Tailwind Takeoffs Are No Fun.

[CFI A&P]

The Elk is pretty good there! There is great (very touristy) hike up to a waterfall near there. You have to take a bus from the lot by the courtyard Marriott to get there. The hot spring pools near the hotel are cool also!

There is also the hike up to the cemetery that does or doesn't have Doc Holliday's grave. Depending on which local you talk to he is either buried in that cemetery or he's not buried there because of grave robbers. The one thing all the locals are in agreement with is that he did spend his last days in Glenwood Springs seeking treatment in the hot springs.

I think the springs are BYOB too, so grab a case of beer, add a bag of ice and make an improvised cooler while relaxing in the hot springs.

 

[FlapOperator]

Last week was my first time landing the b200 with a tailwind because the boss was literally about to go #2 in his pants, and going around the circuit would have meant tragedy. Lets just say thank God the 200gt -52 has amazing thrust reversing capabilities with that composite material propeller

 

[KLB]

Last week was my first time landing the b200 with a tailwind because the boss was literally about to go #2 in his pants, and going around the circuit would have meant tragedy. Lets just say thank God the 200gt -52 has amazing thrust reversing capabilities with that composite material propeller

It looks like a good time to pitch a private jet with a flushable lav to me.

 

[Wardogg]

Last week was my first time landing the b200 with a tailwind because the boss was literally about to go #2 in his pants, and going around the circuit would have meant tragedy. Lets just say thank God the 200gt -52 has amazing thrust reversing capabilities with that composite material propeller

At what point in the approach did he come up and inform you of the situation?

 

[Wardogg]

Prelim is out.

NTSB Prelim: Raytheon Aircraft Company Hawker 800XP - ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group

Captain Applied Back Pressure On The Yoke; However, The Airplane Would Not Become Airborne Location: Aspen, CO Accident Number: CEN22LA130Date & Time: February 21, 2022, 11:33 Local Registration: N99APAircraft: Raytheon Aircraft Company Hawker 800XP Injuries: 6 NoneFlight Conducted Under: Part...

arffwg.org

 

[ChasenSFO]

This airport is stupid and shouldn’t exist.

From the late 60s all through the mid-90s (when Do328s, BAe-146-300s and the RJ85s and stuff with modern avionics took over ASE flights) tons of commuter airlines with no GPS, no way to paint terrain, no GPWS, questionable training programs, and oversight, ect. (lots of Convairs, Metroliners, DHC-6\7s ect) made it in and out with the procedures of those decades without ever killing anyone. I looked it up and the only air carrier accident serious enough to even be in the NTSB database was an Aspen Airways gear-up incident. Is the airport really such a death trap it needs to be closed?

It's gotta be on the list of the most gnarly airports to operate into and out of in our country, but I think if it was such a death trap it'd have more than 3 fatal GA accidents in its decades of use, especially with all the part 91 jet ops back in prior decades. MMH has similar operating procedures and a similar safety record. When SkyWest and Horizon flew in, they would have to cancel if the tailwind component was too high in either direction as they had to land one way and depart the other, no exceptions. When flights first launched from SFO, I rode in and out on the inaugural for the ride and to take pics, and the flight was canceled for the next 8 days. Ended up with an 18% completion rate the first season (those were fun days at the customer service center as a CS agent, "HOW IS IT A 30 MINUTE FLIGHT BUT A 6 HOUR DRIVE?!"), did a bit better when switched to an AM flight but still had issues often. Just like ASE, any crew flying there needed special training, so usually, the same few dudes were doing those flights. Eventually, both airlines pulled out, and now United is launching SkyWest flights at BIH instead years later to serve that region again. Yet, even with all the drama, I never heard pilots demanding the airport be closed, even though I got to listen to them vent about how annoying it is they take off not expecting to actually get in over and over as it was the same few crews. Is ASE really that much more dangerous than MMH, TEX, EGE etc? Seems like an unusual and demanding but streamlined and proven operation from the outside looking in.

Not just aimed at your post, just asking because long before this thread I've been hearing this for years. BUR seems more dangerous to me for airline ops, personally, as one serious hydraulic issue could plant a 737 into the terminal in about 3 seconds.

 

[woodreau]

There’s only two users of ASE. Skywest (the only 121 operator into ASE) and 135/91 operators.

i think what makes ASE more challenging is the level of traffic compared to TEX, EGE.

on holiday weekends, the airport is extremely busy from all of the 135/91 operators going in and out. There isn’t a lot of space on the ground to sort the arrivals from the departures on the ground.

i don’t know how the ground controller does it, he probably has a ouija board like the deck handlers on an aircraft carrier have to keep track of all of the planes.

121 tends to divert / cancel when wx isn’t in the envelope, but that still Leaves 99% of the traffic that doesn’t have the more restrictive 121 rules that govern going into ASE.

i don’t know if the 91/135 operators have to do some sort of ASE qualification course that 121 crews have to do. Or if just perusing the Jepp qualification 19-00,pages count as the course.

i found a video of a 91 guy flying into ASE for Rwy 15 and instead of coming down the LOC15 he’s flying down the 33 departure route that everyone is flying after they depart 33 And I’m wondering how he isn’t seeing landing lights in his face as they are slaloming down the canyon.

the reason why pilots say the airport needs to go away is because most planes don’t have the performance to go around to get out of the box canyon they are flying into if they have an engine failure after the FAF. Go arounds in ASE are challenging enough with two engines. But they told us if we ever had an engine failure after the FAF, you needed to crash on the runway because if you didn’t, you were crashing into something else.

 

[CFI A&P]

From the late 60s all through the mid-90s (when Do328s, BAe-146-300s and the RJ85s and stuff with modern avionics took over ASE flights) tons of commuter airlines with no GPS, no way to paint terrain, no GPWS, questionable training programs, and oversight, ect. (lots of Convairs, Metroliners, DHC-6\7s ect) made it in and out with the procedures of those decades without ever killing anyone. I looked it up and the only air carrier accident serious enough to even be in the NTSB database was an Aspen Airways gear-up incident. Is the airport really such a death trap it needs to be closed?

It's gotta be on the list of the most gnarly airports to operate into and out of in our country, but I think if it was such a death trap it'd have more than 3 fatal GA accidents in its decades of use, especially with all the part 91 jet ops back in prior decades. MMH has similar operating procedures and a similar safety record. When SkyWest and Horizon flew in, they would have to cancel if the tailwind component was too high in either direction as they had to land one way and depart the other, no exceptions. When flights first launched from SFO, I rode in and out on the inaugural for the ride and to take pics, and the flight was canceled for the next 8 days. Ended up with an 18% completion rate the first season (those were fun days at the customer service center as a CS agent, "HOW IS IT A 30 MINUTE FLIGHT BUT A 6 HOUR DRIVE?!"), did a bit better when switched to an AM flight but still had issues often. Just like ASE, any crew flying there needed special training, so usually, the same few dudes were doing those flights. Eventually, both airlines pulled out, and now United is launching SkyWest flights at BIH instead years later to serve that region again. Yet, even with all the drama, I never heard pilots demanding the airport be closed, even though I got to listen to them vent about how annoying it is they take off not expecting to actually get in over and over as it was the same few crews. Is ASE really that much more dangerous than MMH, TEX, EGE etc? Seems like an unusual and demanding but streamlined and proven operation from the outside looking in.

Not just aimed at your post, just asking because long before this thread I've been hearing this for years. BUR seems more dangerous to me for airline ops, personally, as one serious hydraulic issue could plant a 737 into the terminal in about 3 seconds.

Burbank is easy - it has an ILS to 8 and relatively easy departure off of 15. The only constraint there is landing distance available on 8, but conditions are mild and predictable. I've operated flights at ASE, TEX, EGE, SUN, TRK, RIL, GUN, EKR, HDN, COE, BUR, VNY, SZT and many more. A few of those are one-way airports, but none of them have the same limited instrument approaches, ridiculous climb gradients, steep descent gradients, sloped runway, volume of traffic and the varying winds of Aspen. Take LAX for example: How much weather (wind, temperature, rain, etc.) does it take before LAX really has operational issues? Not ATC needs miles in trail spacing, but true airplane performance limiting issues? A lot. You can operate almost anything out of LAX if you have 20 knots of wind from any direction, plus rain - or even snow (if type 1 & 4 is available) because the runways are long and there isn't any close in obstacles requiring a steep climb gradient. If ASE has 20kts of wind from the south, you'll get arrivals but the departures will stop. How long till the airport fills up? The reverse happens if the wind is from the north.

Aspen was one of those airports we talked about when I was earning my instrument rating, like Kai Tak and others with different procedures, but it wasn't until I started operating out of ASE did I fully grasp the magnitude of how "unique" it is.

It really doesn't take much to handicap ASE. Now add the human factor side of pilots not wanting to say no to their passengers.

 

[T/O w/FSII]

From the late 60s all through the mid-90s (when Do328s, BAe-146-300s and the RJ85s and stuff with modern avionics took over ASE flights) tons of commuter airlines with no GPS, no way to paint terrain, no GPWS, questionable training programs, and oversight, ect. (lots of Convairs, Metroliners, DHC-6\7s ect) made it in and out with the procedures of those decades without ever killing anyone. I looked it up and the only air carrier accident serious enough to even be in the NTSB database was an Aspen Airways gear-up incident. Is the airport really such a death trap it needs to be closed?

It's gotta be on the list of the most gnarly airports to operate into and out of in our country, but I think if it was such a death trap it'd have more than 3 fatal GA accidents in its decades of use, especially with all the part 91 jet ops back in prior decades. MMH has similar operating procedures and a similar safety record. When SkyWest and Horizon flew in, they would have to cancel if the tailwind component was too high in either direction as they had to land one way and depart the other, no exceptions. When flights first launched from SFO, I rode in and out on the inaugural for the ride and to take pics, and the flight was canceled for the next 8 days. Ended up with an 18% completion rate the first season (those were fun days at the customer service center as a CS agent, "HOW IS IT A 30 MINUTE FLIGHT BUT A 6 HOUR DRIVE?!"), did a bit better when switched to an AM flight but still had issues often. Just like ASE, any crew flying there needed special training, so usually, the same few dudes were doing those flights. Eventually, both airlines pulled out, and now United is launching SkyWest flights at BIH instead years later to serve that region again. Yet, even with all the drama, I never heard pilots demanding the airport be closed, even though I got to listen to them vent about how annoying it is they take off not expecting to actually get in over and over as it was the same few crews. Is ASE really that much more dangerous than MMH, TEX, EGE etc? Seems like an unusual and demanding but streamlined and proven operation from the outside looking in.

Not just aimed at your post, just asking because long before this thread I've been hearing this for years. BUR seems more dangerous to me for airline ops, personally, as one serious hydraulic issue could plant a 737 into the terminal in about 3 seconds.

As a local and regular pilot of all things to both, ASE is much, much more difficult then MMH.

It’s not really comparable until you’re in the left seat one day. Then the light bulb will go off


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GypsyPilot]

As a local and regular pilot of all things to both, ASE is much, much more difficult then MMH.

It’s not really comparable until you’re in the left seat one day. Then the light bulb will go off


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. The thing with ASE is you have to constantly be figuring out your backup plan. Should you hold and wait? Start the approach? Where can you bail on the approach? If you do a balked landing, now what? Doing the published missed on short final may not work out well! What if you lose an engine?

That’s just for landing. Departures are their own set of problems, and I can’t tell you how many times I saw ASE newbs totally screw up the LINDZ departure and needed tower/departure to command them to immediately turn right for inbound traffic. Also, performance takes a lot of planning ahead…. Max tailwind takeoffs, EWAI, possible windshear, etc.

There were some weeks where > 50% of the time I diverted to GJT, usually because of winds.

 

[KLB]

Agreed. The thing with ASE is you have to constantly be figuring out your backup plan. Should you hold and wait? Start the approach? Where can you bail on the approach? If you do a balked landing, now what? Doing the published missed on short final may not work out well! What if you lose an engine?

That’s just for landing. Departures are their own set of problems, and I can’t tell you how many times I saw ASE newbs totally screw up the LINDZ departure and needed tower/departure to command them to immediately turn right for inbound traffic. Also, performance takes a lot of planning ahead…. Max tailwind takeoffs, EWAI, possible windshear, etc.

There were some weeks where > 50% of the time I diverted to GJT, usually because of winds.

It's simple. If I can't visually fly the approach by the final approach then I go missed.

If the weather isn't acceptable within an hour out...then we divert.

If we are coming in and leaving with pax.. well we'll need less than 10kts of tail to get out. So we'll divert if we have more than 10kts of headwind going in.

Here is the most difficult part. Don't let the pax, broker, or company talk you out of your sound decision once it's made. The pax will fuss, call the broker, and the broker will call the company. I typically ignore contact with the company until after I land. They will even contact ATC and try to have them relay instructions. But once you've committed to the divert and have the transportation headed to the alternate...there's no use in increasing your workload by trying to switch it all up again.

They may be mad. But they'll be safe.

 

[SteveC]

Company guidelines require 4500' ceiling and 5 nm vis to start the approach.

 

[TWP]

From the late 60s all through the mid-90s (when Do328s, BAe-146-300s and the RJ85s and stuff with modern avionics took over ASE flights) tons of commuter airlines with no GPS, no way to paint terrain, no GPWS, questionable training programs, and oversight, ect. (lots of Convairs, Metroliners, DHC-6\7s ect) made it in and out with the procedures of those decades without ever killing anyone. I looked it up and the only air carrier accident serious enough to even be in the NTSB database was an Aspen Airways gear-up incident. Is the airport really such a death trap it needs to be closed?

It's gotta be on the list of the most gnarly airports to operate into and out of in our country, but I think if it was such a death trap it'd have more than 3 fatal GA accidents in its decades of use, especially with all the part 91 jet ops back in prior decades. MMH has similar operating procedures and a similar safety record. When SkyWest and Horizon flew in, they would have to cancel if the tailwind component was too high in either direction as they had to land one way and depart the other, no exceptions. When flights first launched from SFO, I rode in and out on the inaugural for the ride and to take pics, and the flight was canceled for the next 8 days. Ended up with an 18% completion rate the first season (those were fun days at the customer service center as a CS agent, "HOW IS IT A 30 MINUTE FLIGHT BUT A 6 HOUR DRIVE?!"), did a bit better when switched to an AM flight but still had issues often. Just like ASE, any crew flying there needed special training, so usually, the same few dudes were doing those flights. Eventually, both airlines pulled out, and now United is launching SkyWest flights at BIH instead years later to serve that region again. Yet, even with all the drama, I never heard pilots demanding the airport be closed, even though I got to listen to them vent about how annoying it is they take off not expecting to actually get in over and over as it was the same few crews. Is ASE really that much more dangerous than MMH, TEX, EGE etc? Seems like an unusual and demanding but streamlined and proven operation from the outside looking in.

Not just aimed at your post, just asking because long before this thread I've been hearing this for years. BUR seems more dangerous to me for airline ops, personally, as one serious hydraulic issue could plant a 737 into the terminal in about 3 seconds.

My opinion is I don’t wanna deal with it lol. That’s the entire extent of why I think it shouldn’t exist. But, I’m not God Emperor Leto just yet so I guess my opinion don’t amount to much.