Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

No more SMO

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
LJ45 said:
An aircraft can only be in one category based on max landing weight, excluding the circling approach higher speed exception.
Click to expand...

What you state ain't necessarily so. The G-IVsp has an ASC that allows you to arbitrarily lower the max landing weight from 66K to 58500, thereby moving the certificated approach category from Cat D to Cat C. This is commonly known as the "Aspen ASC". It requires displaying a placard in the cockpit. Unfortunately it doesn't help with SMO ban.
 
ProFracPilot said:
The G-IVsp has an ASC that allows you to arbitrarily lower the max landing weight from 66K to 58500, thereby moving the certificated approach category from Cat D to Cat C. This is commonly known as the "Aspen ASC". It requires displaying a placard in the cockpit.
Click to expand...

So, in theory, this could be done to make a Cat C airplane a Cat B one??? What's the procedure to do such a thing?
 
AeroBoy said:
So, in theory, this could be done to make a Cat C airplane a Cat B one??? What's the procedure to do such a thing?
Click to expand...

I don't know about other airframe manufacturers. Gulfstream was able to achieve FAA approval for the G-IVsp through an Aircraft Service Change (ASC - their version of a Service Bulletin). To operate your G-IVsp as a Cat C airplane, you must have incorporated the ASC. This is simply a paperwork change, but it is FAA approved paperwork that is purchased from GAC.
 
LJ45 said:
What does that ^^^^ mean? An aircraft can only be in one category based on max landing weight, excluding the circling approach higher speed exception.
Click to expand...

Please point me to where I can find where it says that the category is based on max LANDING weight. The letter we received from the FAA says "max CERTIFIED weight".

Thanks
 
ILOVEBEER said:
Please point me to where I can find where it says that the category is based on max LANDING weight. The letter we received from the FAA says "max CERTIFIED weight".

Thanks
Click to expand...

From the AIM:

5-4-7. Instrument Approach Procedures ​


a. Aircraft approach category means a grouping of aircraft based on a speed of VREF, if specified, or if VREF is not specified, 1.3 VSO at the maximum certified landing weight. VREF, VSO, and the maximum certified landing weight are those values as established for the aircraft by the certification authority of the country of registry. A pilot must use the minima corresponding to the category determined during certification or higher. Helicopters may use Category A minima. If it is necessary to operate at a speed in excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an aircraft's category, the minimums for the higher category must be used. For example, an airplane which fits into Category B, but is circling to land at a speed of 145 knots, must use the approach Category D minimums. As an additional example, a Category A airplane (or helicopter) which is operating at 130 knots on a straight-in approach must use the approach Category C minimums. See the following category limits: ​


1. Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. ​

2. Category B: Speed 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots. ​

3. Category C: Speed 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots. ​

4. Category D: Speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots. ​

5. Category E: Speed 166 knots or more. ​


NOTE-​

VREF in the above definition refers to the speed used in establishing the approved landing distance under the airworthiness regulations constituting the type certification basis of the airplane, regardless of whether that speed for a particular airplane is 1.3 VSO, 1.23 VSR, or some higher speed required for airplane controllability. This speed, at the maximum certificated landing weight, determines the lowest applicable approach category for all approaches regardless of actual landing weight.​
 
Last edited:
bailey3083 said:
Why are you guys trying so hard to go in there? LOL Head up to Burbank they are so much more nicer there.
Click to expand...


I have to completely agree with you! Some guys just cant let things go and will not stop looking for ways to get into an airport no matter how difficult or unsafe.....example I was flying with a guy recently that would NOT give up on looking for a way to get the passengers into a place that COULD NOT be done legally, let alone safely. He just would NOT stop planning and feeling guilty about having to tell the pax "No" .....the only way he was going was alone :)

The "Complete the Mission" attitude is great for fighting a war, but in this buisness, it gets people killed.
 
lookin4better said:
...and will not stop looking for ways to get into an airport no matter how difficult or unsafe...
Click to expand...

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the people who spend the big $$$ for these transporation tools and employ us to fly them do so for one primary reason: to get them safely as close to their desired destination as possible. While SMO might not be the "ideal" airport for some aircraft that doesn't mean operations in and out of there are done so with any real compromise to safety. 4987' dry is plenty for most corporate aircraft flown by capable pilots. Regardless of the spin the city may put on it, the banning of these aircraft is about noise, not operational safety.

lookin4better said:
The "Complete the Mission" attitude is great for fighting a war, but in this buisness, it gets people killed.
Click to expand...

If "Completing the Mission" would require that safety be compromised, then I'm in complete agreement with you. In the context of normal ops at SMO, I don't see where safety is compromised.
 
I think the point can go even further.. at what point does it stop.. what airport is next? If SMO gets away with it, accepting federal funds won't mean much. Other airports can make changes without FAA approval.
 
ProFracPilot said:
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the people who spend the big $$$ for these transporation tools and employ us to fly them do so for one primary reason: to get them safely as close to their desired destination as possible. While SMO might not be the "ideal" airport for some aircraft that doesn't mean operations in and out of there are done so with any real compromise to safety. 4987' dry is plenty for most corporate aircraft flown by capable pilots. Regardless of the spin the city may put on it, the banning of these aircraft is about noise, not operational safety.



If "Completing the Mission" would require that safety be compromised, then I'm in complete agreement with you. In the context of normal ops at SMO, I don't see where safety is compromised.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on all your points but even if they closed SMO period. You would not lose your job. The TSA and the airlines keep us employed. They will suck it up and ride the limo to VNY or BUR or LAX instead. So do not fear the reaper on this one.

I am glad to see the FAA grow a set of nads on this one. It is not the FAA's fault for the situation there.
To look deeper into the problem it is in fact a problem that the city did poor planning in the 60's that lead them to where they are today.
In the 60's they had about 6-10 jet operations per day and it just took off from there. The 80's were a little slow but the 90's just doubled year after year. Today there is over 300 jet operations from SMO per day.
Use google earth and look at many airport around the country. What is right next to airports? Water treatment plants, Park areas, Cemetary plots, Industrial areas and shopping areas. Those city planners had vision and kept house out of these areas. Now look at SMO--What do you see? Houses-tons of them tucked up next to the taxiway and at the end of the runways. Greed got them where they are today. While I feel sorry for the people living there dealing with the noise, pollution and constant rattling of the walls. I see them as trying to get a little piece of So Cal on the cheap. Now they cry to the city to save them and their homes. So the city started its crusade.
I think they finally figured out they overstepped the boundries with the FAA.
The city made this bed and now they have to lay in it...
 
Just wanted your opinions, do you really think that they would call the police and have the flight crew arrested??
 
airspeed said:
Just wanted your opinions, do you really think that they would call the police and have the flight crew arrested??
Click to expand...

Based on the draconian level the noise police would operate at, yes. The city of SMO would probably do something similar to the Brazilian government did to those Legacy pilots.

Although I would rule out jail time. You would just get a big honkin fine.
 
I think if the courts find in favor of the city, pilots being arrested and charged with a midemeanor for violating the ordinance is certainly possible, if not probable.

When ASE started cracking down on noise 15 years or so back, the Pitikin Co. sheriff would drive up to the offending airplane and threaten the crews with arrest. More than one warrant was actually issued. Operators who showed up with a non-noise compliant aircraft found they were not allowed to enplane or deplane their passengers and had to immediately leave.
 
What a lame policy! Faster does not mean louder. Aren't they concerned about noise? I've operated Hawkers and Beechjets in and out of there in the past for years within the limits. So now you can take the Hawker in if you're heavy? How are they going to know? But not all stage III aircraft are created equal.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top