Aspen-Pitkin KASE approach chart error?

P

paul123

Guest
Was looking at the VOR/DME approach to KASE someone had posted and I noticed a possible error. The descent angle on final says 9.67 degrees but its more like 3 degrees. I'm I missing something or is it wrong?
 
paul123 said:
Was looking at the VOR/DME approach to KASE someone had posted and I noticed a possible error. The descent angle on final says 9.67 degrees but its more like 3 degrees. I'm I missing something or is it wrong?
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I just took the CPA Mountain Flying coruse, ground school, and we did this approach. I don't have my notes handy but IIRC, its a slam dunk approach due to terrain. Difficult for our little planes to loose enough altitude in very little time to do this IFR, that's why most light piston GA flights go VFR there. Not sure if this answers the quesiton, hopefully soemone whose flown the approach will chime in.
 
paul123 said:
Was looking at the VOR/DME approach to KASE someone had posted and I noticed a possible error. The descent angle on final says 9.67 degrees but its more like 3 degrees. I'm I missing something or is it wrong?
Click to expand...
Have flow this one 28 times, many times in IMC. The last 1.4 nm involve a descent of 2415 feet in 7400 horizontal feet. Do the math.
The gradient just before that is more genteel- 400 feet over 9000 horizontal feet.

I commit to land (for OEI escape in the twin) at 10,800 and that's still steep (2800 feet over 16,400 horizontal feet). Steep no matter how you cut it.
 
You're right Bruce, its the 2380 agl that I missed at the missed:dunno: . I'm too used to the flatlands with MDAs of 400 agl.
 
That is correct...

Many pilots that shoot this approach decide to go missed approach at the 9.5 DME fix. Since if you wait until the 11 DME fix which is the MAP, you have to loose 2,380 feet in 1.4 miles....I do not know an airplane that can do that...do you?
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
2,380 feet in 1.4 miles....I do not know an airplane that can do that...do you?
Click to expand...
yes, but you wouldn't call it a 'stabilized' approach!
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
yes, but you wouldn't call it a 'stabilized' approach!
Click to expand...
I did that once- fly all the way to the MAP but the only way down was slower than Vmc. I added power for the flare but dropped it from about 3 feet (on the mains, thank heaven). Never again. Many Moons ago.
 
So... how does one lose 2380' in 1.4nm ? Even in VFR conditions if one were to fly this approach, we'd still have to drop like a rock. I would think little planes would have an advantage since they aren't travelling over the ground as quickly.

Does one need spoilers and a reversible prop ?
 
jdwatson said:
So... how does one lose 2380' in 1.4nm ? Even in VFR conditions if one were to fly this approach, we'd still have to drop like a rock. I would think little planes would have an advantage since they aren't travelling over the ground as quickly.

Does one need spoilers and a reversible prop ?
Click to expand...

That's exactly why no one does it ;) :goofy:
 
jdwatson said:
So... how does one lose 2380' in 1.4nm ?
Click to expand...
That's why is doesn't have straight-in minimums, only circling minimums.
 
NickDBrennan said:
Wouldn't an aggressive slip do the trick though?
Click to expand...
Rudder to the floor, all drag hanging out on a heavily wing loaded twin, maybe. If there is the usual requisite 5 kt NW wind landing 15, NO.
 
How about doing a loop, or maybe a flat spin. No I guess not, you wouldn't be holding your final approach heading. Oh well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top