IFR king & queen

[Let'sgoflying!]

I talked to a couple at lunch today - retired corp pilots who flew (as a couple), Citations for a company for years - now live here....

They did the Aspen approach, the one that ends in a "outbound on the backcourse missed", to the full missed, in imc. I was impressed, that one always bothered me on paper (and I've never done it even vmc).

 

[Clark1961]

Aspen approach bothers you on paper? Aspen approaches bother me just looking at the airport! One summer I worked construction in Starwood. Watching the jets below come and go was entertaining.

Maybe I'll take the turbo Dakota in there some day but it'll be with nary a breeze or cloud.

 

[LearDriver]

There are a lot of us who won't go into Aspen. Especially when there is Eagle and Rifle.

 

[colomtnflyer]

The Aspen approaches aren't really all that bad, but if you do go missed in IMC, there is 0 tolerance for error.
But if you shoot the approach several different times during VMC, go missed and practice the MAP, then you get an idea of how its set up, and how little margin of error there is.

But to avoid Aspen out of hand is short changing a great experience.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The Aspen approaches aren't really all that bad, but if you do go missed in IMC, there is 0 tolerance for error.
But if you shoot the approach several different times during VMC, go missed and practice the MAP, then you get an idea of how its set up, and how little margin of error there is.

I'd tend to disagree...there's lots of margin for error if you go missed. All you have to do is remember to turn within 4-8 miles of the MAP.

But your margins decrease dramatically if you descend out of minimums and THEN go missed.

 

[LearDriver]

The Aspen approaches aren't really all that bad, but if you do go missed in IMC, there is 0 tolerance for error.
But if you shoot the approach several different times during VMC, go missed and practice the MAP, then you get an idea of how its set up, and how little margin of error there is.

But to avoid Aspen out of hand is short changing a great experience.

I do the approach and the missed every six months in the sim. I still don't go there. At my old company, after the Avjet G-III accident, gave us a letter for our operations manual that made Aspen the pilots option. We would only go in if there if it was CAVU.

At my current job Aspen is a no go. The owners won't let us fly into there.

Besides the fact that once you go in there you have to leave again. Single engine climb performance is not very good for the departure. We won't go anywhere that we can't leave and make single engine performance on one engine on the DP.

 

[Everskyward]

But your margins decrease dramatically if you descend out of minimums and THEN go missed.

That's true in a lot of places though.

The thing I always thought was interesting about the missed is that they have you turn to a heading of 300 to intercept the 300 northwest course of I-PKN which is parallel to the heading you just turned to. Obviously you are going to correct to get on the localizer course but it seems strange that they would write it that way. If someone took a very literal interpretation they might never intercept the course but fly a 300 heading either left or right of it.

http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0903/05889LDE.PDF

 

[bbchien]

I've been impressed that a number of pilots fly the back course outbound and forget that the thing gives front couse indications (shaded bar is on the RIGHT). Very dangerous when you're near the wall.....

I used to put LINDZ in the GPS just to make sure my head was straight....fly TO the needle, not away......

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I've been impressed that a number of pilots fly the back course outbound and forget that the thing gives front couse indications

Thats the whole thing - every LOC BC approach I have seen says BACK COURSE printed on the plan view, and that usually makes the pilot go into reverse sensing mode in their brain. "Fly away, fly away."

EXCEPT for the missed at ASE, where that preformed habit could kill you. "Fly towards, we are outbound on this BC"

 

[MauleSkinner]

Going into a full pilot lounge and asking where to point my HSI course needle for that missed approach (or for the departure--same BC) is as sure a way to get a few chairs to open up as whipping out my whiz wheel and talking about computing true indicated Mach groundspeed

I don't teach "left" and "right" for localizers...I teach it as indicating that you're on the "shaded" or "unshaded" side of the feathered arrow...eliminates any need for discussion of "reverse sensing", which seems to confuse more people than it helps.

Fly safe!

David

 

[Everskyward]

I used to put LINDZ in the GPS just to make sure my head was straight....fly TO the needle, not away......

LINDZ doesn't show up on the approach chart, so to clarify, here is the departure procedure which uses the same back course localizer.

Interesting, they recently added a new, similar departure procedure, the SARDD ONE which makes allowances for a climb in visual conditions and they took the other set of higher minimums off the LINDZ.

 

[MauleSkinner]

LINDZ doesn't show up on the approach chart, so to clarify, here is the departure procedure which uses the same back course localizer.

Interesting, they recently added a new, similar departure procedure, the SARDD ONE which makes allowances for a climb in visual conditions and they took the other set of higher minimums off the LINDZ.

I don't recall the Lindz departure as ever having VCOA minima. I think the Sardd was developed to accommodate the relatively new VCOA procedure authorizations.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what ceiling and visibility would be required in order to see "the pass" to the northwest that many people use to decide whether or not to take off from ASE?

 

[Everskyward]

I don't recall the Lindz departure as ever having VCOA minima.

It didn't, but it had another set of minimums that were higher so you only had to meet the standard climb gradient. I think the ceiling had to be up in the 3000-4000 range.

I found a copy of the old procedure with the note. It was 3100-3.

 

[Ted]

Wow, that looks like an interesting approach (to put it mildly).

Now I want X-Plane just so I can see what it's like.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It didn't, but it had another set of minimums that were higher so you only had to meet the standard climb gradient. I think the ceiling had to be up in the 3000-4000 range.

I found a copy of the old procedure with the note. It was 3100-3.

Ah, you're right...I remember that now. Not a "VCOA", just higher minima if you can't meet the climb gradient.