Challenger crash at KASE
If its a special approach, it's not authorized. A lot of operators have "special", as opposed to "standard" IAP procedures authorized. I looked thru the database today and didn't see a standard IAP with either "straight in" mins or Cat D mins.
So, no, using SIAPs, a Cat D plane cannot fly the approaches, Visual arrivals only.
So, no, using SIAPs, a Cat D plane cannot fly the approaches, Visual arrivals only.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had always thought that a straight in approach was permissible if the runway was in sight and a normal landing was assured, even if no straight in minimums were published.
aterpster says no, and I would think he would know.
aterpster says no, and I would think he would know.
I think he explained it a lot clearer than I could.
I also agree the training issue was off track. If it's not in the AFM, you can't do it in the airplane except under the conditions I mentioned earlier (emergency and manufacturer certification). Special authorizations issued to operators is another exception he mentioned I didn't think about because I've never seen one. Who trains in the airplane these days anyway?
Practicing zero flap landings in the sim and on your check ride is required, that's why we do it (not sure about Pt 91 only checks but I'm guessing that too). If you do it without declaring an emergency you are probably going to get into big trouble if you bend the airplane. Like most things, if you get away with it, it just means you're lucky.
Another thing to mention....a visual approach is an instrument procedure, not VFR. Most jets that land in ASE use the visual approaches unless, as galaxy flyer mentioned, they have a special authorization which most smaller or individual operators do not. Airlines and larger operators have such special authorizations placing them in an operational advantage but the crews typically have to complete initial and recurrent training specific to the approach so there's a significant cost involved.
Some jets can circle category C...I can't list any specifics right now...been a while for me. Someone mentioned Gulfstreams with a supplemental certification...I haven't heard that but it makes sense to me.
Telluride (TEX) is a better example because it's restricted to category A and B circling only and basically those approaches are off limits to jets. Jets go in there all the time and they fly the procedure. The way they do it is they are cleared for the visual approach from the minimum altitude and then follow the procedure because it provides some guidance but they can't meet the restrictions so it must be visual. If a jet is cleared for the procedure they are probably in violation even in VMC.
Clearly from this thread there is a lot of confusion about all this and just because you see other people doing it or have done it in the past doesn't mean it's legal or safe.
If you want to really confuse people lets start talking about takeoff minimums and runway analysis. There's an area where a large number of pilots routinely violate the rules and have no idea. It makes landing criteria seem easy.
Can't speak for Gulfstreams, but Challenger 300s and Globals are Cat C for all approaches, straightin and circling. They both circle with landing flaps set.
The Honeywell FMS DB for the GLEX (Classic and XRS) did have several special RNP approaches available for selection. However, they required FAA authorization and I understand they should not have been included in the data set. In any case, flown visually, they had a normal vertical path, in the area of 3 degrees and wound quite nicely around the plateau on the approach. The valley rises such that, visual maneuvering can be flown with a reasonable descent rate.
The Honeywell FMS DB for the GLEX (Classic and XRS) did have several special RNP approaches available for selection. However, they required FAA authorization and I understand they should not have been included in the data set. In any case, flown visually, they had a normal vertical path, in the area of 3 degrees and wound quite nicely around the plateau on the approach. The valley rises such that, visual maneuvering can be flown with a reasonable descent rate.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had always thought that a straight in approach was permissible if the runway was in sight and a normal landing was assured, even if no straight in minimums were published.
aterpster says no, and I would think he would know.
aterpster says no, and I would think he would know.
At a U.S. airport with an operating control tower you are expected to land straight-in on an approach reasonably aligned with the runway, even if that approach does NOT have straight-in minimums.
Aspen and Santa Monica (KSMO) are but two examples of many.
I remember sitting on the ramp in ASE loading up for departure. Had taxied in on tower frequency, so it was up on speaker. The field was below VFR but there was a GA SE piston doing touch and goes on 33. I can only imagine the pilot was intimately familiar with the terrain. That and the world needs organ doners, not that they find much intact.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
This thread has taught me or caused me to learn so many things I didn't know that I'm amazed I survived all the years I acted as my own pilot.
On the other hand, at least I knew when to stop.
Special thanks to Galaxy Flyer, aterpster, West Coast, lifeafteraviation, and acroguy.
On the other hand, at least I knew when to stop.
Special thanks to Galaxy Flyer, aterpster, West Coast, lifeafteraviation, and acroguy.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: US
Age: 44
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the comments seem quite fair, but there seems to be an underlying latent cause that no one has really put the finger on. Let's face it, if this happened, it could happen again, this is the main reason why we investigate accidents and occurrences. It's not only because the crew were incompetent, you can name pretty much everything, lack of training, unfamiliar airport, weather, etc and you'll find it in this sad accident, but what do we do next?
Most of these IAP's were designed in an era were there was light traffic, but cannot cope with the high volumes of traffic and is not using all the available technology.
I think the answer here is moving towards RNP APCH (AR), just like Juneau in Alaska, Kathmandu in Nepal, Queenstown in NZ and all these weird places where the construction and use of an airport is not ideal due to the terrain considerations, yet its use is more and more popular.
IMHO, I think this is a wake-up call to move in a direction away from old procedure design and "dive and drive" kinda flying towards the aviation as we like it on the 21st Century.
Most of these IAP's were designed in an era were there was light traffic, but cannot cope with the high volumes of traffic and is not using all the available technology.
I think the answer here is moving towards RNP APCH (AR), just like Juneau in Alaska, Kathmandu in Nepal, Queenstown in NZ and all these weird places where the construction and use of an airport is not ideal due to the terrain considerations, yet its use is more and more popular.
IMHO, I think this is a wake-up call to move in a direction away from old procedure design and "dive and drive" kinda flying towards the aviation as we like it on the 21st Century.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the answer here is moving towards RNP APCH (AR), just like Juneau in Alaska, Kathmandu in Nepal, Queenstown in NZ and all these weird places where the construction and use of an airport is not ideal due to the terrain considerations, yet its use is more and more popular.
There is on YouTube a video from the cockpit of a CRJ doing an approach to KASE in foul weather and right on dusk or last light. The poster explained that they were doing an approved approach that has lower minimums than the usual published approaches. I suspect that it was a RNP APCH but it is not stated.
That's my airline, its the LOC DME 15. We aren't authorized RNP approaches.
As far as the poster advocating RNP as a method of increasing an airports level of operations, I don't think the argument works in ASE. Another runway would help, not that there's room or the political will for that. The opposite direction traffic is the limiting factor during busy days as arrivals and departures all come from/depart to the north.
As far as the poster advocating RNP as a method of increasing an airports level of operations, I don't think the argument works in ASE. Another runway would help, not that there's room or the political will for that. The opposite direction traffic is the limiting factor during busy days as arrivals and departures all come from/depart to the north.
Originally Posted by West Coast
That's my airline, its the LOC DME 15.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast:
Don't know who that was.
What an RNP AR approach would do for the qualified operator:
1. Provide vertical guidance not only to DA but to the threshold.
2.Provide a 3.4 to 3.5 degree vertical path.
3. Provide lower minimums with the application of a 425 foot per mile missed approach climb gradient.
As far as the poster advocating RNP as a method of increasing an airports level of operations, I don't think the argument works in ASE. Another runway would help, not that there's room or the political will for that. The opposite direction traffic is the limiting factor during busy days as arrivals and departures all come from/depart to the north.
What an RNP AR approach would do for the qualified operator:
1. Provide vertical guidance not only to DA but to the threshold.
2.Provide a 3.4 to 3.5 degree vertical path.
3. Provide lower minimums with the application of a 425 foot per mile missed approach climb gradient.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem if there is no revision in facilities or IAP/Visual procedures at this airfield following this accident(and the sooner the better) another accident is liable to follow
Professional pilots have been flying safely into and out of this airport for many years. The worst case scenario is the weather isn't right so you go somewhere else and someone's ski vacation is delayed for a couple hours.
Isn't there a special sim syllabus for CatC aerodromes like these to legislate crew with no previous experience to check out prior to operations?
Some kind of glideslope guidance to higher than precision minimums and for circling implementing curved approach guidance flashing lights such as those that were at HKG Kaitak, might be considered
If it is known to be a dangerous airport why doesn't FAA and ICAO do something to minimize the risks?
I'm sorry for the harshness here but this is really p!$$ing me off! Think about what you're saying. The captain of this Challenger...unless by some crazy turn of events turned out to be responding to an emergency condition or the ATC recordings and weather reports we've all heard are completely wrong...was operating in a deliberate and reckless manner and is not an example of a typical professional business jet pilot.
Stop trying to make sense of this for anything other than what it was.
Bloggs
That fix isn't on the special approach, so I can't comment.
ATERPSTER
All of that is good and well and would have positive implications for operators but wouldn't increase the efficiency of the airport given the opposite direction traffic scenarios. We achieve lower mins via the existence of an FAA blessed balked landing procedure. It's proprietary, so I can't post it.
OK465
I had heard of an approach like this, but the mins were too low given our needs to fly a missed instead of a balked landing procedure.
That fix isn't on the special approach, so I can't comment.
ATERPSTER
All of that is good and well and would have positive implications for operators but wouldn't increase the efficiency of the airport given the opposite direction traffic scenarios. We achieve lower mins via the existence of an FAA blessed balked landing procedure. It's proprietary, so I can't post it.
OK465
I had heard of an approach like this, but the mins were too low given our needs to fly a missed instead of a balked landing procedure.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast:
Alas, not many biz jets can qualify for RNP AR. Those that can often are unwilling to go through all the expense and hassles imposed by the FAA.
As to your balk landing procedure I have a fairly good idea, having seen Air Wisconsin's of yesteryear.
All of that is good and well and would have positive implications for operators but wouldn't increase the efficiency of the airport given the opposite direction traffic scenarios. We achieve lower mins via the existence of an FAA blessed balked landing procedure. It's proprietary, so I can't post it.
As to your balk landing procedure I have a fairly good idea, having seen Air Wisconsin's of yesteryear.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry for the harshness here but this is really p!$$ing me off! Think about what you're saying. The captain of this Challenger...unless by some crazy turn of events turned out to be responding to an emergency condition or the ATC recordings and weather reports we've all heard are completely wrong...was operating in a deliberate and reckless manner and is not an example of a typical professional business jet pilot.
Its called EASA and reinvents the wheel the 15th time in a non round shape and just wonders why the Goodyears works so well on the FAAs wheels...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It would appear several of this type have appeared on its side or upside-down.
Is there a problem with the gear geometry?
Is there a problem with the gear geometry?
fantom,
The 600-series that ended upside down were the result of IGE stalls that were the result of failure to de-ice prior to take-off and failure to properly use anti-ice equipment.
The 600-series that ended upside down were the result of IGE stalls that were the result of failure to de-ice prior to take-off and failure to properly use anti-ice equipment.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...There is nowhere in the AFM or QRH that states or gives you information that would allow you to land other than a flap 45 configuration with a perfectly working aircraft or in other words in a "normal ops" situation.
The only time you would land with flaps 30, 20 or 0 would be with a flap failure...."
That's not true for the 605. It's in the Operating Manual....
If in icing conditions with flaps extended, if buffeting can be alleviated by reducing the flap setting, the pilot CAN at his DISCRETION, land at this reduced flap setting.
Refer to the Abnormal procedures - Flap Failure, for distance and speed corrections...
The only time you would land with flaps 30, 20 or 0 would be with a flap failure...."
That's not true for the 605. It's in the Operating Manual....
If in icing conditions with flaps extended, if buffeting can be alleviated by reducing the flap setting, the pilot CAN at his DISCRETION, land at this reduced flap setting.
Refer to the Abnormal procedures - Flap Failure, for distance and speed corrections...
@ OD100...
You did not read my post properly!
I do state the option of a landing with a reduced flap setting for icing conditions...
I indeed had to use this procedure going into KAPA one day several years ago.
And I quote from my own post (101)...
Also if you get major tail plane icing while on approach, you could run out of nose trim when going from flaps 30 to 45. It is suggested you select flap 30 and add an additional 7 kts to your approach speed."
I do state the option of a landing with a reduced flap setting for icing conditions...
I indeed had to use this procedure going into KAPA one day several years ago.
And I quote from my own post (101)...
Also if you get major tail plane icing while on approach, you could run out of nose trim when going from flaps 30 to 45. It is suggested you select flap 30 and add an additional 7 kts to your approach speed."
Last edited by Jet Jockey A4; 12th Jan 2014 at 23:56.