Could this be done under an AOC..?

[JanetFlight]

Cant imagine an EFATO here...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=75c_1383854924
But indeed amazing for sure..

[galaxy flyer]

The landing video would be amazing, too. No, not under an AOC. I'm surprised they let a Citation into an altiport.

GF

[Proline21]

Not so sure what EASA/JAA would say about this but I fear if landing and takeoff performance with a Jet can be done with all respective marings I cannot see why "in theory" an AOC would restrict any operations because the only limiting factor is the crazy up/downslope and if that's do-able or not is defined by the AOM/POH and by no authority I would imagine. Nevertheless I don't see any Jet operating in there legally giving the short RWY of only 550m.

Not too long ago Tyrolean operated a Dash 7 into this airport

[JanetFlight]

Here is another jet oper on an altiport...Mustang at US:

[deefer dog]

Easy to check which aircraft it was and find that it was a private flight. Having found that to be the case, so what? Much safer than taking off in any single engine type out of there.

The guy deomonstrated he knew what he was doing. He got in in, and out again.

[Booglebox]

What is that, a Bravo?

[Steak&Kidney_Pie]

Bravo up first and a Citation I next (not a Mustang).

All of this is Private.....quite hilarious to even suggest AOC

Operation into/out of Courchevel is not a problem, as long as you can justify your safety case, aircraft performance, and organise your training, to show the DGAC you know what you are doing and attain approval. I, personally, would love to know where the performance figures came from....

SKP.

[con-pilot]

In the US both aircraft takoffs would be not approved; illegal. Even under Part 91. Let alone what the insurance company would say about it if anything would have happened.

First takeoff, the slope of the runway exceeded 3%. The runway was too short for a balanced field operation.

The same for the last video in the Mustang's takoff in the US.

Under Part 91 (private aircraft regulations), jet aircraft operations must comply with the certification limits and requirments set forth in the Aircraft Performance/Operations Manual, including the takoff profile; balanced field length, second segment limitations, etc.

Exceed or not comply with those and you are in voilation of FARs.

Just like taking off over weight in a Cessna 172, it is illegal.

[CL300]

There is ways...Balancing the field is just one of the options, not all of them.

as far as the slope is concerned. extra data are available

FSDO is your friend, as eel as the manufacturer..

The pilots though....might need an extra rating or privilege should i say ;-)

[con-pilot]

as far as the slope is concerned. extra data are available

I've never seen or flown a jet aircraft* approved for more than 3.5 degree slope nor any supplmental charts for more than 3.5. But I have been retired for over six years, so perhaps that has changed?

By the way, the 3.0/3.5 slope is a certification limit set by the FAA, not the manufacture. I do know that certain 121 aircraft and the assoicated 121 operator can have modified performance data, but this is rare and is only granted on a case to case basis after numerous test flights and performance tests.

Balancing the field is just one of the options, not all of them.

Having a balanced field in jet aircraft under FAR Part 91 is not an option.

As for a legal takoff/departure profile, either you make it or you don't. You don't and takoff anyway, it is illegal under US FARs. Not to mention the insurance underwriters and what they would say if you had an accident or incident.


* Jet aircraft flown/operated; Jet Commander 1121/1121B/1123 Commodore Jet, Lear 24/25/28/35, Westwind I/II, CE-500, Lockheed JetStar -8/-731, Sabre 40/60/65/80, Falcon 50/50EX/900EX and Boeing 727-100/200.

[deefer dog]

I don't think there is any way to balance that field! I did hold rating to operate out of there, and Meribel 25 years ago. I didn't operate a jet in there, but at a guess any jet would need to commit at circa 50 kts, or maybe even less.

In anything that requires most of the runway to get airbourne out of Courchevel, the trick is NOT to rotate while still on the downward slope, even if you have the speed to do it. Rotating just prior to where the slope levels off is a sure way to guarantee a tail strike. The guy in the clip did it perfectly, and I'm pretty sure he knew the place well.

[con-pilot]

I don't think there is any way to balance that field!

I agree, the pilot played the odds and won. Truth be known, most of us have done that sort of thing, but perhaps not at that extreme. Aspen in the summer in a Jet commander was pushing it as it was. With just enough fuel to get to an airport about a hundred miles away. But as with all of the twin jet engine aircraft, balanced field length was not the problem, it was second segment climb limitations that was the most difficult to achieve to stay legal.

In anything that requires most of the runway to get airbourne out of Courchevel, the trick is NOT to rotate while still on the downward slope, even if you have the speed to do it. Rotating just prior to where the slope levels off is a sure way to guarantee a tail strike. The guy in the clip did it perfectly, and I'm pretty sure he knew the place well.

I'll certainly take your word for this, as you seem well acquainted with that airport.

I've never been there, Aspen was bad enough as far as I am concerned.

[pigboat]

I agree, the pilot played the odds and won.

This looks like one of those 'it can be done but why do it' situations. On another thread there was a video of a float equipped airplane landing on the grass. It can be done, but do it often enough and eventually your luck'll run out.

[westhawk]

On another thread there was a video of a float equipped airplane landing on the grass. It can be done, but do it often enough and eventually your luck'll run out.

Perhaps if you rely on "luck"! But probably no more so than landing a float plane on water or even a land plane on grass.

Landing float planes on grass has been done routinely for a long time. The changing of seasons in places like Canada and Alaska brings about the need to switch from floats to wheels/skis for a considerable number of operators every year. Landing on grass or even harder surfaces at an airport or other suitable location is often preferable to making the change at waters edge. (logistics and suitability of takeoff areas are considered)

While it may seem odd to those unfamiliar, many float plane operators consider it fairly normal ops provided the surface used is pre-determined to be suitable. No more a matter of luck than any other competently planned and executed operation performed by experienced pilots the world over.

westhawk

[CL300]

CON-pilot.....

The world is really big outside the FAR's....Would the world be ran by the FAR's we couldn't land in Nepal, operate in the middle of Africa in the desert and such.
However, let be assured, that even if you did not experience these operations personally, some people did, and legally.
Balancing the field is a norm not a mantra, it s a published data in order to make things easier, but you can go around it; like the 3°/4° glideslope or the 2% runway slope. These are the "normal ops", the certification exercise.
However, derived data are available, and any reputable part 21 has them, and Cessna does.
This flight was perfectly legal, in all its aspect. All the documentation was given to the appropriate authorities, a special , temporary runway was drawn in the sim for this particular purpose, you name it...
The real issue in Courchevel, is the decision point when coming in for landing and the aiming point. It is very disturbing to fight against this horizon that goes up on the "non flare" platform, as well as the "full power" about 2/3 up the runway to make it to the "other side"...Take off, is very limited, due to the delayed VR which is more a V2 + at the time of rotation, the field is unbalanced, meaning that your accelerate/stop and acc/go are not equal..so you have 3 decision points on this runway...
Did I operate there on a Citation ? Yes, 20 years ago, what is legal ? you bet it was ! Did we continue to operate there ? NO !!! It was doable, but not adequate.
Do I continued these exercises ? not for the time being. Am I going to resume these activities ? Yes probably; but then i will not be able to write on Pprune about it. ;-)
Aviation has endless possibilities, operate ONCE with russian regulations in winter, and you are immunize for life...

[con-pilot]

operate ONCE with russian regulations in winter, and you are immunize for life...

From what I have heard, I completely believe that.

[deefer dog]

CL300, I would be interested to know from where you got, or how you "derived", the "derived data" for a slope of 18% in the Citation that you operated into Corchavel.

Is it published by Cessna? Would you have a copy to show us please? Which sim had the software capable of accurately extrapolating to 18% slope, when no data of this nature was ever entered into its original logic?

On another point, I am inclined to disagree that the real issue is landing. My experience here, and other similar places, is that most pilots adjust quite easily. Sure the concept of adding power to roll up the hill is a bit alien, but a gentle reminder is all that is needed to avoid embarrassment.

[CL300]

too long, too many books and copy too many lines of code ; shall we meet in Cannes one day ?

[pigboat]

Perhaps if you rely on "luck"! But probably no more so than landing a float plane on water or even a land plane on grass.

If you insist. Outside of changeover, I don't know of anyone who lands on the grass as a matter of routine. As you say it takes careful planning, one condition being the grass should be wet and cut short, thus early morning after mowing the infield was how we did it on changeover in the fall. Even so, our CP at the time managed to put a Dornier 28 over on her back. Do anything often enough and if there is a way for the evil genie of bad luck to bite your butt, he will.

[westhawk]

Outside of changeover, I don't know of anyone who lands on the grass as a matter of routine.

Something an operator does every year becomes routine, at least to them! Semantics...

Do anything often enough and if there is a way for the evil genie of bad luck to bite your butt, he will.

Can't argue with that!