the first attempt was already unsuccesful ?.When pilots do stupid things we may ask "WHY?" Experience showed me that most people -included not very smart or low educated pople, but very smart and high educated too! - do stupid things in command of an aircraft puting a threat on their lifes because they do not feel free because -what I'm calling- an excess of system mind. They are glued in a system they think it is mandatory to obey without using their brain.The "do-the-mission syndrom" happens when they no more understand where there own stupidity starts and where mission must be done for benefit of truth, freedom, Country defence and respect of known personal technical limits

The question is then :"who controls actually the aircraft in that letal adventure and how?"

So I first questioned statistics if they could suggest an answer.

It is an old question I had first after the Sainte Odile crash report discovering that the Air Inter A320 belonged to a Japonese society... Creative accounting has limits too. Nobody asked any question.

In another crash (Quiberon Be1900) other garbagge appeared where you ask who has the responsiility and who is the real operator whose responsibility is limited by the Warsavia/Montréal Treaty. The passenger buys a ticket to the operator not to the pilot. I found it strange too that victims went to the Court against pilots instead against these ones who contracted transport with them. If pilots did something stupid the operator not the victims should do a judicial action against pilots if they want it.

Who is Who?
You are right : don't always search another responsibility .

I don't ask more regulation, but respect of the regulation (or perhaps change it if needed by better regulation).

The most important rule to respect is : "The Captain has the decision, he must stay free"
Design, Owner, Operator have to respect that most important rule. When we list the crashes, knowing or not knowing what happened, so many times the Captain was "missing". I would be estonished if Bubbers44 should desagree.

[bubbers44]

The lawyers always go for the deep pockets. Most pilots don't have it.

[His dudeness]

roulishollandais,

what you say is not wrong, but the question WHY they crash is basically what all the accident investigations are about. And they have shifted from mere technicalities to also the stuff going on in the background.

In fact, I agree a 100% to:

The most important rule to respect is : "The Captain has the decision, he must stay free"
Design, Owner, Operator have to respect that most important rule. When we list the crashes, knowing or not knowing what happened, so many times the Captain was "missing"

And when the captain is an idiot, the F/O has to take responsibility.

In the end - IMHO - it boils down to personality of a pilot, a thing we can´t really measure (at least only to an extend) and we certainly won´t be able to get a clear opinion of what it takes to be a good pilot and a safe operation. Ask 5 pilots, get 6 opinions.
I don´t think I need 3 tonnes of manuals to fly safely, others do.

Thats just human.

[roulishollandais]

In the end - IMHO - it boils down to personality of a pilot, a thing we can´t really measure (at least only to an extend) and we certainly won´t be able to get a clear opinion of what it takes to be a good pilot and a safe operation Instructing Newbees and CPL needs to evaluate if you may be soloing a Newbee despite you know he cannot be already a "good" pilot but that he is able to do a safe flight, and needs to build the personnality of the CPL to be able to resist to temptation to do absurd things.
In France an Airline Instructor does not need to have these basic instruction qualifications and he can sign a type rating on the base of SOPs. The checked pilot may ignore he is not able to analyse his own actions when the flight is no more standard.

Captain/FO : redundancy and generations continuity with experience transmission.

[lifeafteraviation]

this thread is going in circles.

Most of this has already been said and addressed several times.

The bank isn't the operator, it's simply a financing institution that holds the note to guarantee the funds are paid. The bank that holds the note doesn't have any direct responsibility over the aircraft or any operational control and probably no one from the bank has ever seen the aircraft. They just make money from interest by holding the note. The bank could care less how the plane is flown or if it flies at all. The bank probably doesn't want the plane to crash simply because they get a lump sum payout on the loan from the insurance company and can't collect any more interest...that's it.

Banks own pretty much everything. They probably own your house and your car too...even your iPhone is owned by a bank somewhere unless you paid cash without a contract....even then you only own the shell.

[BizJetJock]

The bank could care less how the plane is flown
Actually not correct: most banks want to make sure their asset is being looked after properly, because how it is operated and maintained makes a huge difference to the resale value. We spend lots of time and effort on being audited by finance institutions, and a lot of them (certainly in Europe) will not finance a private aircraft that is not with either a management company or a company flight department they have audited .

[lifeafteraviation]

Actually not correct: most banks want to make sure their asset is being looked after properly, because how it is operated and maintained makes a huge difference to the resale value.

You're still missing the point. The banks stand nothing to gain or lose by the resale value...they are simply financing the note for the purchaser. If the purchaser turns around and sells the airplane for twice what he paid he gets to pocket that and the bank just gets back the loaned amount. The bank makes the most money if you don't resell the aircraft. If the airplane plummets in value the person who bought it still has to pay the full balance back to the bank....of course he may default and the bank has to come after him and will repossess the aircraft but likely the bank has secured other collateral as well as forced the buyer to guarantee the value with an insurance policy.

Maybe it works differently in Europe but I don't think so. You're probably thinking of a different scenario where the bank may have invested heavily in the company as a whole and has financed many aircraft and other assets of the company and may even own a significant stake in the business.

The bottom line is in this case the bank will have no liability or responsibility as to the operation of this aircraft.

[flyboyike]

Gentlemen, you're getting into some pretty esoteric legal areas here, best not to go there without proper training.

[lifeafteraviation]

The problem with discussing anything anonymously is people just have to take your word for what you know. I've said some things in these forums I wouldn't necessarily want employers to be able to identify me for...that's the whole point.

Giving away details of one's background here, while tempting, is not wise. The more diverse and specialized one's background, the more easily that the person is identified.

But you're right, it's a bit off topic to discuss the legal liability of financing companies and lien holders. One could write a book on it. Those with the most money to lose (such as banks) are highly skilled at insulating themselves from such liability.

When it comes to discussing regulations and possible implications of the accident at Aspen, that is very much on topic and has been discussed at length. I feel very strongly that unnecessary knee jerk regulations don't enhance safety rather than diminish safety.

There is no need to regulate against reckless behavior when it's already illegal. When I say illegal I mean criminally illegal. It's a crime to deliberately violate professional codes of conduct, established safety regulations or aircraft limitations when such reckless behavior results in a serious accident with loss of life and or property.

Manslaughter is already a crime, we don't need more civil regulations against it unless you're a lawyer...lawyers always want more regulation to keep them in business.

Criminal charges require a burden of proof beyond the scope of an NTSB accident investigation. Such investigations can, however, be used as evidence in both civil and criminal cases. It will take a while for the NTSB to complete it's investigation. Meanwhile, the aviation civil litigators are anxiously waiting in the "wings."

As far as criminal charges go...the fact that this captain must live his life with the knowledge of having killed his own brother is punishment enough IMO.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Article on ops into Aspen in AIN Online (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ainsafety/2014-02-03/pilots-address-hazards-aspen-arrival); it was in their weekly email summary today.

“One clear day I asked the tower if I could circle to 33 [in a Challenger] just to see what it was like,” one pilot said. “It was scary. Steep banking at high altitude introduces the potential for an accelerated stall, for one thing. It’s a risky maneuver under the best conditions in a high-performance jet.”

Which seems consistent with most of what was discussed here, namely that it can be done, but shouldn't.

[glendalegoon]

I wonder how visual circling would work in a plane other than a challenger.

The lack of LEDs must up the thing by at least 20 knots.

correct me if I"m wrong, but adding 10 knots to vref protects you to 30 degrees of bank (approx).

adding 20 knots to vref almost 45 degrees of bank.

fully configured circling in a lightly loaded jet with LEDs must be about what a straight in vref in a challenger is.

I know some circling is done with only partial flaps/leds but I can see the wisdom in fully configured over the airport in a modified teardrop towards the east and coming around to 33 after reversing course over the town.

[Capn Bloggs]

Instead of just "having a go" like this twit:

One clear day I asked the tower if I could circle to 33 [in a Challenger] just to see what it was like,” one pilot said.

circling at Aspen would require some homework first. A couple of simple plots re turn radius would show whether it was doable or not.

No wonder people prang aeroplanes at places like that...

[Jet Jockey A4]

And with a circling procedure that uses full flap (30 degrees) and Vref +10 you could be flying in the very low 120s maybe a bit lower... 122kts is a very possible target speed for circling in that aircraft.

On straight in approaches with low weights and 30 kts of wind, I have seen G/S in the low 80 kts range.

[glendalegoon]

just using google satellite views, I would do a ''circle'' (VMC ONLY, DAY) as follows:

depart the airport between threshold of 15 and midfield on about a 100 degree heading, hugging the mountains to the left, starting a descent * at vref plus 20 fully configured for landing at min spoolup n1/2*

over the town itself reverse course using my best constant radius turn skills, avoiding gondolas and establish myself following the road back to the airport, by this time I would have reduced altitude and though not seeing the airport, knowing the road would take me to the threshold on an angle.


on the satellite image the road is marked as 82.



I would also remember the following, or consider the following:


if circling to 33, I would have a bit of a tailwind while starting my reversal over downtown, so this would be the steepest bank. By the time I was on a heading of about 300 or so my ground speed should be reduced by the headwind associated with a 33 landing.

Yes, there are gondolas/ski lifts, noise concerns, visual miscues from the mountains but pre planning some headings, a good copilot calling airspeed/sink rates and bank/pitch angles would help.


I would also measure the distance from the over the airport fix for the entire turn around back to the threshold and compute (by hand) the mileage and amount of altitude to lose so as to be at the threshold just above field elevation. I would plan my rate of descent accordingly. In some ways this reminds me of the expressway visual to runway 31 at KLGA. But I digress

And the first few times, indeed always, I would be ready to say OH SHIRT and go around with max power.

Don't make the mistake of pitching and banking via total visual references, use instrument/visual scan.

[glendalegoon]

* descent rate calculated to reach threshold after entire maneuver just above field elevation. based on groundspeed (best guess) throughout maneuver.



* minimum engine speed for quick acceleration and not in the ''unspooled'' range, know your own engine.

[I.R.PIRATE]

So the sole survivor is allegedly getting lawyered up to sue Bombardier and the Airport....

2 x ATC fired (allegedly)...

[glendalegoon]

too bad ppruners aren't on the jury.

and unless atc lied about surface winds, I think they are beyond reproach.

I wonder how the challenger would fly with LEDs?

[I.R.PIRATE]

...and what if ATC asked pilots what winds 'they needed'...? And then reported them as such? (not specifically in the accident aircraft case.)

Just a thought...:suspect:


Ever heard:" what RVR do you need?" And magically 'gotten it?"

[lifeafteraviation]

correct me if I"m wrong, but adding 10 knots to vref protects you to 30 degrees of bank (approx).

adding 20 knots to vref almost 45 degrees of bank.

I'll correct you....

Really? protects you? from what? an accelerated stall? I don't think so!! Please don't go around flying jets with such overly simplified rules of aerodynamics in your head.

if circling to 33, I would have a bit of a tailwind while starting my reversal over downtown, so this would be the steepest bank.

Yes...this is the point where you would die if following the above rules.

[glendalegoon]

life

fine, you tell me what speed would protect you and allow maneuvering at 30 and 45 degree bank, landing configuration. in terms of vref plus "X".

you select the jet.

or a series of jets.

and yes it is a simplification, and I don't have the numbers for every corporate jet? come on life, tell me. nice 'tude

[Capn Bloggs]

Really? protects you? from what? an accelerated stall? I don't think so!! Please don't go around flying jets with such overly simplified rules of aerodynamics in your head.
Err, we had the manoeuvring speed concept flying the 146. Add 10kts (IIRC) and you're protected up to 45° (something like that; it was a long time ago). With a stall speed chart, it would be a simple matter to come up with basic additives to increase stall protection for bank angle, including your "accelerated stalls". So settle down and accept that there may be ways of operating aircraft that you don't know about.

[roulishollandais]

It's a crime to deliberately violate professional codes of conduct, established safety regulations or aircraft limitations when such reckless behavior results in a serious accident with loss of life and or property. It may be a succession of negligences leading to that accident. The cost of an hour of flight for the operator is increased from 5 to 30% if the aircraft belongs to a financial organization. And the benefit for the operator is rarely more than 1%. (Being aviation operator is no a good way to make money). Imagine wath happens to the pilots' training time if you cán use these 5 to 30% or not for training!
Insurance is another trap in aviation : I wondered some airclubs staid very wealthy after crashes. An Aviation Insurer friend explained me that - at least in France and light aircrafts, I don't know for airlines and for bizjets? - aircrafts could be protected by insurance for a price which is higher of the value of the plane. 3 times the value is used typically. In case of total destruction of the plane, with killed people, if no fault can be found (the BEA report is used to show that) the responsibility is still limited by the law - The old myth that aviation is progress ! - you may buy three planes to replace the destroyed one's and the killed people). Such "clause" in insurance is legal in aviation but not elsewhere.

The safest operator belongs his planes, trains more his pilots instead paying interests rates to the banker or leaser.
Many bizjets who need to be leased or nead banks'help belong to people who consider their plane like a very sexy TOY, need them like drug, and don't fly enough to decrease the fix expenses. Another possibility in that case is to do a group of owners with different priorities to use it depending of common contract. But never let the banker become the owner, or one of the owner....

[maxphlyer]

In case someone is interested in some basics:

G-force in a turn = 1 / cos of bank angle

Stall speed in a turn = square root of g-force


30 degrees - 1,15g - stall speed x 1.07
45 degrees - 1,41g - stall speed x 1.19
60 degrees - 2.00g - stall speed x 1.41


Always keep the blue side up!

Max

[lifeafteraviation]

fine, you tell me what speed would protect you and allow maneuvering at 30 and 45 degree bank, landing configuration. in terms of vref plus "X".

you select the jet.

or a series of jets.

and yes it is a simplification, and I don't have the numbers for every corporate jet? come on life, tell me. nice 'tude

OK..first of all....I apologize for the harshness of my post.

As maxphlyer pointed out...the math and physics is irrespective of aircraft type...but an accelerated stall can occur under such a wide variety of conditions that assuming you are safe simply by your bank angle and airspeed is a dangerous oversimplification.

The downwind turn you described is statistically the most common location for an aircraft to experience an accelerated stall....you airspeed is low, you are probably not yet fully configured for the calculated approach speed, and you are flying with a tailwind in reference to the ground causing the illusion of higher speed and the natural tendency to over bank. The math relative to Vref or Vap works as long as you are fully configured and you are maintaining perfectly level flight and there's no turbulence but that's unlikely. If your jet has an AOA this can be handy but it's difficult to pay attention so this is where crew resources are handy....have the non flying pilot monitor airspeed, bank angle, and especially AOA.

I know a guy who crashed a Lear25 exactly like this once...excuse me...."knew a guy."

In other words, going back to AC61-21A comes one of the most important sentences in basic flight training...."Stalls come from excessive AOA for the airspeed and not from the airspeed itself. A stall can occur at any airspeed, in any attitude, at any power setting."

- does that bring back any memories?

[maxphlyer]

Lifeafteraviation, I couldn't agree more! :ok:

[glendalegoon]

dear life after aviation:

it is nice for you to apologize for your harsh tone.

but perhaps you had not fully read my post?

I mentioned being fully configured for landing.

I spoke of visual miscues and a good copilot calling things like speed , bank angle and more.

I mentioned that the highest ground speed was at the point of highest bank so I would like to think I would be on guard as the higher the bank the closest stall (for a given speed).


Accelerated stalls can happen in level flight (if you work at it). Massive turbulence caused by orographic lifting might upset your plane.

BUT I gave many, many safety and protective methods to help someone attempting this maneuver.


I hope you will re read my post and look at all the protections I mentioned.

Your own post says: you are probably not fully configured


yet it is one of my first conditions.


FULLY configured because you have such a small area to circle and the slower the speed (CONSISTENT with stall protection) allows for a lesser bank angle than making the same maneuver with no flaps/leds and much higher speeds.

Mountain flying has its own visual mis cues or illusions as you put it. I've offered what I think is the most safe and protected method of circling to 33.

AND even then I've offered the attitude that you might have to get the hell out of there.

And I don't think I would try it in a non LED equipped challenger or other aircraft that couldn't circle, FULLY CONFIGURED at Vref plus 20 (or whatever your manual says) much above 140KIAS.

[West Coast]

I don't know where you guys get your information. I talked with a friend who is high up high up in the controller union-NATCA. No one has been fired, no controller actions are in question.

[bubbers44]

Who said the controllers did anything wrong? They report the conditions, it is up to the pilots to fly their airplane safely. All the controller can do to control what decision the pilots make is close the airport.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

...

I mentioned being fully configured for landing.

Just to comment on that for the challenger.

The FCOM states
Circling Approach
When performing a circling approach, maintain the airplane configuration from the final approach fix (FAF) onwards (flaps 30° and landing gear down).
(Flaps 45 is selected much laater in the procedure)

Flaps 45 is the full landing configuration, so a circling approach is already not fully configured. Unless you don't follow the FCOM procedure, of course.

Recognizing that your recommendation was in the abstract, not necessarily intended for challenger, but since that was the type in question, thought I'd add this info ...

[glendalegoon]

mad scientist

yes, and thanks for making it clear about the challenger.

the more I hear about the challenger, the less I like it.

I flew as a passenger on the crj which is sort of based on the challenger. sitting in back on climbout of IAD and in a turn to intercept an airway that I was familiar with, I could have sworn I felt a stall buffet .


be careful out there.

[galaxy flyer]

Glen,

Unless it was seriously mishandled, I doubt it was in stall buffer--the shaker would have been going.

The Challenger is fine, just operate it as the FCOM describes, not as if it were a different plane. Over the years, the wing hasn't changed much, but the gross weight has. Roomy cabin, 8 hours at .77 and cheap, too. I've been in and out of Aspen with one several times, too. Works fine, but it's not a Global, either.

GF

[bubbers44]

Lear or B757 we sometimes had to be fully configured on downwind for certain circling approaches. TGU it was required. You are too busy using outside visual references to be completing a check list.

[lifeafteraviation]

I read some of the stuff people say in here and just cringe. I can't quite figure out the motivation for posting some of this stuff....if it's a new pilot wanting to learn a bit more and needs to clear up some common misconceptions I understand and would encourage it but when it comes from someone claiming years of experience I feel a bit sick.

[lifeafteraviation]

the more I hear about the challenger, the less I like it.

I wouldn't discount the aircraft....I've never flown one but it's very popular and capable.

Most business jets don't have LED due to the complexity and the weight and that they don't really need it. Falcons do and they do very well on short fields but most aircraft are more limited by takeoff performance than landing performance so it does no good to be able to land in a significantly shorter runway than you can takeoff right? ;)

Old Learjets being one of those exceptions....I think you could point them up and just takeoff from the ramp....I'm half expecting one :mad: old pilot here to claim to have actually done that.:yuk:

[glendalegoon]

lifeafter aviation


I wish you would clarify your post about : CRINGE.

You mention, in your next post about planes that are limited by takeoff performance and it is an interesting point.

but the crash we have been discussing was limited by landing conditions. And you can't takeoff without landing first, unless its at the manufacturer's airport.

One of the greatest warnings a potential aircraft buyer should have is to fully understand WHY a certain kind of AIRPLANE IS CHEAP. GF mentions that the plane is cheap. And I'm not saying how it is built.

[lifeafteraviation]

glendalegoon, I really wan't talking about you. Your posts don't make me cringe. I may not agree with some things you say but that's all.

They are cheap to buy because they are dated I assume? I don't think they're cheap in the sense that they are low quality manufacture.

Most aircraft have many disadvantages compared to others....I mean there is no single perfect aircraft right? There's no point in adding complexity to an aircraft that would limit what is actually good at though. Some aircraft are good at being inexpensive to operate and that's a very important feature too although I wouldn't think the Challenger is near the top of this category.

[Capn Bloggs]

most aircraft are more limited by takeoff performance than landing performance so it does no good to be able to land in a significantly shorter runway than you can takeoff right?
Err, no, LEDs also increase lift, therefore allow less speed, therefore steeper climb gradients (or less power/more weight for the required climb gradient) after takeoff, not to mention less takeoff roll if the runway is length-limited as opposed to obstacle-limited.

[lifeafteraviation]

Capn Bloggs:
Err, no, LEDs also increase lift, therefore allow less speed, therefore steeper climb gradients

Yes, that's exactly right. But let me digress further...

I was being a bit sarcastic because pretty much all aircraft can land in less distance than they can takeoff (notwithstanding 135/121 regulations)....thus my comment about the Learjet.

so...

That means takeoff performance is the larger selling point in most aircraft (since it's more limiting) and the Falcon 50 and 900 models are known for exceptional takeoff performance with LEDs and it's three engine design (better after an engine failure). But with most designs that lack LED it's more to do with reducing complexity and weight as long as takeoff performance is adequate for the missions involved in the target market. Otherwise you would encounter a point of diminishing returns very quickly which is why all jets aren't so equipped.

The other reason why LEDs may not be useful in a small twin jet design is the increase in drag and weight could actually negatively affect 2nd segment climb performance operating single engine rather than enhance it...or at best....be insignificant.

While takeoff performance may be enhanced by LEDs with all engines running, it may not be so much with half your engines inoperative after V1 and that's the limiting factor (at least for pilots who operate to those standards...some don't).

Dassault initially didn't use the full LED system as on the 900 when they introduced the super mid sized twin jet 2000 model for these same reasons even though they shared a common wing design (The 2000 series has a partial LED design).

The latest version of the 2000, however...the 2000S has actually increased the use of LED to obtain shorter field landing performance. This goes against pretty much everything I just said but Dassault had to modify the rudder to achieve this and the engines are more efficient than on the original design. Landing performance is still significantly better than takeoff performance but I wonder what use it is to land in less than 2000 feet when you need 4000 feet to takeoff. Interestingly, Dassault marketing emphasizes landing performance.

We could talk about this in another thread because it's interesting stuff....especially when you consider the 2000S slats are automatic when approaching stall to help mitigate the negative affects of inadvertently flying too slow while not yet configured...pretty cool stuff. F16s and other fighters use automatic LEDs to increase high speed lift during high G turns to allow a more dynamic range of corner velocity during a turning fight...to maintain a constant 9Gs while the airspeed bleeds off below Vc.

Getting back to ASE....this airport is really not a very limiting airport performance for takeoff (runway 33 only) and most jets will find takeoff performance at EGE to be more limiting due to obstacles.

As I said before....slats are a really cool selling point but so is purchase price and operating costs.

[lifeafteraviation]

Actually....here is what really sums it up....

"Pilots don't buy jets, rich people who don't listen to pilots buy jets!"

[glendalegoon]

airplanes become ''cheap'' because of their reputation after awhile. take an MU2 of the same year and a King Air same size and year, even discount that idea that the garretts are different than the pratts.

the MU2 is cheaper.

even though it is faster!

just wondering what the reputation is for the challenger.

And in some situations, circling or maneuvering in a confined area with gear down and full flaps makes a great deal of sense.

Not all circling approaches are in Kansas.


One mountainous airport, the only way in was to fully configure and spiral down over the valley east of the airport, go in, pick up pax, go out on the reciprocal runway, turn right 10 degrees, count 30, and spiral up to safe altitude , gear up and half flaps till over 7,000' and clear of all mountains. then, when clear resume normal flight.

sometimes you have to think like a pilot in the 1920's because all airports aren't nice and open with approaches approved by TERPS>

what did EK GANN say: singularly determined?

[lifeafteraviation]

Yeah to all that....but I think it's just academic.

There is what you can do and what you should do....which is what I was getting into earlier.

Remember (earlier in thread) in KASE these IFR approaches don't permit circling with category D anyway so it's not technically a circling procedure, it's just a visual approach which is legal and permitted but widely advised against.

And I don't agree that there may be cases where circling fully configured would make sense unless you have a special authorized procedure (which is likely for AA but I am still skeptical of anything that guy says). Absent a special procedure which is authorized and described in the company's Ops Specs and the pilots are trained to perform it at the specific airport, one should only follow the manufacturers guidance and procedures described in the relevant manual and I don't know of any jets that have procedures in place for circling while fully configured. Partial configured yes...maybe even land like that but only if there's numbers for it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with hypothetical discussions but just so state so people don't get bent out of shape when talking about doing something potentially dangerous and possibly illegal.

It was previously discussed by those who know this particular jet well that it shouldn't land in less than full configuration and that it uses category D minimums for circling.

I stated that since these guys were already hell bent on landing there and aircraft limitations be damned...they may as well have circled to 33 and stood a better chance at survival.

[glendalegoon]

can do and should do:

should: don't crash.

can: think!


theoretical? LAA, just for the record, when I say: circling, in some cases I've made it clear that it is maneuvering to land in VMC conditions. NOT off an instrument approach.

There are people who would declare the river visual approach to KDCA an unstable approach according to FAA statements . But jets do it all the time (even on one occasion a United DC10 running low on gas) And I'll bet he was fully configured way before 1000'

[lifeafteraviation]

Look, I just disagree with you.

You can and should think....you can think your way around the manufacturers approved or recommended procedures and rationalize as much as you can get away with it but if you screw up and bend something the lawyers will have a field day on your azz. If you kill someone after busting limitations you better not talk to anyone without a lawyer of your own!

DC is an approved procedure and although I haven't done it in a while I believe it's a visual procedure. Like LGA too. You should be stabilized by 500' or go around...so I would expect fully configured earlier...pretty straightforward. You may be turning but it's not classified as a circling approach.....maybe I'm wrong....I'm just going on memory....I'll look it up later because I'm curious now.

A lot of airlines simply don't do any circling....that's why so many pilots have this limitation on their ATP.

[Jet Jockey A4]

"Remember (earlier in thread) in KASE these IFR approaches don't permit circling with category D anyway so it's not technically a circling procedure, it's just a visual approach which is legal and permitted but widely advised against."

What? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

The approach is a Category D so as far as I'm concerned in a Challenger aircraft you are not allowed to even start the procedure.

Assuming you get down to the MDA and you are configured for the Challenger gear down, flaps 30 with a minimum of 150kts IAS and you have ground contact, what do you do?

You cannot land straight in you will be too high so manoeuvering will be required and in the Challenger this means staying in your "circling configuration" (as stated above). You could only go flaps 45 and Vref plus corrections once established on the final approach course for the landing.

"And I don't agree that there may be cases where circling fully configured would make sense unless you have a special authorized procedure (which is likely for AA but I am still skeptical of anything that guy says). Absent a special procedure which is authorized and described in the company's Ops Specs and the pilots are trained to perform it at the specific airport, one should only follow the manufacturers guidance and procedures described in the relevant manual and I don't know of any jets that have procedures in place for circling while fully configured. Partial configured yes...maybe even land like that but only if there's numbers for it."

First, get off Bubbers44 case! A senior captain at AA who was trained to go into that particular airport with AA special ops would not go against the company's procedure all these years and get away with it. If he says they had to be fully configured in the downwind leg, I believe him.

Second, your statement about not knowing of any jets that circle fully configured is one of ignorance. How could you know what configuration for circling is required for all aircrafts? Have you flown every type of aircraft in the world? Are you qualified on all types of aircrafts? I'm sure you are not.

Well I can tell you for sure that on the Global Express we do circle and manoeuvre in a "FULLY CONFIGURED" way and that means gear down and flaps set at 30 degrees (full flaps on the GEX) and at only Vref +10 kts. Once on final we bring it back to Vref + corrections if required. Like I said in another post it is very possible to circle this aircraft in the very low 120s. BTW, even when on a single engine approach with the Global, flaps 30 or full flaps is used while on the Challenger it is flaps 20 only.

IIRC the Challenger 300/350, née the "Continental" (just shares the name and nothing in common with a 600/601/604 or 605 Challenger) also circle with their full flap setting.

[ksjc]

I don't know of any jets that have procedures in place for circling while fully configured

The Global Express does. Full landing configuration prior to circling maneuvers...2 engines or 1.

[mutt]

I don't know of any jets that have procedures in place for circling while fully configured Gulfstream IV has them :)

[glendalegoon]

jet jockey a4

mutt

ksjc

thanks. its time to speak up! and I really agree with jet jockey a 4. an airline like american (all airlines have faults) couldn't allow a non standard procedure to go on for years. some copilot or other person would speak up and investigate.

I wonder why Bubbers was banned. Really. If anyone should be banned maybe its lifeafteraviation.

there are those who would circle fully configured

we are talking, we are looking at a difficult and confined airport.

even a private pilot knows the slower you go (with safe margins above stall) the tighter or smaller your radius of turn is.

[Jet Jockey A4]

"I wonder why Bubbers was banned"

Bubbers44 was banned? When and why? Totally ridiculous if true!

[glendalegoon]

jetjockeya4

look at posts 372 and 376 and there is a little sign that says banned.

[Jet Jockey A4]

WOW just WOW!

I just saw that and I'm confused as to why. Maybe I missed something in one of his post but I don't recall anything in Bubbers44 posts that were offensive to anyone.

[lifeafteraviation]

Thanks for the info about the GIV and Global. I didn't know about those airplanes...thus the disclaimer in my statement "I don't know of any..." I'm sure there are plenty of other aircraft with enough thrust.

My point being as long as it's an approved procedure...if it's not...don't do it. AA has many special procedures at many airports. Such special procedures are of course authorized in the relevant operations specifications and the pilots trained to do them. I've never claimed to know them or deny them...I was just skeptical of the tall stories told by one poster.

Jet Jockey A4:
What? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

The approach is a Category D so as far as I'm concerned in a Challenger aircraft you are not allowed to even start the procedure.

Assuming you get down to the MDA and you are configured for the Challenger gear down, flaps 30 with a minimum of 150kts IAS and you have ground contact, what do you do?

You cannot land straight in you will be too high so manoeuvering will be required and in the Challenger this means staying in your "circling configuration" (as stated above). You could only go flaps 45 and Vref plus corrections once established on the final approach course for the landing.

That's exactly what I was saying....If you are circling to land on 33 or even landing at all in KASE it's a visual approach....not a circling procedure. But all this has been talked about over and over in this thread.

Some of you guys get really heated up over basic technical discussions....I don't know why. I have nothing to do with anyone getting banned. I'm guessing it may have been from another thread because I haven't seen anything too extreme said in here.

[formulaben]

even a private pilot knows...Please, tell us more about what everyone knows. :D

If you are circling to land on 33 or even landing at all in KASE it's a visual approach....not a circling procedureAll circling approaches out of MDA are visual. :rolleyes:

[West Coast]

Do you not understand the differences in legality formulaben?

[galaxy flyer]

Heck, formulaben, do you understand the difference between a visual and instrument approach?

GF

[lifeafteraviation]

I probably shouldn't bite because the tone of the post makes me suspect trolling but I'll give the benefit of the doubt here....

All circling approaches out of MDA are visual.

Conducted visually yes, but you still flew a procedure to get there....it's not the same thing as being cleared for a "visual approach" which, while also an instrument procedure, doesn't necessarily depend on a published procedure to initiate or complete. Thus the restriction for category D circling would not apply to a visual approach.

[formulaben]

Heck, formulaben, do you understand the difference between a visual and instrument approach?

Heck galaxy flier, are you saying that when vacating MDA you're not visual?

[galaxy flyer]

You are visual but you had to get there via an instrument approach. The circling area is established by approach category which is related to IAS during the maneuver at the circling airspeed. A CL-600 series business jet circles at flaps 30, KIAS is about 150, placing it in Cat D. KASE'S approaches are NA for Cat D. What are we missing?

GF

[formulaben]

I apologize if I confused you with the quoted material...I should have quoted someone else earlier in the thread. What I was simply reiterating was that regardless of which runway you are landing on, once vacating MDA you are visual (to which I mean NOTHING about the Challenger.)

[westhawk]

If you're on the visual segment of IAP, you're still operating under IFR and must respect any limitations connected with the IAP. Being cleared for the visual removes any limitations imposed by the IAP. Cancelling IFR has the same effect with respect to the rules.

The reason for the limitations on approach speed category has to do with circling radius and terrain clearance. If you accept a visual approach or proceed under VFR, you are no longer obligated to respect the speed category limitations or comply with any charted MDA. It's all on you to maintain visual terrain clearance, so good planning and judgment is required. On an IAP, you must respect the speed category and MDA limitations to assure terrain clearance at the circling MDA while the specified minimum visibility for the speed category actually being flown exists.

Airplanes fit into only one speed category based upon the 1.3 Vso at MLW. However if the actual approach speed to be used is higher than the maximum for the category which the airplane is certified to is used, the higher speed category minimums must be used. This is the case with the Challenger and many other types because they circle at a speed which takes them into Cat D. In many types, if the airplane is well below MLW, even the additional speed required by the reduced flaps/higher airspeed circling procedure may still allow the airplane to remain within the certified speed category when circling. Such is the case with Hawkers and Westwinds. Both Cat C airplanes which can be circled at lower landing weights and remain within Cat C for circling purposes.

Something else to consider:

When performing a circling approach under IFR, descent from MDA is normally initiated at a point when that descent is necessary to maneuver to the landing runway at "normal" rates of descent using "normal" maneuvering. On most flatland airports this means an MDA of perhaps 500' or 600' above the airport elevation. Starting descent from MDA on the base leg or during the turn to final is generally acceptable to place the aircraft in a position to land. At ASE you have 2,400' to descend from MDA to the airport. To keep the airplane within the protected circling area and still descend at normal rates requires that the descent be initiated about 2 1/2 to 3 minutes from touchdown. Probably best to start down from somewhere on the crosswind turn of what amounts to an overhead approach. I've only practiced that one in the sim a few times during the annual "special airport" qualification training and always in full flap landing configuration.

Anyway Aspen ops are always an interesting discussion. Best to make sure all things are considered before making any grand proclamations of purportedly indisputable truth though!

westhawk

[lifeafteraviation]

On most flatland airports this means an MDA of perhaps 500' or 600' above the airport elevation. Starting descent from MDA on the base leg or during the turn to final is generally acceptable to place the aircraft in a position to land. At ASE you have 2,400' to descend from MDA to the airport. To keep the airplane within the protected circling area and still descend at normal rates requires that the descent be initiated about 2 1/2 to 3 minutes from touchdown. Probably best to start down from somewhere on the crosswind turn of what amounts to an overhead approach. I've only practiced that one in the sim a few times during the annual "special airport" qualification training and always in full flap landing configuration.

Thank you westhawk for the detailed explanation.

I recall that if you didn't get slowed and fully configured pretty much by Red Table or you weren't going to get down. However, that's for the charted visual procedure that most business jets had to do if they couldn't meet category D circling requirements (even straight in to 15). I suppose if you were doing an instrument approach in an aircraft authorized for Category C circling you would fly it the same way...thus...fully configured during the entire circling maneuver....but you would be straight in landing with minimums at around 2400.

What you are describing sounds like an operator approved special procedure and it sounds like you are describing a left downwind to runway 33 which has been a point of contention in this thread. You mentioned entering on a crosswind which is why I'm asking.

Do you recall if it was left or right downwind you were trained for and was it a jet or a turboprop?

[bubbers44]

Thanks Guys. As I said in one post we cancelled IFR about 30 miles out so cat D and all of that did not apply. One jet operater said he did routine L approaches to 33 with no problem. I have never heard of an L approach but assume he made a VFR base turn around the city area to avoid high terrain and landed VFR. It is totally legal for all operations I have done. 91, 135 and 121. That was a personal message so might not have been posted here.

Anyway, just let everybody fly to their company procedures and don't throw yours on pilots that don't have those procedures.

[westhawk]

What you are describing sounds like an operator approved special procedure and it sounds like you are describing a left downwind to runway 33 which has been a point of contention in this thread. You mentioned entering on a crosswind which is why I'm asking.

This is probably due to some unclear use of language on my part (a futile attempt at brevity) and a tad bit of thread drift. I'd like to try and clarify what I was describing and why.

What I describe is not an "operator approved special procedure" per se. It's just that ASE was declared to be a "special airport" sometime following the 2001 N303GA crash at ASE. "Special" crew qualification and operating limitations were imposed on operations at ASE for air carriers operating under part 135 rules and whose certificates were under the purview of the VNY FSDO. Whether this happened in other districts, I am not aware.

So beginning in 2001, ASE was added to our recurrent sim training list of things to do. Another check box on the form to go along with PRM approaches and whatever other items weren't on the form originally. One takeoff and one landing in visual conditions met the requirement but doing an entire approach including circling maneuver to rwy 15 was much more instructive. We flew the approach to the MAP. Making it straight in to 15 from here would be far more dramatic a final approach gradient than we were looking for. Consequently we then flew to the airport visually, maintaining MDA until overhead the airport. You're now 2,400' above the airport at the end of what amounts to the initial leg of a visual overhead approach. The further to the West of the runway you are, the closer you are to high terrain and the more room you have available to the East for circling. Since the hills may be obscured by cloud or reduced visibility even while reported visibility at the airport remains above published mins and circling West is NA, planning to overfly the runway gives the most terrain protection in all directions and is compatible with the general guidance for completing a circling maneuver. The idea is to remain within the "protected" circling area so getting too far away from the airport (cat C = 1.7 nm) during the circling maneuver is to be avoided.

The valley gets more narrow as you fly to the SSE toward town, so beginning your turn to the downwind overhead the intended landing spot provides the maximum approach design terrain clearance and also puts you in the best position to finish your circling maneuver lined up on final. Yes it's a bit like landing in an irregularly shaped cereal bowl! Landing straight-in on 15 is the least demanding and doing that off the Roaring Fork visual easier yet due to more track miles and you can descend going around the hills the approaches require you to overfly.

Visual right traffic to 33:

In good visibility with a North wind exceeding ten knots at the surface, (as reported by ATC ;)) making right traffic to 33 is indeed doable in some jets but less so in others. More than the terrain considerations, landing downhill is my biggest concern. It's my judgment from examining AFM perf data that 2% down gradient generally requires around 20 kts or so of headwind to "break even" on runway distance required. In other words, landing on 33 with 11 kts of HW may require more runway than landing on 15 with 10 kts of TW. Gets one's attention too! :eek: But there's actually enough room to fly right traffic to 33 if you keep the downwind at 9,500' and do your descending on base & final. Keep the downwind leg from being excessively long, (remember the valley gets narrow to the south and people complain if you overfly town) but allow enough room to have some kind of wings level final. Some operators may require that part 135 flight parameters and stabilized approach criteria be maintained on part 91 empty flights while others may not. If not, how comfortable do you and the other pilot feel about it? Yeah, another judgment call...

Anyway I hope that clarifies and expands upon my earlier comments. I also hope nobady here thinks I'd deign to to tell them how to fly. There's allot to consider when operating all flights and maybe a little more so when proposing to operate at ASE.

Fly safely and within the spirit of the rules so you can enjoy the fruits of your labor. Sometimes telling nervious pax that this is my attitude towards professional flying actually makes them feel better. In any case, it makes me feel better... :cool:

westhawk

[lifeafteraviation]

Excellent post Bubbers, thanks for that. It clears it up. :ok:

west hawk, thanks for that detailed description....I never thought about circling around for 15 as I always went straight in but there's no reason you can't. I suppose as long as the tower knows. Last paragraph sums it up nicely too.

[bubbers44]

It is just a repeat of previous posts. I don't think I cleared anything up.

Not every approach is IFR unless you want it. Cancelling IFR you can do anything you want. I thought everybody knew that. Just do what works to get the job done if it is VFR if company allows it. We were flexible to do what ever was necessary and just stay legal. It wasn't that hard.

[westhawk]

You're right bubbers. It's not usually difficult. Getting the job done without incident or even an elevated heart rate is the norm. It's when guys fly off into the abnormal and unfamiliar without a plan that things are most likely to go sideways. It seems likely that played a role here.

You're welcome lifeafteraviation. There's plenty to consider and what I've posted is far from complete. And only my take on it. There's many ways to skin a cat or conduct a flight safely.

And many ways to screw it up if you stray.

Semper Vigilans

westhawk

[FrankR]

I'm late to this conversation, and having only read the last few pages I think that there may be a few factors being missed.

The approach has circling minima, not because you are going around to land on 33 but because of the steep decent gradient. The FAA won't call it "Straight in" unless it meets criteria for both alignment and decent path.

For you guys who think you are going to circle in the valley, be aware that the airport kindly asks that you limit yourself to 20 degrees bank angle, and not you fly over town. (this is on their operations page)

A few years back, I had extra G550 sim time, and tried the LOC 15 circle 33 with 15 kt tailwind and 12,000 overcast, and I couldn't do it while remaining within the protected area, not flying over town, not exceeding 20 bank, and not getting the sink rate or bank angle EGPWS warnings. Perhaps you could do it given enough time to plot it out, but as a operational maneuver, forget about it in a 550.

FR

[lifeafteraviation]

FrankR, that seems pretty spot on to me.

The discussion sort of devolved into hypothetical scenarios rather than practical application but what you said pretty well sums up what I feel....that you can but you probably shouldn't...Obviously some aircraft can do it safely and more easily than others.

Flying over the town at 30 degrees of bank probably isn't a violation, it just makes you an a-hole in the eyes of the airport authority. Similar to landing at HPN after the curfew...they kindly ask you not to.

My main point is that if you don't do it right and it doesn't work out the lawyers will take apart everything you did or didn't do and then proceed to hang you out to dry so you better be absolutely sure you can do it.

As with most things...if you get away with it for long enough, you may delude yourself into thinking it must be ok. Also, just because an operator establishes an approved procedure, it doesn't mean it's flawless and may be subject to review and legal action later after something happens, the difference is that in such a case the pilot is probably exonerated (if he's still alive).

[West Coast]

Finding of probable cause.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20140106X95024&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=FA

[H Peacock]

Well that makes interesting reading!

[cambioso]

Wot..........No pictures or charts in the report............??

[A Squared]

Wot..........No pictures or charts in the report............??

Not in that particular document. You can get all the documents associated with the investigation here:

Accident Docket (http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/dockList.cfm?mKey=88631)

[West Coast]

Knowing the airport well, nothing surprised me as to the probable cause. The crews procedures and interactions show they were not prepared to deal with the conditions that day.

[galaxy flyer]

Preparation being, go to Rifle

GF

[West Coast]

When in doubt, chicken out. RIL,EGE and GJT look really nice when ASE is at its worst.