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.