• This site moved from forums.flightinfo.com to flightinfo.com. Please update your bookmarks.

What Commercial Aircraft could fly into Aspen besides the BAe 146/Dash 8/B1900?

DenverDude2002

Ramp Rat
Joined
May 17, 2003
Posts
590
Total Time
56
Just outta curiosity, with Air Wisconsins contract with United getting terminated, what other commercial aircraft can get into/out of Aspen with the kind of seat capacity that the BAe 146 has, besides the turbo props?
 

FlyingFisherman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Posts
198
Total Time
100%
Just read a story in Flying Magazine that one of the columnists flew his B-757 in and out. That's only a little bigger than an Avro :)
 

DenverDude2002

Ramp Rat
Joined
May 17, 2003
Posts
590
Total Time
56
If thats the article Im thinking of, that was Eagle/EGE, not Aspen, they get 757s all the time there
 

DiverDriver

Welcome to The Fall.
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
446
Total Time
9,000
DenverDude2002 said:
If thats the article Im thinking of, that was Eagle/EGE, not Aspen, they get 757s all the time there

You're correct. That was Eagle not ASE.

I keep hearing rumors that this company or that company is working on "the numbers" to do ASE with their aircraft. To date I haven't heard anyone announce that they could do it.

General folklore tells of a CRJ 700 going up to ASE and THEN they realised that they couldn't get out unless they took all the seats out for weight. Kind of hard to believe that they wouldn't have thought of the exit before actually going up to ASE. But it makes for great crew room "did you hear" banter.
 

dojetdriver

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Posts
1,998
Total Time
7000
I'm sure an AWAC would be the one to ask here, but.

I believe the problem isn't so much "can it get out" of ASE as much as an approach climb limit problem. In other words, I don't think too many other aircraft operating under part 121 can meet any kind of required climb gradient during a balked landing/missed approach scenario with an engine out, except the 146 and maybe the dash 8.
 

Spooky 1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Posts
987
Total Time
Some
Just out of for the heck of it I ran some B757 numbers on the Boeing Lap Top Tool for lift out of Aspen. No wind, 29.92, 32F Rwy 33. TOGW 182,000 pounds which would get you about 120 Pax, and 20,000# fuel. Plenty for Denver. Not sure about the PCN issue so it might all be moot. Fun excerise anyway.
 

Thedude

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2001
Posts
1,277
Total Time
8000+
The Dornier 328 was built for that kind of flying and use to do it regularly. Taking a turboprop into there is proabably a little more advantagous because you can actually circle to land on the other runway, vfr of course.
 

dojetdriver

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Posts
1,998
Total Time
7000
Spooky 1 said:
Just out of for the heck of it I ran some B757 numbers on the Boeing Lap Top Tool for lift out of Aspen. No wind, 29.92, 32F Rwy 33. TOGW 182,000 pounds which would get you about 120 Pax, and 20,000# fuel. Plenty for Denver. Not sure about the PCN issue so it might all be moot. Fun excerise anyway.
wet/ dry? summer 90+ day or winter?
 

MauleSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Posts
638
Total Time
10,000
dojetdriver said:
I believe the problem isn't so much "can it get out" of ASE as much as an approach climb limit problem. In other words, I don't think too many other aircraft operating under part 121 can meet any kind of required climb gradient during a balked landing/missed approach scenario with an engine out, except the 146 and maybe the dash 8.
The "approach climb" problem isn't a problem...the required gradient from the MAP is the same as most all other airports in the country for the missed approach.

"Landing climb", on the other hand, can be an issue...a balked landing would require a very steep climb, and/or short-radius turns if it is initiated much below MDA. That, however, is an "all-engine" operation for certification, rather than the "engine out" certification requirement for the approach climb.

Fly safe!

David
 

con-pilot

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2002
Posts
13,296
Total Time
21,000
It is not so much the operational aspects of operating large aircraft, such as 737-800s, Airbus 320s and similar types of aircraft, rather what to do with them after they land. Parking is very limited during certain times of the year.

I have seen a 727-200 in Aspen, it quite a few years ago and it had received special permission for a one time flight. Aspen is currently undergoing changes moving the taxiway farther from the runway to allow B-737 size aircraft operations. The ramp area for parking is also under going massive changes to allow larger aircraft operations. There are plans to lengthen the runway to the south about one more thousand feet.

The current limit is by wingspan not weight, the wingspan limit is for the BBJ, a non-winglet B-737 can operate in Aspen, I have seen at least three different Corporate B-737s, not BBJs in Aspen.

Hope this helps.
 

DiverDriver

Welcome to The Fall.
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
446
Total Time
9,000
dojetdriver said:
I'm sure an AWAC would be the one to ask here, but.

I believe the problem isn't so much "can it get out" of ASE as much as an approach climb limit problem. In other words, I don't think too many other aircraft operating under part 121 can meet any kind of required climb gradient during a balked landing/missed approach scenario with an engine out, except the 146 and maybe the dash 8.

Also, a consideration is the circle to land limitation. The 146 can get really slow to do it. Most others can't under 121.
 

MauleSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Posts
638
Total Time
10,000
MauleSkinner said:
The "approach climb" problem isn't a problem...the required gradient from the MAP is the same as most all other airports in the country for the missed approach.

"Landing climb", on the other hand, can be an issue...a balked landing would require a very steep climb, and/or short-radius turns if it is initiated much below MDA. That, however, is an "all-engine" operation for certification, rather than the "engine out" certification requirement for the approach climb.
I'm going to modify my answer...the "normal" approach climb gradient is based on the public approach to ASE...I understand that the airlines have a private approach to ASE with lower minimums and possibly a steeper missed approach gradient requirement. My ASE experience is all Part 91/135 with the public approach, and no alternate procedures for departure that relieve the climb gradient requirement of the Lindz departure in the event of an engine-out.

Fly safe!

David
 

dojetdriver

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Posts
1,998
Total Time
7000
MauleSkinner said:
I'm going to modify my answer...the "normal" approach climb gradient is based on the public approach to ASE...I understand that the airlines have a private approach to ASE with lower minimums and possibly a steeper missed approach gradient requirement. My ASE experience is all Part 91/135 with the public approach, and no alternate procedures for departure that relieve the climb gradient requirement of the Lindz departure in the event of an engine-out.

Fly safe!

David
Thats what's I was referring to.
 

Thedude

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2001
Posts
1,277
Total Time
8000+
DiverDriver said:
Also, a consideration is the circle to land limitation. The 146 can get really slow to do it. Most others can't under 121.
The best i remember is the 146 was weight limited for ASE ops. I believe they could only carry about 50 pax and I don't think the 146 could do the circle either. Three airlines that were able to do the cirlcle was Mountain Air Express, Lone-Star/Aspen Mtn Air & Air Wille and they were all in the DO-328.
 

skyking1976

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2002
Posts
1,057
Total Time
A lot
The Dude; The 146 was not often weight limited out of ASE. Unless the temp got above 72F. It was able to carry 88-100 pax most of the ski season both in and out, providing the DEN Wx was not alternate reqd. Although it looks like we did a lot of circling, the feds called it a "contact maneuver" which was pretty much used only as a last resort to get in. The maneuver usually showed up on a PC. Matter of fact, we went ASE - LAX in winter and usually were able to carry a full load, again, without an alternate for LAX. Had lots of fun going in and out of ASE with the airplane. Great tool.
 

English

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,374
Total Time
1
Doug Parker said:
I thought SkyKing died in a Mits Accident ????????

He did. SkyKing's father took over his screenname.
 
Top