Go around? we don't need no steenking go around

[Dave Krall CFII]

Lukla's no obstacles & uphill, so no problem, plus free dysentery.
We have much more demanding airstrips in Idaho, even considering typical DAs.

Plus Lukla's wide as a parking lot, and well paved for excellent braking on landings. Take-offs are no-brainers with the instant altitude.

 

[RotorAndWing]

BTW: Would you consider a complete flap failure in a fully loaded twin Otter, while initiating the approach to Lukla, an emergency?

Have you ever flown a twin otter? Are you aware of how the flaps work in a twin otter? Do you have the performance charts for a twin otter? Have you ever flown in a charter type operation? Have you ever flown anywhere else in the world other than the PNW?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Have you ever flown a twin otter? Are you aware of how the flaps work in a twin otter? Do you have the performance charts for a twin otter? Have you ever flown in a charter type operation? Have you ever flown anywhere else in the world other than the PNW?

No.
Full-span trailing-edge double slotted flaps, two sections on each wing, the trailing element of the outer section being a flaperon. Sounds important.
No.
No.
Yes, many.

See, it's easy to actually answer a question instead of asking unrelated questions.

Switch my question to a fully loaded Caravan or T182 if you like.

 

[RotorAndWing]

BTW: Would you consider a complete flap failure in a fully loaded twin Otter, while initiating the approach to Lukla, an emergency?

Have you ever flown a twin otter? Are you aware of how the flaps work in a twin otter? Do you have the performance charts for a twin otter? Have you ever flown in a charter type operation? Have you ever flown anywhere else in the world other than the PNW?

No.
Full-span trailing-edge double slotted flaps, two sections on each wing, the trailing element of the outer section being a flaperon. Sounds important.
No.
No.
Yes, many.

See, it's easy to actually answer a question instead of asking unrelated questions.

Switch my question to a fully loaded Caravan or T182 if you like.

You're the one that asked the twin otter landing question.

See, it's easy to actually answer a question instead of asking unrelated questions.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

You're the one that asked the twin otter landing question.

Also previously asked about your amusement with my Lukla v. some Idaho backcountry airstrip demands.

And your answers are.......

.......wait for it.....

....._________?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Also previously asked about your amusement with my Lukla v. some Idaho backcountry airstrip demands.

So tell us about your operating experience in a twin otter in Nepal since you are the one making the comparison.

 

[Silvaire]

Go to Skyvector.com and flight plan VNKT to VNLK. The max terrain in the three quadrants you fly through are 15,500 24,500 and 29,900

That has got to be a pretty spectacular flight

 

[Henning]

Go to Skyvector.com and flight plan VNKT to VNLK. The max terrain in the three quadrants you fly through are 15,500 24,500 and 29,900

That has got to be a pretty spectacular flight

It is awesome in fact, especially on a nice clear day.

 

[TheTraveler]

As far as getting the runway in place, an explorer (I think Edmund Hillary? Anyone?) first got the locals to band together, mark off and dig a runway, and then they spent days tramping it down by foot. Once it was good enough for a plane to come in and land, they started hauling in supplies. That's how the History Channel explained it.

Small plane by small plane, virtually everything in that village has come in by plane since the first plane landed.

As far as what to do there...if you want to go to Everest, you've got to fly into Lukla. Ok, you don't have to, but I guess that's the most popular base camp for those who do the climb. If you don't want to climb Everest, don't go.

The locals also frequently cross the runway. They've got mini drop-down gates and guards kind of like a crosswalk guard to stop foot traffic for takeoffs and landings.

 

[TheTraveler]

Also, something I heard, not sure how true it is:

Although the takeoff seems simple, it's really not because of the elevation. So although those planes to it daily, they're tuned and built performance wise to specifically handle that high altitude. If you just jumped in another plane and tried to takeoff/land, you would have major issues.

True? False? IDK. Just came up in conversation once with an acquaintance who claimed he knew something about it.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

So tell us about your operating experience in a twin otter in Nepal since you are the one making the comparison.

What a lame remark.
No "operating experience in a twin otter in Nepal" is necessary, for any decent pilot to properly evaluate the environmental, surface and other risk factors of Lukla or any other well documented airstrip.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Also, something I heard, not sure how true it is:

Although the takeoff seems simple, it's really not because of the elevation. So although those planes to it daily, they're tuned and built performance wise to specifically handle that high altitude. If you just jumped in another plane and tried to takeoff/land, you would have major issues.

True? False? IDK. Just came up in conversation once with an acquaintance who claimed he knew something about it.

One doesn't "just jump in another plane" and try to do anything there, of course that would generate "major issues".

The aircraft have to be up to snuff to even get there at that airport's elevation.

 

[RotorAndWing]

What a lame remark.
No "operating experience in a twin otter in Nepal" is necessary, for any decent pilot to properly evaluate the environmental, surface and other risk factors of Lukla or any other well documented airstrip.

Ah, OK. So you can watch a video and "properly evaluate the environmental, surface and other risk factors of Lukla or any other well documented airstrip" without ever operating there or any experience operating the aircraft??

Amazing.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Ah, OK. So you can watch a video and "properly evaluate the environmental, surface and other risk factors of Lukla or any other well documented airstrip" without ever operating there or any experience operating the aircraft??

Amazing.

No, it's properly done, and always has been, with AFDs, approach plates, sectionals, WACs and other published materials including VIDEOS these days, if available, plus any other resource the pilot can utilize, including talks with previous users, if available.

Concerning videos, I developed a whole website using specialized cockpit videos to aide pilots in operating in a dozen of the most difficult airstrips in the world, as well as for viewing entertainment.

I've never heard anyone suggest using videos only, except you.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Concerning videos, I developed a whole website using specialized cockpit videos to aide pilots in operating in a dozen of the most difficult airstrips in the world, as well as for viewing entertainment.

So what are these "dozen of the most difficult airports in the world"? And you have experience in operating into all of them?

I've never heard anyone suggest using videos only, except you.

You watched a youtube video here and proclaimed your operating expertise on an airport you've never flown into.

Lukla's no obstacles & uphill, so no problem, plus free dysentery.
We have much more demanding airstrips in Idaho, even considering typical DAs.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Go to Skyvector.com and flight plan VNKT to VNLK. The max terrain in the three quadrants you fly through are 15,500 24,500 and 29,900

That has got to be a pretty spectacular flight

So, Lukla is listed as having a 518m runway at an elevation of 9334... Just to the north, there's Sangboche VNSB with a 396m runway at an elevation of 12,345! I want to see a landing there!

 

[jpower]

So, Lukla is listed as having a 518m runway at an elevation of 9334... Just to the north, there's Sangboche VNSB with a 396m runway at an elevation of 12,345! I want to see a landing there!

Ask and ye shall receive...approach to landing starts at 2:30, flyby is earlier.

 

[jpower]

There's also Courchevel in the French alps, which is a whopping 525m/1722ft long, but it's pretty cool. It's built into he side of the mountain...and it's practically a mountain itself. At least when compared to other runways.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Ask and ye shall receive...approach to landing starts at 2:30, flyby is earlier.

Found this takeoff too...

 

[marcoseddi]

thats wild looks likew there is a huge incline at the end may help for slowing down

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

So what are these "dozen of the most difficult airports in the world"? And you have experience in operating into all of them?




You watched a youtube video here and proclaimed your operating expertise on an airport you've never flown into.

Your reading comprehension is low, combined with a presumptuousness that wastes our time.

Since you asked though, I replayed some tapes, and it turns out that, yes, I have operated in all of them, plus some private airstrips that are even more difficult.

The rating of airport degree of difficulty is by the long standing RHI, or Runway Hazard Index developed by Galen Hanselman. All paved, public use airports are no more than a 1 or maybe a 2 on the RHI.

Difficult airports are in the 30 to 50 point range on the RHI, such as those in the Big Creek Four area of Idaho.

The summary of an individual airport's RHI is composed of underlying factors such as the airport's runway environment, runway surface and of course, runway length. DA considerations are only mentioned as an overlay to RHI, since its consideration is academic and elementary in piloting.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Your reading comprehension is low, combined with a presumptuousness that wastes our time.

Since you asked though, I replayed some tapes, and it turns out that, yes, I have operated in all of them, plus some private airstrips that are even more difficult.

The rating of airport degree of difficulty is by the long standing RHI, or Runway Hazard Index developed by Galen Hanselman. All paved, public use airports are no more than a 1 or maybe a 2 on the RHI.

Difficult airports are in the 30 to 50 point range on the RHI, such as those in the Big Creek Four area of Idaho.

The summary of an individual airport's RHI is composed of underlying factors such as the airport's runway environment, runway surface and of course, runway length. DA considerations are only mentioned as an overlay to RHI, since its consideration is academic and elementary in piloting.

Nice dodge of the question. So what are these airports and who determined the scale of difficulty?

I'm sure your videos must be equally as informative.....

 

[comanchepilot]

Fear is a worthless emotion unless there is real danger. I keep telling myself that.

Here, however, there is real danger.

that is something like a 6 degree grade. Its worse than Redlands for any of your out here- Redlands is only like 1/3 of it - at 2% - and that seems extremely steep. All you need to do is plant it on that relatively flat section - I bet you need power to taxi to the top.

 

[Geico266]

Nice dodge of the question. I'm sure your videos must be equally as informative.....

Dodge the question? I thought he NAILED it.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Dodge the question? I thought he NAILED it.

Ok, so since you see it what are these "most difficult" airports?

 

[ProspectingCFI]

Rotor & Dave. Get a room!

Haha J/K but yeah I don't think you can look at a video like that and just say oh that's simple, no problem. To me, it is clearly very dangerous and I can spat off numerous problems you could potentially have there.

 

[Jaybird180]

The rating of airport degree of difficulty is by the long standing RHI, or Runway Hazard Index developed by Galen Hanselman. All paved, public use airports are no more than a 1 or maybe a 2 on the RHI.

Where can one find this long-standing data for a certain public use airport?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Where can one find this long-standing data for a certain public use airport?

There are other sources but it is best summarized in Hanselmanns excellent book, FLY IDAHO, in which I have no vested interest BTW. The RHI info may be out there for free on the net somewhere. If not, it would be a great subject for discussion.

Even a cursory look at any of the Big Creek Four airstrips (Mile High, Dewey Moore, Simmonds, Vines) by youtube, AFD, or even simply on the sectional leaves no doubt of their demands to even a novice pilot.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Nice dodge of the question. So what are these airports and who determined the scale of difficulty?

I'm sure your videos must be equally as informative.....

Get someone to bring these up on youtube for you to start: IDAHO Mile High, Dewey Moore, Simmonds, Vines IDAHO and see other posts here.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Originally Posted by RotorAndWing
"Nice dodge of the question. I'm sure your videos must be equally as informative....."

Dodge the question? I thought he NAILED it.

Thanks Geico, ain't it great to be able to read?

If I had to have only ONE resource to evaluate a truly demanding airport prior to landing there, it would be a cockpit video of previous ops, such as those I early on and now many others produce, and are widely available now for free.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Get someone to bring these up on youtube for you to start: IDAHO Mile High, Dewey Moore, Simmonds, Vines IDAHO and see other posts here.

OK, once again, you make the claim:

Concerning videos, I developed a whole website using specialized cockpit videos

So where is this website?

to aide pilots in operating in a dozen of the most difficult airstrips in the world, as well as for viewing entertainment.
.

So once again, who determined that these are "the most difficult airstrips in the world"? And you want the readers here to believe that all of these "most difficult" airports are all located in the PNW?

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Just looked at a video of Mile High in Idaho. No way it should be on any list of "Most dangerous in the world", the slope is a minor challenge but it has great potential for a go around since it is wide open beyond, something the one in Nepal doesn't offer. Videos of the others listed showed pretty straightforward flying. As with any landing the set up is key and you would want local knowledge. I'm just an advanced beginner, but it seems to me that putting out a blanket statement that any one runway is the "most" dangerous is pretty sketchy because there are so many variables.(eg. equipment, pilot experience, weather, etc.)

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Just looked at a video of Mile High in Idaho. No way it should be on any list of "Most dangerous in the world", the slope is a minor challenge but it has great potential for a go around since it is wide open beyond, something the one in Nepal doesn't offer. Videos of the others listed showed pretty straightforward flying. As with any landing the set up is key and you would want local knowledge. I'm just an advanced beginner, but it seems to me that putting out a blanket statement that any one runway is the "most" dangerous is pretty sketchy because there are so many variables.(eg. equipment, pilot experience, weather, etc.)

First, instead of spewing your unfounded comments, actually try looking at the measured factors and data for each airstrip, as even a new private pilot is capable of doing:

Mile High: Lukla:
540 feet useable 1500 ft useable
22% incline 12% incline
Grass surface, mediocre braking Paved surface, excellent braking

The above factors alone show a significant higher degree of difficulty for MHI.

Then, consider the DA overlay for both which will show they essentially cancel each other out with the obvious exception of given operations on particularly unusual circumstances for each. Lukla's higher elevation but usually a good deal colder, Mile High is lower but generally warm or HOT so on average, it's a wash regarding DA between the two airstrips.

Then, seriously consider the folly of your idea of "great potential for a go around" at MHI. To an armchair runway "analyst" such as yourself, it could appear to offer one but, the reality is that at its typical DAs of 9000 feet, only the most capable of SuperCub Class aircraft would have a chance of clearing the treetops visible when standing on the ground of the saddle and just on the other side of the saddle. So it's essentially a one way strip, just as much as Lukla is.

FWIW, Dewey Moore has a RHI a few points lower than Mile High but, many pilots who have actually frequented both airstrips consider Dewey More to be the more difficult of the two. A few RHI points either way is of little consequence when comparing airstrips.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Rotor & Dave. Get a room!

Haha J/K but yeah I don't think you can look at a video like that and just say oh that's simple, no problem. To me, it is clearly very dangerous and I can spat off numerous problems you could potentially have there.

No thanks, you can have him. Have a ball....
Try teaching him to read better, too.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Try teaching him to read better, too.

You're a sciolist to the highest degree, that's for sure.

BTW, you're still dodging the questions:

Concerning videos, I developed a whole website using specialized cockpit videos to aide pilots in operating in a dozen of the most difficult airstrips in the world, as well as for viewing entertainment.
.

Again, where is this website and what are the airstrips you have deemed the "most difficult in the world" ?

 

[Jf1450]

Ah geez, there's nothing like being an observer in a d!ck measuring contest.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

First, instead of spewing your unfounded comments, actually try looking at the measured factors and data for each airstrip, as even a new private pilot is capable of doing:

Mile High: Lukla:
540 feet useable 1500 ft useable
22% incline 12% incline
Grass surface, mediocre braking Paved surface, excellent braking

The above factors alone show a significant higher degree of difficulty for MHI.

Then, consider the DA overlay for both which will show they essentially cancel each other out with the obvious exception of given operations on particularly unusual circumstances for each. Lukla's higher elevation but usually a good deal colder, Mile High is lower but generally warm or HOT so on average, it's a wash regarding DA between the two airstrips.

Then, seriously consider the folly of your idea of "great potential for a go around" at MHI. To an armchair runway "analyst" such as yourself, it could appear to offer one but, the reality is that at its typical DAs of 9000 feet, only the most capable of SuperCub Class aircraft would have a chance of clearing the treetops visible when standing on the ground of the saddle and just on the other side of the saddle. So it's essentially a one way strip, just as much as Lukla is.

FWIW, Dewey Moore has a RHI a few points lower than Mile High but, many pilots who have actually frequented both airstrips consider Dewey More to be the more difficult of the two. A few RHI points either way is of little consequence when comparing airstrips.

Well see there ya got me. I'm not a new private pilot. I'm an old ex-military guy who just naturally assumed no one in their right mind would attempt a strip like that without a capable machine...(If you noticed in my comments I mentioned the variables, which included equipment.) And I still maintain any competant pilot with the right equipment could handle the strips you mention, which should be obvious since people DO use them every year day in and day out. Your vehement attack on me, without knowing anything about my armchair, or cockpit, experience indicates one of two things. 1) You are the world's most experienced pilot, having vastly more than my measly 15k hours, and we are not worthy of your time, or 2.) You are talking out your lower orifice and are resorting to personal attack when no one buys into your line of BS. Either way you desperately need a personality transplant.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Well see there ya got me. I'm not a new private pilot. I'm an old ex-military guy who just naturally assumed no one in their right mind would attempt a strip like that without a capable machine...(If you noticed in my comments I mentioned the variables, which included equipment.) And I still maintain any competant pilot with the right equipment could handle the strips you mention, which should be obvious since people DO use them every year day in and day out. Your vehement attack on me, without knowing anything about my armchair, or cockpit, experience indicates one of two things. 1) You are the world's most experienced pilot, having vastly more than my measly 15k hours, and we are not worthy of your time, or 2.) You are talking out your lower orifice and are resorting to personal attack when no one buys into your line of BS. Either way you desperately need a personality transplant.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

OBTW Mr. Krall CFII SEL SES, (What no multi time???? ) Re: Your profile......

It's spelled Amphibian.... NOT Amphibion. If you really flew them, you'd know the difference.....

 

[Henning]

OBTW Mr. Krall CFII SEL SES, (What no multi time???? ) Re: Your profile......

It's spelled Amphibian.... NOT Amphibion. If you really flew them, you'd know the difference.....

He flies one, I did a bit of time building on it.