Skywest and Aspen

[Oakum_Boy]

Can someone make sense of this?

Even with all engines operating, there is still a risk that an engine failure could occur during the balked landing climb-out.

 

[Morettis]

Can someone make sense of this?

Even with all engines operating, there is still a risk that an engine failure could occur during the balked landing climb-out.

It means just because they're both turning now doesn't mean that they'll both be turning in 30 seconds when you decide to go around.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Well, that's profound.

 

[ERJFO]

Can someone make sense of this?

Even with all engines operating, there is still a risk that an engine failure could occur during the balked landing climb-out.

There is an easy fix to this... If they shut down both engines at 50' AGL then there is no risk that an engine failure could occur during a balked landing climb-out.

 

[DiverDriver]

AWAC = Most experienced / senior pilots flew into ASE.

SkyWest = Most junior / drafted pilots are forced into training and fly ASE.

This is not a good setup.

I pray we never read about an accident there. It will look bad for all. Skywest. "Regionals". CR7s.

 

[Night_Flight]

I wish we had had as much.

AWACoff, I hope your new airline has a good training department! Congrats man!

Here at AWAC, our BAe-146 crews (regardless of domicile) always had the option of turning down ASE turns -if desired. Do SkyWest crews have this option? We also had our own AWAC approach procedures (lower mins than the standard FAA approaches) and special missed procedures which all had to be memorized. We still own the rights to this procedure and I know AWAC won't let even the highest bidder get thier hands on it...unless we take additional concessions!

Either way, I would fly with SkyWest in a second instead of Mesa!

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0169701/L/

Enjoy the ASE photo of a BAe-146 on the approach.

 

[ERJFO]

Nice photo! They should name it "Before the bottom feeders" Not that SKYW is a bottom feeder.

 

[ERJFO]

............

 

[HelloNewman]

Basically you guys are being paranoid. Lets be real here, how often do you lose an engine on a balked landing????? ya thats what I thought you have a better chance of winning the lottery then getting whacked by lighting at the same time. You guys should focus on watching the roads more. You are much more likely to get whacked on the streets than you ever are flying into ASE no matter what plane your are flying. You can count the odds all you want and it comes up the same everytime. Basically it ain't gonna happen so relax.

 

[HockleyPilot]

Basically you guys are being paranoid. Basically it ain't gonna happen so relax.

This may happen to be "the most" ignorant comment from a pilot's mouth I have ever heard. Maybe I will try that on my next PC in SLC. boy, that's a winner..........

 

[ballsdeep123]

Random thought:

How much performance have you lost if you bag an engine in the -700? How about the -146?

I may be wrong here but I have heard thatt it is not as much the performance you lose but being able to have a slow enough maneuvering speed to stay in the valley and not hit the rocks well your climbing out on the balked?

 

[ArcticFlier]

I may be wrong here but I have heard thatt it is not as much the performance you lose but being able to have a slow enough maneuvering speed to stay in the valley and not hit the rocks well your climbing out on the balked?

Everyone on this thread seemed to have their panties twisted over losing an engine going into (or out of) ASE. I've never flown either plane (-700 or the -146), so I may be speaking out of turn, but you do need to get above the rocks eventually. How does the -146 compare to the -700 in terms of maneuvering speed and climb ability with one shut down? I don't know. That was the point of my question. In the end, it's all about performance, no?

 

[Crossky]

the crj has better climb peroformance then the RJ 85. But short field, I would take the avro. I see no problem with it going into ase. I currently fly the CRJ7 and did fly the RJ85. Both have good engine out performance. The crj is a better climb cruise performer but eats up the runway on TO compared to the AVRO. Just look at the wings. The CRJ has very thin, highly sweeped wings compared to the avro. I never had the chance to go to ase while at xj and probably never will with AE

Wait a second, the "CRJ has better climb performance than the RJ85"? I'm assuming you mean the high thrust version of the CRJ700 airframe (don't know the model no.) and with all engines operating. And even then I'm calling BS on your claim.

This thread wasn't really about climb perf on all engines, it is about climb perf with one engine inoperative at ASE. The 'crj' has better climb perf than the RJ85 with one engine inoperative? NOT EVEN CLOSE.

 

[homerjdispatch]

This thread wasn't really about climb perf on all engines, it is about climb perf with one engine inoperative at ASE. The 'crj' has better climb perf than the RJ85 with one engine inoperative? NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Actually, I think the purpose of this thread was for all the SkyWest haters to find something else to b!tch at SkyWest about....

 

[MYFpilot]

You can count the odds all you want and it comes up the same everytime. Basically it ain't gonna happen so relax.

HelloNewman, please do us, and the traveling public a favor and don't ever upgrade to captain. Your caviller attitude towards safety is appalling. Ever heard of Murphy's Law? I bet you never do a takeoff briefing because after all... "Basically it ain't gonna happen so relax." I'm not sure if you were ever a CFI but may I recommend purchasing a copy of the Aviation Instructors Handbook and refer to the section on hazardous attitudes. Most of your posts on the message board fit all five... Anti-Authority, Impulsivity, Invulnerability, Macho, and Resignation

 

[ArcticFlier]

Actually, I think the purpose of this thread was for all the SkyWest haters to find something else to b!tch at SkyWest about....

Sounds about right............................

 

[BMoney]

As safe as the 700 is going into ASE, I think I'll just take a Dash. Becides, landing on 33 is one of the coolest things I've ever done in an airplane.

 

[HelloNewman]

HelloNewman, please do us, and the traveling public a favor and don't ever upgrade to captain. Your caviller attitude towards safety is appalling. Ever heard of Murphy's Law? I bet you never do a takeoff briefing because after all... "Basically it ain't gonna happen so relax." I'm not sure if you were ever a CFI but may I recommend purchasing a copy of the Aviation Instructors Handbook and refer to the section on hazardous attitudes. Most of your posts on the message board fit all five... Anti-Authority, Impulsivity, Invulnerability, Macho, and Resignation

Ok so then name me one time an engine has failed right at go around. I can see worrying about engine failures but let us calculate the odds of a motor going out right as you start a go around. Even the FAA admits it pretty much has near zero chance of happening. I do thorough take off briefings and follow the SOP. Some people are just too paranoid about some things I would have to say. The training dept seems to have done a good job on the ASE flying. It has been taken very seriously as it can be a dangerous airport. As long as you are on your toes you will be fine. You can basically discuss things that could happen all day however you have to relax and take things as they come. Heck it is possible that the wings could just fall off, doesn't mean it has any significant chance of happening. If it makes you really uncomfortable then don't bid the ASE flying.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

Lloyd Christmas: I'm talkin about a place where the beer flows like wine, where the women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano. I'm talkin about Aspen.
Harry: I don't know Lloyd, the French are ass holes.

Lloyd Christmas: So where are you headin'?
Mary Swanson: Aspen.
Lloyd Christmas: Hmmm, California! Beautiful!

 

[Crossky]

Ok so then name me one time an engine has failed right at go around. I can see worrying about engine failures but let us calculate the odds of a motor going out right as you start a go around. Even the FAA admits it pretty much has near zero chance of happening.

I believe it was AirCanada in the 70's lost a DC-8 or 707 and all aboard on downwind from a balked landing. One of the engines struck the ground during the hard landing, the CA decided to GA, it exploded on downwind from a fuel leak from the engine impact and scaping.

Arrow Air, Gander, Newfoundland, hundreds of US troops killed when the C-5A they were on ingested many canadian geese on TO.

The Beechjet 400 jet has had many dual engine failures when advancing power activating the engine anti-ice at low thrust settings.

Even the CRJ200 has had engine failures when operating at an idle thrust descent.

Only the first one happened on a GA and the affected engine didn't fail immediately.

So, those aren't the best examples, especially to compare at ASE, but I would guess the most likely possibilities there would be an engine failure related to (1) late use or mistaken misuse of engine anti-ice and heavy freezing precipitation - ice ingestion, or (2) a bird strike - you may laugh, and honkers are unlikely at ASE but what about mountain magpies, eagles and hawks? We all know birds love airports.

The CRJ700's FADEC would prevent one from overtemping it on a balked I presume?