NJA KASE apporach question...

[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.