Well, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to realize that a close to 7 degree GS from FAF to the runway and a 25 knot+ tailwind is not a recipe for a good conclusion.

Airport is set to reopen at 1200Z tomorrow (7th).

That doesn't jive with the NTSB statements. As of today, in the afternoon they still hadn't accessed the inside of the aircraft as was unstable and still had fuel onboard.

I sat up front on a packed Whiskey 146 during the summer when I was going to attend a cousins' wedding. It was nothing like the EGE or HDN approaches we shot in the sim. I still remember grabbing the two seats in front of me as I looked at pine trees that were seemingly a few hundred feet away on the right side of me.

What a ride. The CA and FO rightly gave me a hard time as I grabbed my baggage.

Sorry Latte tester...no published landing distance charts for the specific flap setting...no-go...it is black and white...and how you "feel" about it won't wash in court...im surprised the aircraft doesn't offer various flap settings for landing with appropriate landing distance data provided...but if it doesn't..then it's not debatable

7 degrees?! Where do you get that from? Have you been there? I'd like to see any jet make a 7 degree glide path. I think you mean 3.5. Steeper than normal but doable with planning.

11,700' Not Below at 5.7nm to the threshold...

ATAN( (11700 - 7837) / (5.7 * 6080) ) = 6.36 degrees

Chart shows 6.59°. I'm impressed! :eek:

Do you guys left or right circle to 33 off 15? Chart doesn't say.

Yeah I guess you're right....It's been a long time since I've been in there. Pretty steep. London City is 5.5 and I thought that was steep.

I do recall having to get down to approach speed by DBL or not being able to slow at all.

Those Challenger pilots never had a chance. I wouldn't be surprised if they issue special rules that flat out close the airport to jets under tailwind conditions. It would take away the ability of pilots with poor judgement to do such things.

It occurred to me today while thinking about this accident. If that captain knowingly violated the published limitations of the aircraft he could be found to have operated recklessly. With a fatality involved it goes beyond a simple accident and he could be charged with manslaughter. Imagine if he had rolled off the runway in the other direction and slammed into aircraft on the taxiway, the ramp, fbo or terminal!

lifeafteraviation, you have the wrong country. We don't do that here in the US.:E

Are you kidding? Most pilots who believe that are naive. The reason it doesn't happen very often is most pilots are professional enough and most countries don't scapegoat innocent pilots for political reasons as easily as they might in say...Brazil.

If you have an accident it's not criminal but if you knowingly operate in a dangerous and reckless manner for personal gain... It doesn't matter what profession you are in, it's criminal if you damage property or injure or kill someone due to deliberate negligence or recklessness.

I can't see any way that this situation doesn't qualify unless the facts we have so far are completely wrong...but we can listen to the tape.

This is something you need to consider if you are a pilot for a small operator and feel pressured to do something dangerous or reckless for fear of losing your job....you can definitely be charged with a crime if things go wrong like this did.

The captain is, at least, fortunate enough to face this possibility. In the Cork accident (which would seem to me to have worrying similarities; pressing on after a missed approach when the weather is outside limits for the a/c), the crew would likely have faced serious charges, had they still been alive.

In both cases, the controller passed weather information to the pilots which was clearly outside limits for the a/c, but the pilots chose to continue :ugh:.

I wouldn't want for a minute to place responsibility for these incidents other than at the pilot's door, but I can't help wondering if safety would be enhanced if controllers had a mandatory duty to report suspected serious violations of this nature.

IIRC there was at least one case described here when a UK controller advised a foreign crew that he would be obliged to report them if they continued an approach in weather below the approach ban limits; on hearing this, they quietly went someplace else.

Silbert,

US private operators don't have an approach ban, so it might be understandable that a US crew would try the approach. No saying they shouldn't know, the US regs require a pilot to adhere to the regulations of the country they're operating at, but it isn't uncommon to see this situation come up in conversation.

acroguy

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Egremont, MA, USA
Posts: 18
Well, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to realize that a close to 7 degree GS from FAF to the runway and a 25 knot+ tailwind is not a recipe for a good conclusion.



This is not accurate. Open up the approach plate. This is a non-precision approach I.e. No glide slope. So from the FAF to the MAP is 3.1nm which is a 6.59 degree angle. We all agree very steep and the tailwind and altitude do not help. But then the crew has 2.6nm to lose 2003 feet to the runway threshold.

I will let you someone else figure that rate.

It's just like driving a car....or playing irresponsibly with your firearm if you're in law enforcement. If you get away with it and no one is hurt and nothing seriously damaged....it's not a problem most of the time. But if you have an accident that's the direct result of your willful negligence...you can be charged.

law enforcement officers have been charged for leaving a loaded gun unattended and a kid gets a hold of it and someone dies. The logic is they have a professional responsibility.

Reckless driving is criminal even if you don't cause an accident. You kind of have to enforce it with drivers because so many idiots operate a car and the potential for injuring others is very high. I would hate to see that type of logic pushed on to pilots because of a few irresponsible individuals.

Actually, Lifeafteraviation is right, we *do* do that in the US. It's not common, but the precedent has been set. The was a guy a few years back who was giving someone a ride in a biplane (Waco, I think) someplace like Wisconsin, or Michigan, that part of the country. Anyway, he was flying low along a river and hit a crossing powerline. Plane ended up upside down in the river and his passenger died. He wound up going to jail for the accident. According to AOPA it was the first time that pilot had gotten a criminal conviction for an aircraft accident. But, that genie is out of the bottle now. If you consciously chose to violate the FARs, and that violation causes someone's death, you just might wind up in jail. It happens, even in the US.

Unlike demonstrated crosswind, maximum tailwind for landing is a limitation that all that day seemed to ignore!

I must confess I'm not too comfortable with the idea that someone out there is just waiting for me to commit some minor indiscretion so they can snitch on me.

But this kinda suggests that if you get away with it, it somehow isn't irresponsible, which doesn't sit very comfortably either.

I suspect most pilots sitting reading this thread in an armchair would think it absolutely idiotic to continue a steep approach in a jet with a reported tailwind gusting to 36kt, yet a professional crew sitting in the cockpit somehow made that choice. Similarly at Cork (which was a public transport flight), a professional crew made a decision to attempt and continue an illegal approach in a Cat 1 a/c when the weather was significantly below the approach ban limit not once, but three times.

Understanding why pilots sometimes make choices while airborne which they likely wouldn't even consider when on the ground would go a long way to explaining why this type of accident keeps happening.

Risk/reward problem - circle to land in tight mountain valley or land with 30 kt tailwind.


Solution - ILS into EGE. 1+25 scenic drive to Aspen.


Outcome - eat regular food vs. hospital food.

Misd-agin,
That is exactly right. I have tried an approach twice but never three times. Inconvenience is just what it is but it is my life in their too!

Not exactly the same but whatever floats your legal mind works for me. Highly unlikely in this case. Give it a rest.

Circling at Aspen isn't an option in the Challenger; airport max speed for circling 140 kts (very strictly enforced by the granite), Challenger min speed for circling 150 kts.

Max tailwind 10kts, so they shouldn't have been even thinking about it.

As for the landing flaps 20 suggestion, apart from the valid legal point made by MfS there is so little drag that the aircraft struggles to stabilise at Vref on a 3.5 degree slope, let alone 6.5. It is worrying that someone even thought about it.:ugh:

Not sure why you're choosing to act like an ass. As far as I can tell my response was perfectly polite. Or at least it was intended to be, aplogies if it seemed otherwise.

But regardless, the days of pilots never getting charged for accidents in the US are over. And the conditions under which it can happen are just as I stated: A willful violation of an FAR that directly results in a death. Those are just the facts. You can pretend it's not true if you want.

Is something like that likely here? Dunno, it's still a rare occurence. But it's not obvious to me that disregarding (by a lot) a regulatory aircraft limitation is substantially different that violating the minimum altitude regulations. Both are violations of the regulations, by any measure.

Day VFR
 

I've been to ASE a lot, but only in the G-III and G-450. Circling was not an option in those aircraft either.

We had a rule our owner sanctioned, to arrive before 1300 local, and day VFR only.

Rifle and Eagle were good alternates.

Before that time of day, the winds are generally favorable.

I know that type of rule puts a kink in a lot of operators plans, but it worked for us.

Swore I'd never do this after I retired, but I will anyway.

I missed the old days of going to Aspen. Back then there was no approaches for private aircraft, none, nada. Two of the airlines had private approaches, one an DME/ADF (NDB) approach and the other a private back course LOC. Course back when I frist started going to ASE, the airlines were using DC-3s* and Convair 580s. Saw a 580 lose the right engine just after lift off, no big deal watching it from the ground. The engine auto-featherd as the gear came up, they made a slight right turn, then circled around to the left and came back in and landed. I was quite impressed.

Anyway, as there were no approaches and the airport closed at offical sunset, or 30 minutes after, can't really remember now, it was much easier and simpler landing in ASE most of the time. Center would have you fly to the SKIER (or something like that) which was directly over the airport at the MEA. You looked out of the window and if you saw the airport, you cancelled IFR and landed.

You didn't see the airport, you had two options, continue on an Airway down the valley toward Rifle/Grand Junction, center clearing down the lower MEAs and if you broke out, they'd let you turn around and see if it was good enough to go back up the valley** in VMC back to ASE and land.

If not, Grand Junction here we come.

And no bloody night operations. So in my old fart's opinion, much easier and safer.


* The DC-3s had JATO bottles on them.

** The valley that lead to Aspen has a highway, railroad track and a river. As long as the valley you were following had all three, it would take you right to the airport. Lose anyone of the three, give it up and go away for another day.

Do be so sure....

Never, ever, underestimate what a massively big wing, with leading edge devices, can do for you in performance, until you have flown one....

Oh, and as you pointed out, this video was a VFR left hand circle back to 15. Quite different than attempting to circle east for a landing on 33, inside the valley...

Yes, according to the plate it is 6.59 degrees from the FAF to MAP, not the runway -- my error. Nevertheless, what are you suggesting? That the approach is somehow shallower because of that?

agaricus...there is a horizon in mountain flying...it is at the base of the mountains though and not peak.

Learned that a long time ago from my first boss.

I seem to recall that boeing (yes I know that the challenger isn't a boeing) offers 15 knot tailwind data for additional money.

Just wondering if the challenger/bombardier folk do the same thing.

I am suggesting it is not quite as steep as led to believe and there is a bit more room to slow down. You still have the runway slope illusions.

THERE seems to be two or three threads on this subject. Any chance of consolidation?

SEEMS to be a discussion on flaps. I've never been a fan of reduced flap landings except as directed in the manual for certain conditions like engine out landings. It does seem to me that the 737 allows for certain reduced flap landings at extremely high altitude (density altitude) airports, but I think its above 8000' (would have to pull the book out...not handy now).

I would have liked to have seen the video, but there doesn't seem to be a link.

Negative on more tailwind...

The aircraft is limited to a maximum of 10 kts tailwind as per the AFM.

probably meant this one Aspen Airport Instrument approach - YouTube

circling speed indicated to be 122kts - quite a difference to the challenger, as jet jockey (thanks!) has already cared to put down in detail

737NG's allow landing with F15, 30 or 40. Runway required is the deciding factor.

Unless I'm missing something obvious, it is only not as steep if you don't get to the MDA by the MAP. If you're too high at the MAP point to attempt a landing then what is the point of a shallower approach?

On the Flap for landing discussion(s)...
 

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.

Other emergencies or abnormal operations that would tell you to use flap 20 only for a landing would be; a one engine operation, controllability issues like thrust reverser unlock, an aileron, rudder or elevator jam, ground spoiler deployment and fuel imbalance to name a few.

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.

Basically under normal ops you have to use flap 45 for a landing.

@ misd-agin...
 

Most airliner type aircrafts have multiple flap landing configuration charts, mainly to save fuel not so in the business jet aircraft world.

Not saying there are no business jet aircraft with multiple configuration flap landing charts but in general I think most business jets are certified with a full flap landing configuration.

Here is an intersting video of a missed approach at Aspen in a 125. I've seen this in real life more times than I like to remember. Listen to the comments, at the MAP the runway is in sight, right under them, but they (anyone) is too high to attempt a landing.

I lost count of the number if times I missed, just like they did on the video, be vectored for another appraoch and have the airport in sight at the Red Table VOR and shoot a visual approach. The weather can change quickly in Aspen and then again, it can get socked in for days.

Years ago I flew with one of those bizjet outfits where everyone was a captain but the crew concept on this approach video strikes me as odd by modern standards.

It looks like the pilot flying is totally dependent on the pilot monitoring for altitudes and distances. Do they only have one approach plate? I realize that this is legacy round dial flying but I would at least want to cross check the cockpit GCA the PM is giving.

No, not really. If you cross the FAF at the minimum altitude and cross the threshold at the 55" TCH, that's a descent angle of 6.27 degrees. Technically, yes, it is *slightly* less steep than the published descent angle of 6.59, but not by enough to make much of a difference. It's only a third of a degree less steep. 6.27 degrees is still very steep by any means.