NJA KASE apporach question...

[VVJM265]

Good discussion folks. Fly safe everyone!

Cheers,
265
:beer:

 

[IP076]

Here's the answer to the original question.

If you are going into ASE on the IFR approach, and you are Cat D, then you can fly all the way to the final approach fix (Allix or Doype). At that point, if you see the airport, you can land. If you don't see the airport, you go miss. You can't legally go beyond the FAF without the airport in sight. Why? Because there are no minimums for you.

There's your answer.

Got a reference there chief? I'd like to know where you got this information, just curious because I've never heard it anywhere before.

 

[GravityHater]

You (cat D) say you go to the FAF but no further if you are not in vmc.

How do you handle communicating this to atc, just request the visual and then fly towards the map if you can't see anything? I would hate to surprise atc with this; is there some way to tell them what you are planning?

 

[satpak77]

Here's the answer to the original question.

If you are going into ASE on the IFR approach, and you are Cat D, then you can fly all the way to the final approach fix (Allix or Doype). At that point, if you see the airport, you can land. If you don't see the airport, you go miss. You can't legally go beyond the FAF without the airport in sight. Why? Because there are no minimums for you.

There's your answer.

You are wrong and will get killed someday. CAT D is NOT AUTHORIZED, at ALL, to fly this approach in IFR conditions. IAP's whole idea is to land, and since this is a circling approach, and you are CAT D, you cannot shoot it.

Its not "I can try it to Point XXX, then go somewhere else." Remember, Approaches start at the IAF, then IF, then FAF, then Missed Approach Point, then the Missed Approach Procedure.

If on your "missed segment" you category is in a Category not authorized (you are already D, so its not), you cannot fly the approach, since the MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURE is PART OF the overall INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE.

Ie, terrain clearance based on speed, etc.

Lets RE-QOUTE THE AIM again

AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY- A grouping of aircraft based on a speed of 1.3 times the stall speed in the landing configuration at maximum gross landing weight. An aircraft must fit in only one category. If it is necessary to maneuver at speeds in excess of the upper limit of a speed range for a category, the minimums for the category for that speed must be used. For example, an aircraft which falls in Category A, but is circling to land at a speed in excess of 91 knots, must use the approach Category B minimums when circling to land. The categories are as follows:
a. Category A- Speed less than 91 knots.
b. Category B- Speed 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots.
c. Category C- Speed 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots.
d. Category D- Speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots.
e. Category E- Speed 166 knots or more.

So if you are CAT C but on the missed you are CAT D, you cannot shoot this approach.

lets look at the actual chart

http://myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05889VDGC.PDF

see the missed approach path depicted? See the terrain? The TERPS people have decided that "hey planes at XXX speed just safely cannot do this approach" and thus CAT-D is not approved. This includes the "Missed Approach" portion, which must be flown should landing not be possible.

 

[CL60]

My buddy got asked a varitey of questions on the following below I was curious what would be correct.

Here is a link to the approach plates in KASE:

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0603/05889VDGC.PDF
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0603/05889LDE.PDF

OK here is the scenario: You are flying into KASE on the LOC or VOR approaches. We are a category D aircraft. The approach minimums for both approaches are clearly depicted as N/A for a Category D aircraft. Can you even shoot these approaches in IFR conditions? What about VFR? If so what would the approach minimums be? These are the only 2 approaches in KASE that are IFR approaches. I know alot of corporate airplanes that are cat D aircraft fly into KASE, how do they legally get in during IFR conditions? I know it is not a VFR only airport. If you can get in VFR do you start the approach IFR even though it is illegal because CAT D is NA?

I need some help.

Thanks.

Example: In a G450, (normally a CAT D bird), for example there is a Gulfstream ASC, (Additional Source of Cash), that allows you to dispatch as a CAT C aircraft. Just flip the placard over before you go.

There are several factors to consider; Make sure the release paperwork reflects CAT C. You must ensure a landing weight of less than 51,000 pounds, (going off of memory here), and double-check to ensure your approach climb numbers among others.

Boca Raton has the same problem as it relates to category.

 

[satpak77]

Example: In a G450, (normally a CAT D bird), for example there is a Gulfstream ASC, (Additional Source of Cash), that allows you to dispatch as a CAT C aircraft. Just flip the placard over before you go.

There are several factors to consider; Make sure the release paperwork reflects CAT C. You must ensure a landing weight of less than 51,000 pounds, (going off of memory here), and double-check to ensure your approach climb numbers among others.

Boca Raton has the same problem as it relates to category.

just curious how this is possible, especially the point about "ensure a landing weight of less than XXX" since App Cat is based on Max Gross Weigth VREF

 

[RTRHD]

just curious how this is possible, especially the point about "ensure a landing weight of less than XXX" since App Cat is based on Max Gross Weigth VREF

He is right ASC 320(opps) on a IV anyway. And 58,500 Lnd wt. normal on a IV is 66,000. (SP anyway)

 

[gutshotdraw]

No wonder people continue to crash airplanes.

1) On the approach plate, if the minima box states the speed in knots, your current ref speed for your approach configuration applies.

2) On the approach plate, if the minima box states a Category letter, your aircraft is limited to the lowest category under which it was certified regardless of your airspeed for the approach (and as Satpak points out, your airpseed may not exceed the max speed for that lower category at any time).

3) In the case of the G-IV, it is ASC 320 that allows approaches under Category C provided the aircraft is dispatched with a stated max landing weight under 58,500 pounds instead of the normal 66,000 pounds and the ASC 320 card in the cockpit is flipped over to MLW of 58,500.

4) Minimums are based on groundspeed???!!??? I hope that clown never flies my family.

In the specific case of the Aspen G-III crash, the aircraft was ILLEGAL to even attempt the approach in IMC because a G-III is Category D ONLY (full flap circle was never approved by FAA during G-III certification and full flaps is the only way you can get a G-III ref under 140 knots) and the Aspen approach minima indicate Category, not speed.

The 51,000 pound number CL60 references is an Approach Climb weight which will actually fluctuate based on current conditions. Most people only worry about landing weight but if you follow the Regulations and TERPS, you are supposed to reference the aircraft performance data and assure approach climb capability based on the given conditions.

As with any airport, if the aircraft can descend from MEA or MVA in visual conditions using normal manuevers, you can land regardless of your approach category.

And as with all operations, there is a difference between legal and safe. Just because the regulations and the performance books say I can legally circle a G-IV with ASC 320 at Aspen, I don't believe it can be done safely in anything other than perfect visibility below a cloud deck. Consequently, my policy has always been to fly to Allix and if I can't see the airport and land straight in by then, go missed. If you see the airport past Allix, a BAC-146 may be able to land straight in but a G-IV sure can't.

On a side note, there is a proprietary GPS approach for ASE awaiting FAA approval that provides a segmented arrival path roughly over the Roaring Fork river and Baro VNAV guidance to a DA. Minimums are around 600 AGL and 2 1/2 miles for G-IV and about 500 AGL and 2 miles for G-V and require special air crew training. I have flown it many times in the sim and is very slick, if not a bit scary. NJI spent years and thousands working on it but there has been resistance from ASE airport management and FAA is unwilling to approve it without the go-ahead from ASE officials. A precision departure procedure that would allow much higher weight takeoffs in IMC is also in a similar limbo. Unfortunately, even if approved, these procedures are the property of NJI and won't be available to other operators.

Bottom line, I hate Aspen airport and I'm sure most of you do too. If I can keep ASE trips every year in the single digits, I consider it a victory.

 

[GravityHater]

So your only option for ase in a cat D a/c are to ask for vectors at the MIA over the airport, and hope you see it?

 

[VVJM265]

satpak77, CL60 & gutshotdraw,
Really good input. I think this has turned into one of the better threads in a long while.

GV,
Thanks.

CL60,
Check PMs.

Back to trying to fix the dead laptop...
265

 

[satpak77]

satpak77, CL60 & gutshotdraw,
Really good input. I think this has turned into one of the better threads in a long while.

GV,
Thanks.

CL60,
Check PMs.

Back to trying to fix the dead laptop...
265

roger that....thanks

 

[ProFracPilot]

So your only option for ase in a cat D a/c are to ask for vectors at the MIA over the airport, and hope you see it?

Assuming one could remain clear of clouds, some folks might be sufficiently familiar and comfortable with the environment that surrounds ASE to ask for a "contact" approach. Personally I would equate a contact approach into this particular airport to playing Russion Roulette, but legal none the less. Other than that, you have no IAP options available at ASE if you're operating CAT D.

 

[DO-82 driver]

It is for this reason...."it legal but is it safe?"....that NJA does not allow contact approaches.

I did them in the past for other companies and I can understand that if not done properly you can get yourself in a world of hurt real quick with no immediate way out.

 

[GravityHater]

ask for a "contact" approach

and the difference between being cleared for a contact approach and a visual approach is only the current wx conditions? Ive never asked for one and being the chicken I am would probably never.... I can't imagine zooming around at 150kts around mountain peaks I only think I see.

 

[paulsalem]

and the difference between being cleared for a contact approach and a visual approach is only the current wx conditions? Ive never asked for one and being the chicken I am would probably never.... I can't imagine zooming around at 150kts around mountain peaks I only think I see.

For a visual: "The pilot must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft in sight"

A contact approach: "...[pilots] are clear of clouds and have at least 1 mile flight visibility and can reasonably expect to continue to the destination airport in those conditions..."

I've done it once going into an Ohio airport. MVA was 3000, (2,000 agl) visibility was too low to see the field until I would have been on top of it (then I would have lost it trying to enter the pattern). However I was clear of the clouds and did have one mile, and could navigate to the vield using visual reference and gps. (And I had to use the bathroom, and didn't want to waste time getting vectored for an approach)

Please note, I'm not comparing this to ASE, just giving a reson for a contact approach.

 

[ProFracPilot]

I can't imagine zooming around at 150kts around mountain peaks I only think I see.

Exactly the point.

In addition to the difference in weather minima, you have to request a contact approach. Of course, no one in their right mind is going do that going into ASE.

Contact approaches have their place. At an airport I operated out of for many years, the (non-Fed) tower had a habit of reporting something less than basic VFR when the runway could be seen from 10 miles away. Because this was a remote airport, approach control could not approve a visual approach so long as the tower was calling it IFR. The ILS ran the opposite direction from our normal arrival. Why get vectored around to do the ILS? A contact approach allowed us to safely make visual descent and landing, saving fuel and approx 10 min of flying time.

 

[FL420]

Although it's written by an Air Force type, the following article gives a pretty good overview of many of the points you guys have brought up. I have always wondered how and why the IAP's designed to ICAO's PANS-OPS standards had different(larger) obstacle maneuvering area radii than IAP's designed to the FAA's TERPS criteria.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBT/is_10_60/ai_n6338535#continue

I was also surprised that an IAP in Korea was designed IAW TERPS rather than PANS-OPS . It will be nice when Jeppesen gets all the approach plates updated to show whether the IAP is designed to PANS-OPS or TERPS criteria.

 

[satpak77]

Although it's written by an Air Force type, the following article gives a pretty good overview of many of the points you guys have brought up. I have always wondered how and why the IAP's designed to ICAO's PANS-OPS standards had different(larger) obstacle maneuvering area radii than IAP's designed to the FAA's TERPS criteria.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBT/is_10_60/ai_n6338535#continue

I was also surprised that an IAP in Korea was designed IAW TERPS rather than PANS-OPS . It will be nice when Jeppesen gets all the approach plates updated to show whether the IAP is designed to PANS-OPS or TERPS criteria.

Also interesting is that in Central and South America (and I am sure many other locations), many approaches in a non-radar environment don't even have the IAF depicted on the Jepp Chart

 

[SDCFI]

If on your "missed segment" you category is in a Category not authorized (you are already D, so its not), you cannot fly the approach, since the MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURE is PART OF the overall INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE.

Ie, terrain clearance based on speed, etc.

Lets RE-QOUTE THE AIM again

So if you are CAT C but on the missed you are CAT D, you cannot shoot this approach.

Hmm, I've never heard it interpreted that way before. So you're saying for example if your ref speed during the circle is 130 kts (Cat C) but your climb speed during the missed would be 160 kts (Cat D) you can't even shoot the approach? I have always thought the Category restrictions only applied to the actual circling procedure, and have never had anyone tell me differently. Just curious what information this is based from as I have never seen it anywhere.

 

[Hawkered]

It's posted on the plate whether it's a Pans-Op approach or not. The legend and index info in the front of the Jepps gives the circling and terrain clearance info. You don't have to commit that stuff to memory.