EGE question

[fisherpilot]

Right, but what you posted is usless if someone wants to KNOW WHY???? After all, Cat "C" aircraft have been flying in there for weeks with that NOTAM in place. So now its being discussed in this thread as to WHY??? Therefore, its only logical for people/pilots to want to know WHY???? My boss is a former Air Force Fighter pilot, he's got more flight time than I do, if I told him we can't go in there because we are Cat "C"...he would be certain to ask me why can't Cat "C" go in there. Me, not being someone who wants to look like a dummy in front of my boss/experienced combat pilot and just say, "because it says so." I want to learn actually WHY??? More professional that way when I can tell him exactly WHY. Further more, now I can call him to tell him what the deal is tomorrow on my way to the FSDO to get the letter, and also tell him on top of it already.

So I called to find out. The answer is not in the regs and its not going to be found here. There is nothing in the NOTAM about the temp runways width being the reason, it just says that Cat "C" or higher is not allowed. Pilots, all of us, will always continue to learn new things in aviation forever. You, me and everyone who reads this thread just learned that runway widths are the ONLY determining factor for different Category approach speeds for a given runway. Pretty cool, I didn't expect to learn something new today. Alot of my friends go into EGE too, now I can relay the info to them as well.

Its also pretty nice to have found out we can get a letter of authorization from our FSDO to go in if we are able to meet the restriction safely, which you didn't include in your post.

So I actually asked the correct question...WHY?

So we all learned two things.

Might seem like a dumb question, but if we are talking about approach speeds it makes more sense that runway "Length" would be the controlling factor since it takes more energy to stop something moving faster than something slower. I wonder how the FAA came up with that one? Seems like length would have more weight in that restriction than width

I learn something new everyday. Thanks for the info

 

[LJ45]

I read that C and greater approach cat restriction was due to a decrease in the required safety area around the temp runway because of construction. I'll try to find that again!

 

[avbug]

My boss is a former Air Force Fighter pilot, he's got more flight time than I do, if I told him we can't go in there because we are Cat "C"...he would be certain to ask me why can't Cat "C" go in there. Me, not being someone who wants to look like a dummy in front of my boss/experienced combat pilot and just say, "because it says so."

What exactly does being a USAF pilot, or having flown in combat, have to do with the price of tea in china, or this NOTAM? Does his experience mean any nore than squat as it relates to this thread, the NOTAM, or your informing him of the NOTAM?

Again, why is meaningless. If you want to go there, the only question is how. How do you do it? Find the authority that issued the NOTAM, and ask if there are exceptions, and once that's done, obtain the exception, if you can.

This isn't exactly rocket science. Again, "why" is irrelevant.

How can you do it? This we know, and it's not a difficult thing. If you find you can't, then you can fall back to asking the meaningless and mundane...which will include "why." You put the cart before the horse, but you still got what you wanted. Be happy. Just be careful about citing everyone who responded as "wrong," because in so doing...the one who's cleary wrong becomes...you.

 

[semperfido]

how? why? it all sounds the same to me...you guys love a good pissing contest.

 

[o2bflyn]

I read that C and greater approach cat restriction was due to a decrease in the required safety area around the temp runway because of construction. I'll try to find that again!

Another factor could be the terrain. On the Eastern (approaching from the east, that is) there is a hill that sticks up and is relatively close to the normal approach to the runway. Maybe they are wooried about people running into that thing if they circle at a higher speed and don't judge the turn properly.

Just a thought.

 

[kingairyahoo]

how? why? it all sounds the same to me...you guys love a good pissing contest.

no...its just one that loves a good pissing contest...ill let ya guess who that is :smash:

 

[LJ45]

Another factor could be the terrain. On the Eastern (approaching from the east, that is) there is a hill that sticks up and is relatively close to the normal approach to the runway. Maybe they are wooried about people running into that thing if they circle at a higher speed and don't judge the turn properly.

Just a thought.

Nope, its a landing restriction. Nothing to do with an IFR approach in this case. If it did have something to do with and IFR approach a FDC NOTAM could be issued and increase minimums or restrict circling for Cat C or greater.

What I am seeking is facts not speculation on how to land a Cat C aircraft legally, like some have be doing Legally or possibly Illegally, at EGE while the NOTAM is in effect.

thanks.

 

[Fly91]

What exactly does being a USAF pilot, or having flown in combat, have to do with the price of tea in china, or this NOTAM? Does his experience mean any nore than squat as it relates to this thread, the NOTAM, or your informing him of the NOTAM?

Apparently you did not comprehend what I said with regards to my boss being an aviation expert.

If he wasn't a professional pilot for the past 20 years I could just tell him that we can't go in because of construction and a temp runway. Your average boss/owner would just say, "uh, well, ok, thanks". But I don't like to just say bullsh1t to my boss. I like to be a fully informed professional pilot. And bosses really like that too. I wanted to be able to actually KNOW....WHY??? this restriction was in place.

Your reasoning is....it says it, thats all you need to know. Thats hilarious.

Again, why is meaningless.

Asking WHY...is everything. How can you say asking a question is meaningless in aviation. We all know people in aviation learn new things almost weekly, whether a small issue or a large issue.

Also, by asking WHY???? Which you are obviously against. I know have a way I can get my boss to the destinations he wants to go. So me asking WHY was just about the best move in this case now isn't it. I guess your bosses got screwed alot because you don't ask questions and figure out other ways to get the job done legally.

Not asking WHY.....now that makes no sense.

You're confusing man.

 

[Fly91]

Might seem like a dumb question, but if we are talking about approach speeds it makes more sense that runway "Length" would be the controlling factor since it takes more energy to stop something moving faster than something slower. I wonder how the FAA came up with that one? Seems like length would have more weight in that restriction than width

I learn something new everyday. Thanks for the info

Not a dumb question at all, there's no such thing, which I'm laboring to get though to avbug.

I asked him that too when I spoke to them. He said you're either going into a strip because there's enough runway or you're simply not going in. But approach speeds and their limitations are set up so a plane can get stabilized and make the centerline without too much maneuvering close to the ground. Hence the wingspan limitation in the NOTAM too. Sounds logical to me.

 

[Fly91]

Nope, its a landing restriction. Nothing to do with an IFR approach in this case. If it did have something to do with and IFR approach a FDC NOTAM could be issued and increase minimums or restrict circling for Cat C or greater.

What I am seeking is facts not speculation on how to land a Cat C aircraft legally, like some have be doing Legally or possibly Illegally, at EGE while the NOTAM is in effect.

thanks.

Well, typical as it is, I have 4 voicemails into the FSDO with 4 different inspectors, waiting on a call back. I asked a DE friend of mine what he thinks. He 100% agrees with the tower supervisor I spoke with. Runway width and nothing else dictates approach CAT's.

Call that number I gave you, talk to him if you want to. He'll remember me from yesterday. I might call back to see if he can tell me which FSDO's issued those other Lears their letters, if I don't hear back by end of day tomorrow. It would be great to give my boss a letter of authorization, he'd love that.

 

[o2bflyn]

Nope, its a landing restriction. Nothing to do with an IFR approach in this case. If it did have something to do with and IFR approach a FDC NOTAM could be issued and increase minimums or restrict circling for Cat C or greater.

What I am seeking is facts not speculation on how to land a Cat C aircraft legally, like some have be doing Legally or possibly Illegally, at EGE while the NOTAM is in effect.

thanks.

Maybe that hill I am talking about lays in the glideslope to the taxiway. That would effect landing requirements, I think.

Becareful about discounting speculation. Sometimes Speculation, or brainstorming, can yield some truths. That sounds a bit jerky....sorry, did not mean it as such.

If you want facts, you are looking in the wrong place in a forum. Call Eagle tower. Go right to the source. They are good people. Have operated out of there for the past 8 years, they have always been helpful.

 

[Fly91]

If you want facts, you are looking in the wrong place in a forum. Call Eagle tower. Go right to the source. They are good people. Have operated out of there for the past 8 years, they have always been helpful.

True. I spoke to them yesterday. Tower supervisor informed me on the NOTAM. I first spoke to one of the tower controllers and none of them in their had a clue why that NOTAM was in place. They said they don't issue NOTAMS. I also asked them why Lears have been going there, he said they have no authority who lands there and really don't control it. He gave me the phone number to talk to the supervisor. I don't have the tower number, its not listed and the FBO's would not give it to me, but they are allowed to transfer you to the tower.

post #26, page 2

 

[LJ45]

I asked a DE friend of mine what he thinks. He 100% agrees with the tower supervisor I spoke with. Runway width and nothing else dictates approach CAT's.

So, I can never land a Cat C airplane on a 75' wide runway? It's 75' wide!

 

[Fly91]

So, I can never land a Cat C airplane on a 75' wide runway? It's 75' wide!

Remember, this is what I was told by the tower sup.

I'm now taking the next step and talking to the FSDO, its the only way to get to the bottom of it.

Later, I'm gonna check out of bunch of random aproach plates, that should settle it.

The runway width issue may be true, but maybe there's other circumstances that allow CAT "C" aircraft into certain 75 foot runways.

I think its runway width but I'm thinking that terrain is a logical factor as well. Those two factors are what cause an aircraft to manuever in a way where it could adversely affect how that aircraft makes the runway in a safe manner.

 

[o2bflyn]

True. I spoke to them yesterday. Tower supervisor informed me on the NOTAM. I first spoke to one of the tower controllers and none of them in their had a clue why that NOTAM was in place. They said they don't issue NOTAMS. I also asked them why Lears have been going there, he said they have no authority who lands there and really don't control it. He gave me the phone number to talk to the supervisor. I don't have the tower number, its not listed and the FBO's would not give it to me, but they are allowed to transfer you to the tower.

post #26, page 2

Sorry, I remember reading that now.....

I might have the tower number somewhere.....let me see if I can find it.

 

[avbug]

Guesswork, guesswork, guesswork.

One more time for the dense and deaf: it has nothing to do with IFR/VFR. It's not a TERPs issue. The NOTAM specifically identified an airport design criteria, as previously identified, with references provided. You can view the advisory circular yourself which outlines it, and it's got all the information you need.

The Airport Classification with respect to design criteria specifies to properties of the aircraft intended to use the field. The classification represents the largest aircraft with respect to speed (A, B, C, etc), and wingspan (I, II, III, etc) expected to use that airfield, and the airfield is designed to meet the needs of those aircraft.

In the case of the NOTAM, a restriction is placed on the aircraft that can use the field, referencing the Airport Reference Code...which is detailed in the AC previously cited.

What you don't have is an approach or terminal procedure restriction. What you don't have is a VFR restriction. What you don't have is an IFR restriction. Going to other approach plates to come up with an answer to your guesswork will net you exactly squat...because the approach plates and instrument flight rules in general have nothing to do with the restriction at Eagle. It's an Airport Reference Code.

Again, the speed of the aircraft does correspond to approach speeds used in defining instrument approaches, but only coincidentally...because it's two different subjects. Airport Classification Code regards designing airport, and IFR approach categories regard flying procedures. The NOTAM is not referencing an IFR approach category, but an airport design criteria.

 

[Fly91]

Sorry, I remember reading that now.....

I might have the tower number somewhere.....let me see if I can find it.

Don't need the tower number anymore, but any FBO on the field will transfer you there.

They had no idea why the NOTAM was in place.

 

[LJ45]

Again, the speed of the aircraft does correspond to approach speeds used in defining instrument approaches, but only coincidentally...because it's two different subjects. Airport Classification Code regards designing airport, and IFR approach categories regard flying procedures. The NOTAM is not referencing an IFR approach category, but an airport design criteria.

The speed used to decide the Cat in this case is still at max certified landing weight and not actual landing weight, correct just like the Approach Cat.?

 

[avbug]

LJ45, I can't answer that without referencing the AC. I don't think the AC is as performance-specific as the regulation or the terminal procedures, as each aircraft is pre-selected for an approach category. When flying an approach, one may fall into more than one category (circling at a higher speed, for example). The Airport Reference Code, instead, is a general guideline which of itself isn't restrictive (just in case of the NOTAM).

 

[Fly91]

LJ45,

Just got a call back from an inspector. He said all I have to do is put the request in writing and mail it in to the FSDO. I guess I'll do it, but who knows how long it'll take to get it back. At least I can drive over to pick it up if he approves it before Wednesday next week when we leave for Vegas. We might stop in EGE on the way back on Sat.

PM me if you want the inspectors name, FSDO number and FSDO address, if you want one too. Its always good to work with the same inspector, because you know how some do things and some won't.

 

[LJ45]

LJ45,

Just got a call back from an inspector. He said all I have to do is put the request in writing and mail it in to the FSDO. I guess I'll do it, but who knows how long it'll take to get it back. At least I can drive over to pick it up if he approves it before Wednesday next week when we leave for Vegas. We might stop in EGE on the way back on Sat.

PM me if you want the inspectors name, FSDO number and FSDO address, if you want one too. Its always good to work with the same inspector, because you know how some do things and some won't.

I don't know if our POI would go for it being 135, In my case I would rather him do it. I might just send in a letter and give him some work

Thanks for the info

 

[Fly91]

I don't know if our POI would go for it being 135, In my case I would rather him do it. I might just send in a letter and give him some work

Thanks for the info

Add to that letter that others are getting approval letters from other FSDO's, according to what the tower supervisor at EGE said.

 

[LJ45]

Add to that letter that others are getting approval letters from other FSDO's, according to what the tower supervisor at EGE said.

that's in there, I emailed the letter and it's in the mail

 

[o2bflyn]

If anyone ever does find out why the notam is in exsistence.....a actualy reason given by the people that issued it......I would be very interested.

anyone every find out why?

 

[jeb]

Ege

Not to bring this thread back to life but we were given a trip to EGE next month and I followed the advice that was given on this thread and got a differant answer. Here's what the current answer I was given. After calling the FBO and being transfered to Airport Management Office this is what they told me. No waivers are being granted to land at EGE if you don't meet the B2 requirement you do so at your own risk. FAA cannot issue you a waiver because it was put in place by the airport. They then transfered me to the tower and he agreed with the Airport Management Office. I said I have noticed several aircraft landing(Flt Aware) that didn't meet the notam, his answer most are cancelling IFR and going in VFR. Is the way around he said no but the contoller's aren't getting airplane type that way and they are not staying very long and departing. I him told what we fly (Citation Vll) and we don't meet the requirements of the notam. We could come in at our own risk. They are getting quite a bit of inquires about the notam and it might be a matter of time before the FAA show's up. I asked him if we could get violated and his answer was most definitely. So it looks like Rifle or Aspen.





















a

 

[2dumb2drive]

So back to the Lear 35....

Landing with legal fuel reserves only, puts the Vref below 120 kts. So is the 35 legal or not... And yes avbug, I am both deaf and dumb along with others apparently.

 

[ruhroa]

call the fisdo at aspen i am sure they would be a good source

 

[avbug]

And yes avbug, I am both deaf and dumb along with others apparently.

Clearly so.

That you can fly the LR35A at a lower speed is irrelevant. The ARC places the aircraft in a particular category, and the issue is the ARC...not how slow you can fly the aircraft or what the actual Vref might be.

 

[LJ45]

Landing with legal fuel reserves only, puts the Vref below 120 kts. So is the 35 legal or not... And yes avbug, I am both deaf and dumb along with others apparently.

once again, your cat. is based on MAX CERTIFED landing weight, not actual. You are one cat. unless you have to circle at a higher speed, then you use the higher speed Cat.

 

[LJ45]

call the fisdo at aspen i am sure they would be a good source

I didn't know Aspen had a "Fisdo" or FSDO? :smash: