@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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Localized turbulence report is what I meant.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

http://flightaware.com/resources/air...SE/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.

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.

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.

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

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ka...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.

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.

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