KASE Night IFR

[Guest Yun Chase]

Hey, have you guys noticed (perhaps I'm last to know) that none of the instrument approaches into KASE is approved at night? But I believe we flew those all night long during the last KDEN-KASE RC... Just wondering if we decided to ignore those regulations for that night... 8-)

[Guest Cameron Laramee]

The entire airport is normally closed at night. Since, for BVA's purposes, that would render the airport virtually unusable, we do not simulate those restrictions.

[Guest Yun Chase]

Thanks Cam for the info. But actually, it's only closed between 11PM - 7AM (according to SkyV)... So there is a 5 hour window where it is considered night time... during which time IAPs are not approved. :)

[Evan Reiter]

The entire airport is normally closed at night.

Actually not the case (that's what I thought too originally).

 

Aspen is open and attended from 0700 - 2300 local time (LT). The Tower and TRACON close at 2000 LT, and then the airport is covered by a Denver Center frequency. The last commercial flight I could find inbound is a SKW from KDEN which lands around 2230 LT.

 

As mentioned here there are a separate set of procedures which are unpublished and require special FAA authorization to fly. Crews and aircraft must be specially certified in order to fly the approaches. These unpublished approaches are not restricted to day-only operations and its how the commercial guys make it in after sunset. For other operators intending to land at night, a visual approach (not the Roaring Fork) would be the only option. All of the public use instrument approaches + the Roaring Fork Visual are indeed restricted to day operations only.

[Guest Yun Chase]

Hey A-Team,

 

Was there an aircraft that actually used the special unpublished approach into KASE during the RC?

 

During an RC, I don’t think we should be sending 20 airplanes into an airport by approving an approach where FAA deems it is unsafe for night operations. ;)

 

That night, I was cleared for the LOC/DME-E and I tried to circle to land on 33 and it is an uneasy situation…. Because while I had the runway in sight at all times, but I could not make out the mountains at all during the circling maneuver. FAA basically prohibits circling maneuver at night at KASE…. And IMHO, I don’t think we should be allowing that either…

 

We should always promote safe flying at BVATC… so let’s not get ourselves into having an RC Event-itis by ignoring FAA safety procedures, just for the sake of having an event for the members… :D

[Guest Max Enis]

We should always promote safe flying at BVATC… so let’s not get ourselves into having an RC Event-itis by ignoring FAA safety procedures, just for the sake of having an event for the members… :D

 

I agree. I know many this disagree with this too and it has been brought up several times, but I personally believe that there should be restrictions on the type of aircraft you fly in. For example, an A380 into Aspen?? Really?? Come on guys, that's in no way realistic. Part of BVA's mission is realism. I believe that it should be if you spawn into an airport such as these, you should be forced to spawn somewhere else or not receive clearance. Just my humble opinion though....

[Guest Cameron Laramee]

I agree that we should restrict the type of aircraft at KASE, but I do not agree that the approaches should be restricted. We try to strike a balance between realism and practicality here at BVA, and I think this is a good balance. Anyone can just get a smaller aircraft and fly into Aspen without too much trouble, so that is a logical restriction. However, restricting the instrument approaches to day only like the real world would effectively shut down the airport for us, and that would suck the life out of one of our biggest, most popular events of the year. The LOC/DME-E and VOR/DME-C approaches are both perfectly flyable at night assuming that you make the straight in approach to runway 15 where the approach minimums will protect you. I would strongly advise against the circling maneuver for the reason Chase gave. Yes, we want to be "safe"; but this is simulation, and we have to make allowances for our unique circumstances.

 

P.S. I was working approach during the entire event, and I assure you that no one flew the unpublished procedures. Since we do not simulate those procedures, that makes sense.

[Guest John Girard]

One consideration - yes, night approaches could be prohibited w/o sacrificing events at KASE or similar airports. Simply set the time/environment to daytime for the event. I've seen the weather changed for special events - certainly daylight/darkness can be adjusted.

[Guest Yun Chase]

I agree that we should restrict the type of aircraft at KASE, but I do not agree that the approaches should be restricted. We try to strike a balance between realism and practicality here at BVA, and I think this is a good balance. Anyone can just get a smaller aircraft and fly into Aspen without too much trouble, so that is a logical restriction. However, restricting the instrument approaches to day only like the real world would effectively shut down the airport for us, and that would suck the life out of one of our biggest, most popular events of the year. The LOC/DME-E and VOR/DME-C approaches are both perfectly flyable at night assuming that you make the straight in approach to runway 15 where the approach minimums will protect you. I would strongly advise against the circling maneuver for the reason Chase gave. Yes, we want to be "safe"; but this is simulation, and we have to make allowances for our unique circumstances.

 

P.S. I was working approach during the entire event, and I assure you that no one flew the unpublished procedures. Since we do not simulate those procedures, that makes sense.

 

So….. what I’m hearing is, we’re gonna have this RC even if it’s deemed unsafe…. all because we need this “popular” event… wow… is that what we are at BVATC?

 

Let me ask, were the virtual airlines flying that night using those approaches? They’re supposed to represent the most professional virtual airlines here and did they violate the FAA rules? Do they support this policy?

 

Listen, if it’s unsafe in the real world then it is unsafe in the virtual world… period. So apparently we should ignore that here because this is just a…. “game”. Also, you sound like you know something more than FAA does... suggesting that these approaches can be flown without "much" trouble...

 

If the weather that night were to be near minimums then in all likelihood everyone must circle to land… Would you still have this event? Perhaps yes, because it’s only a “game”. I really hope that's not what BVATC stands for...

 

Semper Fi John, brings a very sensible way to mitigate the issue…. simply change the server time to daylight hours… and make it clear to everyone that we will not compromise safe operation of aircrafts all for the sake of having an RC. But I am more than a little disappointed in your response Cam… I will lose a little respect for this group if we start ignoring the safety policies put in place by FAA, especially for a BVATC supported event. We’re talking about a “safety” issue here… We’re not just talking about something trivial like ignoring airport closures because of Aspen doesn’t have anybody to man the FBO… or ignoring TFRs over a football stadium…. I am quite stunned that we’ll knowingly shove 20 airplanes down to an approach that is, for all things considered, unsafe for operation. But hey, what do I know… I’m not part of the A-Team… so I don’t know anything… :roll:

[Guest Cameron Laramee]

So….. what I’m hearing is, we’re gonna have this RC even if it’s deemed unsafe…. all because we need this “popular” event…

Deemed unsafe by whom? I assure you, our hard-working ATC instructors put a lot of thought and work into these getaway events. They go through the procedures at the new airports, and, in the case of the Aspen getaway, they write a 17 page document for the controllers to ensure that we are operating the airspace safely and effectively. In this document, they include the restrictions that we follow and those that we ignore. Since they have been doing this much longer than most of us, I, for one, am inclined to trust their judgment.

 

As for the virtual airlines, no they did not use the unpublished approaches. That is because: A. The charts are difficult to procure unless you want to work off of screenshots like Tim's. B. The approach is harder to fly, and requires two pilots therefore requiring "Special aircrew certification". No one is BVA has access to such training, so the approach is null.

 

No, I don't know any more than the FAA; I'm sure that they have a reason for the rule they have at KASE (see below); but, once again, this is a simulation, and we need to make compromises in order to operate effectively. The removal of the night restriction is a relatively small compromise considering some other compromises we make in the simulation world every day.

 

I do not know what you mean when you say that low minimums require a circle to land; but I, for one, would be less likely to accept a circle to runway 33 the lower the weather was. Remember, as long as you stay on the straight-in you have the approach minimums to protect you from terrain. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the only reason the procedure is prohibited at night is because of the possibility of circling to 33; there is a simple way to eliminate that risk... Don't circle to 33. If you can't get in on 15 because of winds or other factors, then I would consider the airport unsafe for landing. If that were to happen, I do not know if we would have the event, but I suspect that we still would because of the differences in FSX's weather. While I may be seeing a 1000' overcast ceiling and 30 kt winds, another pilot might be in the clear the whole way down and have light winds. It would then be up to the pilots to make a decision to continue or not based on the conditions.

 

In my time controlling here at BVA, I have seen many near misses, collisions, and botched procedures that were the fault of controllers (myself included) and pilots alike. This makes sense because most of us are not certified pilots or controllers (in the real world). So, in the interest of "safety", we should probably just cease operations all together, because uncertified pilots flying around with uncertified controllers is an infinitely higher safety risk than flying a night approach into ASE. Even though I have seen said collisions, near misses, and other nerve wracking events all over the country, I have NEVER seen an accident at ASE other than aircraft overrunning the runway which is a consequence of either poor planning, a poor decision to continue the approach, or poor technique.

Just to put things in perspective, if, as you say, we live by "If it's unsafe in the real world then it is unsafe in the virtual world.", then we will need to:

1. Prohibit a lot of our pilots and most of the controllers from operating in the server.

2. Prohibit most of the rest of those pilots from flying IFR.

3. Prohibit nearly everyone from operating high performance aircraft, turbojets, and aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds that would require a type rating.

4. Prohibit any aircraft that require a two-person crew unless the cockpit is being shared.

5. Prohibit IFR flights when controllers are absent.

Any of the above measures would increase safety many times more than enforcing the night restriction at Aspen. Even though they would not affect an instrument pilot like yourself, they would essentially shut down BVA, so they are not practical at all.

 

As far as changing the weather goes, once again, I cannot speak for the A-Team; however, it is my understanding that we only change server weather/conditions when it is completely impossible to operate the event without doing so. For example, if we are doing a VFR challenge and it is solid IMC, that would necessitate a server restart and vice versa. This unspoken requirement makes sense since restarting the server requires admin presence and kicks everyone off about 30 minutes before the event and 30 minutes after.

 

The last thing I will say is that, at my flight school, they strongly emphasize the development of "personal minimums". This basically means that if you are not comfortable or capable of operating the aircraft in a certain position, then you shouldn't do it; as you progress, you learn your minimums better and you decrease your minimums as you gain skill. Based on this concept, I would not recommend that any pilot attempt the approach unless he feels like he can safely execute the approach. If you do not believe that you can safely fly to Aspen at night, then by all means abstain from it. Just keep in mind that 20+ other pilots did safely fly into Aspen that night, and the only "accidents" we saw had nothing to do with the terrain or the time of day.

[Guest Yun Chase]

Cam,

 

You made some great points. I‘ll say the following and then give this a rest.

 

Deemed unsafe by whom?

 

All 4 of the KASE Instrument Approach plates clearly state, “Procedure NA at night” Why do you think that is? I suspect it’s because these approaches requires unsafe mountainous operation at night so FAA prohibits it. So who are you to say that it’s safe for us? Because 20 of us made it in the other night?

 

http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1301/pdf/05889LDE.PDF

 

As for the virtual airlines, no they did not use the unpublished approaches. That is because: A. The charts are difficult to procure unless you want to work off of screenshots like Tim's. B. The approach is harder to fly, and requires two pilots therefore requiring "Special aircrew certification". No one is BVA has access to such training, so the approach is null.

 

I was asking if the virtual airlines were using all of these published approaches that are not approved for night use by the FAA. I wasn’t referring to the unpublished approaches…

 

 

I do not know what you mean when you say that low minimums require a circle to land; but I, for one, would be less likely to accept a circle to runway 33 the lower the weather was. Remember, as long as you stay on the straight-in you have the approach minimums to protect you from terrain. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the only reason the procedure is prohibited at night is because of the possibility of circling to 33; there is a simple way to eliminate that risk... Don't circle to 33. If you can't get in on 15 because of winds or other factors, then I would consider the airport unsafe for landing. If that were to happen, I do not know if we would have the event, but I suspect that we still would because of the differences in FSX's weather. While I may be seeing a 1000' overcast ceiling and 30 kt winds, another pilot might be in the clear the whole way down and have light winds. It would then be up to the pilots to make a decision to continue or not based on the conditions.

 

 

Minimums means if the weather at KASE is 2000-3. At 90kts, it means I gotta drop 2000’ in 2 minutes… it gets even worse for CAT B aircrafts… And that’s not a normal glide path for most planes trying to land at night…. and that’s at 9000’ altitude mind you… So hence, it will usually require a circling to extend the time you need to safely get on the ground.

 

Regardless of the weather on client machines, the weather at the server goes… and we have to assume everyone is operating under the same weather.

 

In my time controlling here at BVA, I have seen many near misses, collisions, and botched procedures that were the fault of controllers (myself included) and pilots alike. This makes sense because most of us are not certified pilots or controllers (in the real world). So, in the interest of "safety", we should probably just cease operations all together, because uncertified pilots flying around with uncertified controllers is an infinitely higher safety risk than flying a night approach into ASE. Even though I have seen said collisions, near misses, and other nerve wracking events all over the country, I have NEVER seen an accident at ASE other than aircraft overrunning the runway which is a consequence of either poor planning, a poor decision to continue the approach, or poor technique.

Just to put things in perspective, if, as you say, we live by "If it's unsafe in the real world then it is unsafe in the virtual world.", then we will need to:

1. Prohibit a lot of our pilots and most of the controllers from operating in the server.

2. Prohibit most of the rest of those pilots from flying IFR.

3. Prohibit nearly everyone from operating high performance aircraft, turbojets, and aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds that would require a type rating.

4. Prohibit any aircraft that require a two-person crew unless the cockpit is being shared.

5. Prohibit IFR flights when controllers are absent.

Any of the above measures would increase safety many times more than enforcing the night restriction at Aspen. Even though they would not affect an instrument pilot like yourself, they would essentially shut down BVA, so they are not practical at all.

 

 

There is a clear difference between a BVATC sanctioned event versus free flying on the server in an uncontrolled manner. When we participate in a BVATC sanctioned event such as the RC, I fully expect it to be a routine aviation event that closely meets the real world operations. Sure we have 14 year olds flying the heavies and they do it well, by the way... better than I can :D . We have single pilot IFR as well and FAA probably would not allow that either.. But having those pilots with us and allowing some of those practices are an absolute critical part of being able to have and build a community like BVATC. But... that is clearly a different matter than allowing an unsafe or prohibited approach by FAA in a BVATC organized event and it is something that we have total control over to make it realistic as ever. But you want to dismiss it all for the purpose of having “fun”.

 

Listen, I take great pride when you guys do something as a community that reflects the real world policies. But when you start dismissing some of these safety policies then it really does make this feel more like a “game” rather than a true, virtual world simulation.

 

The last thing I will say is that, at my flight school, they strongly emphasize the development of "personal minimums". This basically means that if you are not comfortable or capable of operating the aircraft in a certain position, then you shouldn't do it; as you progress, you learn your minimums better and you decrease your minimums as you gain skill. Based on this concept, I would not recommend that any pilot attempt the approach unless he feels like he can safely execute the approach. If you do not believe that you can safely fly to Aspen at night, then by all means abstain from it. Just keep in mind that 20+ other pilots did safely fly into Aspen that night, and the only "accidents" we saw had nothing to do with the terrain or the time of day.

 

This is not about personal minimums here. I am talking about authorizing an approach that is not authorized by FAA. Night restriction is for safety in mountainous area. I consider you guys, the BVATC controllers, as sort of representing the best of the FAA... in a manner that makes these events become as true as possible. I cannot help but to feel as though, you have come up short on this one. But once again, I think you’ve made some great points here and I’m just a small guy making noise, so please excuse me… 8-)

[Gilles Lagace]

Thanks for this "Great Food for Thoughts" in preparing our BVATC EVENTS. I'm sure that the A-TEAM will give it a serious discussion with the help from your very interesting points of view. ;) Now going back to read published and unpublished procedures...

 

(Joking) - we should change the name of the admin team to FA_A-TEAM... :lol:

[Guest Cameron Laramee]

Deemed unsafe by whom?

 

All 4 of the KASE Instrument Approach plates clearly state, “Procedure NA at night” Why do you think that is? I suspect it’s because these approaches requires unsafe mountainous operation at night so FAA prohibits it. So who are you to say that it’s safe for us? Because 20 of us made it in the other night?

I agree that it is time to give this a rest and let the A-team take action if they deem necessary. I just want to point out that I am not one of the people mentioned above. The three ATC instructors are center controllers who have been with us for a very long time, have a lot of experience, and show dedication beyond anything I can give. Perhaps they will reconsider their previous opinions on the subject, and perhaps not. Also, in the same document, they do authorize controllers to open the airport to pilots who have different weather than what we are seeing or what is in the real world. Perhaps that will be reconsidered, perhaps not. I am merely passing on information here.

 

As for the FA-ATeam, well, we all know how much everyone likes the FAA; I would hate for that wonderful group of people known as the A-Team to share their name with the FAA... :)

[Guest Lucas Kaelin]

To some point I agree, we cannot suddenly stop an RC due to night time. However, in my first ASE Getaway I complained that it was almost never night time because the server time offset was so huge (-5?). Recent ones do seem like between the smaller server offset (-3), and the winter nature of the event (sunset 5-6pm local) we end up with a ton of night flying in the primary event hours (8-10pm Eastern).

 

Departing traffic on the ASPE4 departure should be turned left and vectored along the I-PKN

localizer backcourse. They will end up flying a similar pattern to the “lost communications”

procedure on that departure. Do not instruct the aircraft to “proceed direct DBL on course”

until you are confident the aircraft can cross the DBL VOR at or above 16,400’.

While I was only in the server a short time Tues night, I don't recall anyone really using the DP's. I was just VFR but am wondering if the approach controller may have been giving headings while aircraft were still below the min vectoring altitude. There weren't many IFR depts at the point I left, but when I came back there were a couple, and I only seem to remember hearing "when able proceed direct Red Table." While most IFR rated pilots on a DP will continue the DP to DBL, most of our younger crowd don't know the difference and will turn direct to the VOR. The only DP NA at night is the ASE4, which is most likely to be assigned by the BVA controllers. Shouldn't we keep it realistic and also assign the LINDZ8 DP during night hours?

 

Additionally using the phrase "radar contact" should be examined, I don't know where the radar site is at ASE (it's not on the field), but using radar contact below 8500ft is absurd. Even with the radar site 2nm from DER at TUL aircraft still don't acquire radar until they are 400+ AGL. That's in semi-flat Oklahoma, I can't imagine the delay in an area such as ASE. The further from the airport the site is the longer it will take to acquire a target.

[Guest Cameron Laramee]

Pretty much all of the aircraft were on the ASPE4 that night. That night, and normally, I just vector the aircraft along the LINDZ8 course, climb to 9100, turn left heading 270, and turn right heading 300 along the backcourse, then clear them to DBL once they are high enough to cross above the MEA. Being a mere sim controller, the MVA's are not available to me, but we decided that vectoring them along the same path as the LINDZ8 was a better idea than assigning it because we knew that many pilots would have difficulty flying the procedure properly. If we could be assured that every pilot would fly it properly like in the real world, assigning the LINDZ8 would be great, but the risk of a fatal mistake in flying the procedure (I have actually seen aircraft join the backcourse backwards right into the mountain.) was too great to assign it to everyone in such a busy event.

[Jev McKee]

Listen, if it’s unsafe in the real world then it is unsafe in the virtual world… period. So apparently we should ignore that here because this is just a…. “game”. Also, you sound like you know something more than FAA does... suggesting that these approaches can be flown without "much" trouble...

 

I understand where you're coming from, that you want an "as real as it gets" experience. That said, Cam makes an excellent point in noting that a majority of BVA pilots have no license, and I'd hazard a guess that no more than a few have ever actually flown into KASE let alone have certification to land a plane there. Likewise, every time I hear a communication from one of our younger members whose voice hasn't changed yet, it's a bit startling as are aircraft hitting the runway and bouncing 50 feet in the air rather than disintegrating in an explosion of metal and glass. All of these things require some suspension of disbelief. I think the quality of our sim experience is heavily weighted by how well each of us can mentally exclude the sketchy bits and at the same time wrap our imaginations tightly around the "authentic" bits enough to have a satisfying simulation experience.

 

When I spawned into KDEN the night of the event and realized we were in darkness I was a bit jolted too. I was aware of the night restrictions for the published IAPs and wanted to give the event organizers a good spanking. But then I thought, what the hell, I can make this a great experience with the help of my fellow pilots and ATC, and I can lean into what I learned in practicing the approaches before the event. After being handed over to ASE-A and receiving the first few instructions, I knew I was in good hands. While performing the spacing vectors I thought again about the in-authenticity of flying the IAP at night, but then I simply created a scenario in my head that involved having to get my a/c into KASE at night because there was no other option. After that, it was a totally fun process of just focusing on flying the plane: positioning and configuring it for the LOC/DME-E, reviewing the altitude targets on the descent, and putting that 128,000 pound tin can down on the tarmac smoothly and with enough room for a comfortable stop.

 

Personally, I think "as real as it gets" is mostly in our heads. Sure some elements of the event strayed from reality. But, when my hands get sweaty on the yoke and my heart is thumping in my throat as it was that night, I know I'm immersed.

[Guest Max Enis]

I agree that we should restrict the type of aircraft at KASE, but I do not agree that the approaches should be restricted. We try to strike a balance between realism and practicality here at BVA, and I think this is a good balance. Anyone can just get a smaller aircraft and fly into Aspen without too much trouble, so that is a logical restriction. However, restricting the instrument approaches to day only like the real world would effectively shut down the airport for us, and that would suck the life out of one of our biggest, most popular events of the year. The LOC/DME-E and VOR/DME-C approaches are both perfectly flyable at night assuming that you make the straight in approach to runway 15 where the approach minimums will protect you. I would strongly advise against the circling maneuver for the reason Chase gave. Yes, we want to be "safe"; but this is simulation, and we have to make allowances for our unique circumstances.

 

P.S. I was working approach during the entire event, and I assure you that no one flew the unpublished procedures. Since we do not simulate those procedures, that makes sense.

 

So….. what I’m hearing is, we’re gonna have this RC even if it’s deemed unsafe…. all because we need this “popular” event… wow… is that what we are at BVATC?

 

Let me ask, were the virtual airlines flying that night using those approaches? They’re supposed to represent the most professional virtual airlines here and did they violate the FAA rules? Do they support this policy?

 

Listen, if it’s unsafe in the real world then it is unsafe in the virtual world… period. So apparently we should ignore that here because this is just a…. “game”. Also, you sound like you know something more than FAA does... suggesting that these approaches can be flown without "much" trouble...

 

If the weather that night were to be near minimums then in all likelihood everyone must circle to land… Would you still have this event? Perhaps yes, because it’s only a “game”. I really hope that's not what BVATC stands for...

 

Semper Fi John, brings a very sensible way to mitigate the issue…. simply change the server time to daylight hours… and make it clear to everyone that we will not compromise safe operation of aircrafts all for the sake of having an RC. But I am more than a little disappointed in your response Cam… I will lose a little respect for this group if we start ignoring the safety policies put in place by FAA, especially for a BVATC supported event. We’re talking about a “safety” issue here… We’re not just talking about something trivial like ignoring airport closures because of Aspen doesn’t have anybody to man the FBO… or ignoring TFRs over a football stadium…. I am quite stunned that we’ll knowingly shove 20 airplanes down to an approach that is, for all things considered, unsafe for operation. But hey, what do I know… I’m not part of the A-Team… so I don’t know anything… :roll:

 

Couldn't Agree more.

 

Just to put things in perspective, if, as you say, we live by "If it's unsafe in the real world then it is unsafe in the virtual world.", then we will need to:

1. Prohibit a lot of our pilots and most of the controllers from operating in the server.

2. Prohibit most of the rest of those pilots from flying IFR.

3. Prohibit nearly everyone from operating high performance aircraft, turbojets, and aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds that would require a type rating.

4. Prohibit any aircraft that require a two-person crew unless the cockpit is being shared.

5. Prohibit IFR flights when controllers are absent.

Any of the above measures would increase safety many times more than enforcing the night restriction at Aspen. Even though they would not affect an instrument pilot like yourself, they would essentially shut down BVA, so they are not practical at all.

 

But Cameron you have to realize that you can't do anything there to change that. Do you think if I had the cash to go out and get these certs, that I wouldn't already have done that. Come on. I completely agree with Chase. There are things we can do in the community to keep it real.

 

Heck is the airport is not used at night, then don't have the event. Simple. That or change the server time. But Aspen Is Different, it is actually closed between 2300-0700. Why couldn't you vector people on Visual Approaches? That's what I requested, and you approved it. So IMHOP, that's realistic.

 

Now how about AIRCRAFT RESTRICTIONS. Seriously guys, we want to follow FAA procedures, then why are we letting they massive heavies fly into these airports. It seems like its something that we could some what easily change.

[Guest Cameron Laramee]

Max, the reason that Aspen is considered unsafe at night is because of the mountains that you cant see. For that reason, a visual approach is the absolute most unsafe approach. You declined the Roaring Fork Visual to runway 15 because it is unauthorized at night; did you really think that a straight visual would be safer? The LOC/DME-E with a straight in approach to runway 15 is the safest approach to the field; you can follow the minimums all the way down and be completely protected from terrain.

[Guest Max Enis]

Max, the reason that Aspen is considered unsafe at night is because of the mountains that you cant see. For that reason, a visual approach is the absolute most unsafe approach. You declined the Roaring Fork Visual to runway 15 because it is unauthorized at night; did you really think that a straight visual would be safer? The LOC/DME-E with a straight in approach to runway 15 is the safest approach to the field; you can follow the minimums all the way down and be completely protected from terrain.

 

Correct, don't get me wrong, you definitely brought up some very good points. But the point I am trying to get across is that, the airport really isn't unsafe at night.

 

ARPT CLSD 2300-0700.

 

It is closed between 2300-0700 (11PM to 7AM) which technically means that it has been dark already for 5-6 Hours depending on the season. So there is a difference between the airport being closed and no operation at all, and not being able to follow procedures approved at night.

 

Take a look at SkyWest 6350. It is scheduled to arrive from Denver at 10:14pm. Do you think that they are flying approaches that are not a approved at night?

 

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SKW6 ... /KDEN/KASE

 

On another note.

 

ARPT RESTRICTED TO MAXIMUM ACFT WINGSPAN OF 95 FT.

 

Technically, nothing above a 737 should be getting in there.

[Guest Yun Chase]

OK. This is my last post, I promise. :D

 

...The LOC/DME-E with a straight in approach to runway 15 is the safest approach to the field; you can follow the minimums all the way down and be completely protected from terrain.

 

And then what???

 

What the above quote basically tells me is that, instead of crashing 5 miles out… LOC/DME will help you crash 1 mile out….I suppose that is better… ;)

 

Cam, the thing you fail to realize is that an Instrument Approach does not end at the MAP fix… it actually includes the Missed Approach Procedure as well... And at night time in a mountainous area like KASE, not only is the circling maneuver a very risky proposition, but flying the missed approach becomes extremely challenging as well.

 

Cam, when FAA decided that no published Instrument Approaches are safe for night operations into KASE, they are really addressing all real world Instrument rated pilots…. They’re not dealing with simulator folks like us, but rather they’re dealing with real world Instrument rated, Commercial rated and even ATP rated pilots…. They’re telling every one of those real world pilots (with some having potentially thousands of hours of real world flying, mind you) that no published instrument approaches into KASE are safe for night operations (with the exception of the unpublished approaches). So it really boggles my mind for your complete disregard for safety… and you’re so quick to brush off any concerns about it… Is it simply because the A-Team Gods have authorized this so that makes it a safe operation? :?

 

When you become a real world pilot, I fear for your passengers on the types of decisions that you might make… it really shows me your thought process as you try to explain how simple the approach can be at night… gives me goose bumps thinking about it… :shock:

 

Look, if you want this to be a “Challenge” event, then call it a “Challenge” event that is free of all rules and regulations… and then all of us can just dive into the soup and see who comes out at the other end… But in a Regional Circuit, I fully expect this to be a realistic event with all rules applied…. If the “Procedure is NA at night”, then it simply should not be flown at night during the RC…. Fly it all you want during free hours…day or night…. uncontrolled or whatever… but during the RC, I think we should follow the published instructions by the FAA… make it as realistic as possible… that’s what we do at BVATC… we should hold high standards... even if that means we may have to change the server time...I would be fine with it...

 

Sigh… you know what? I’m out of breath… you win this argument buddy… let’s just have a LOC/DME party next Tuesday night… and while at it… let’s crank up the weather down to the minimums that night and have some real “fun” that you speak of… I can't wait!!! 8-)

[Guest Cameron Laramee]

Just like other "discussions" I have seen here, this one has finally dropped down to a personal attack on my character, and, therefore, it is time for me to take my leave. I leave you with this: I would NEVER, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES stretch or break any rules, regulations, or recommendations in the real world. In fact, I am constantly accused of being too conservative and cautions when I am flying or driving in the real world. What this really comes down to is our differing opinions about the simulation world. Clearly, we have very different ideas about how the simulation world should work compared to the real world, and there, I believe that we can agree to disagree.

[Guest Yun Chase]

Just like other "discussions" I have seen here, this one has finally dropped down to a personal attack on my character, and, therefore, it is time for me to take my leave. I leave you with this: I would NEVER, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES stretch or break any rules, regulations, or recommendations in the real world. In fact, I am constantly accused of being too conservative and cautions when I am flying or driving in the real world. What this really comes down to is our differing opinions about the simulation world. Clearly, we have very different ideas about how the simulation world should work compared to the real world, and there, I believe that we can agree to disagree.

 

Yikes... make sure to get some R&R before you work Tuesday night... would hate to get controlled by someone unstable... virtual or real...

[Guest Cameron Laramee]

I'm a college student, R&R doesn't exist....:)

[Guest Lucas Kaelin]

...The LOC/DME-E with a straight in approach to runway 15 is the safest approach to the field; you can follow the minimums all the way down and be completely protected from terrain.

And what of VFR traffic? There's no restriction I could find on them. I flew out of then back into ASE during the RC, VFR with no instruments tuned or flight plans. A VFR C185 certainly isn't worth of the same restrictions of a part 139 carrier, but if it's unsafe for pilots with hundreds or thousands of hours, in that terrain, why would it be any safer for one who's only got 100?

 

Look, if you want this to be a “Challenge” event, then call it a “Challenge” event that is free of all rules and regulations… and then all of us can just dive into the soup and see who comes out at the other end…

I don't think you get the idea of a challenge event. As the VFR Challenge planner, I'm not just talking about those, but all challenge events. The challenge events are intented to challenge the skills of the pilot in adverse or difficult conditions while still complying with regulations. I can't think of any challenge event which has encouraged risky or unsafe pilot behavoir.

 

BVA events are established for the fun of flying and trying new things. There are general rules to respect other pilots, follow controller instructions, and not be disruptive to the server. We don't always comply with all the FAR's (like ASE @ night, multiple ATC sectors combined into large areas), but we do have a respect and patient learning environment in the server.

 

I believe the "dive into the soup" you may be referring to is the last AK VFR Challenge, when PASI Sitka was marginal to IFR and back frequently. We encouraged pilots to make their own judgement calls on conditions, deciding to continue or divert. Dan and I both held for about 10 mins in the clear off to the east while discussing and coming to a decision to attempt it. I'm certain many other pilots resorted to instrument flight, and cheapened the challenge experience. However, I'll be the first to admit those conditions were of high difficulty for any pilot trying to maintain VFR. Honestly had it been a real world situation, I would have diverted to the next field which was better. But since in the sim I'm not likely to kill myself, and I believed I could maintain VMC to find the airport I figured why not give it a shot. If at any time I was unable to operate the aircraft safely I planned to 180 back the way I came and continue to the next field once in better conditions. Even real world VFR pilots are faced with this situation occasionally, and it takes a brave or foolish man to attempt something that risky. That was the first VFR Challenge where we didn't reboot the server and set the weather to clear and a million. And henceforth we likely won't be rebooting the server. It will be upon the discretion of the pilot to decide whether they are able to safely continue the event complying with the spirit of the event. Obviously an event for VFR aircraft shouldn't include all IFR airports, but you may indeed find one that forces a decision to bypass in order to continue on, just to challenge the participating pilots.

 

Many of our newer pilots may not be aware of all regulations and restrictions (like landing an A380 subbed as B747 at ASE, or flight into known icing with a C172). But that doesn't mean they can't learn. When I first started with BVA I tried many things, some of them not entirely legal, but was permitted to try them after asking permission from typically Evan.

 

Maybe the A-team needs to address the aircraft realism issue. I'm not saying you can't fly an A380 during the ASE getaway, but maybe you shouldn't be flying it other than the airports that it's actually capable of handling. We do set restrictions on the VFR Challenge because the nature of the airports which are chosen. If no restrictions were set, there would undoubtedly be someone who tried to land a King Air on a 3000ft dirt strip with field elevation of 8000ft. It's not a realistic challenge. You could technically fly a King Air at a light weight at 150KIAS (the restriction on a VFR Challenge) for the event and attempt it, but I would certainly hope one of the Admins would encourage you to comply with the spirit of the event, instead of trying to make the challenge as difficult as possible.

 

So inevitably "Hey, can't we all just be friends?!" :lol:

 

And if you see someone who's doing something unreasonable or completely unreaslistic to an event or the BVA server please be sure to tell an A-team member, or senior BVA member so that the issue can be addressed.

[Devon Hathaway]

Okay seems like this is getting wayyyy out of hand. Chase you are wayy out of line attacking Cameron for what would be HIS opinion, and vice versa. I understand the argument here and i believe both sides are right AND both sides are wrong. I believe the reason Evan or someone from the A-team hasn't piped up yet is because this could be construed as a 'delicate' subject. You both need to cool down and probably let it slide. Luke make a very good point and i was actually just thinking that today while watching this thread heat up...y'all are so focused on Aspen being closed after 11PM and the Approaches not being allowed after dark...it is not THAT big of a deal, and it DEFINITELY does not need to result in comments on each others personal character! That is just uncalled for and childish.

 

For you guys that don't like it, just don't fly it. End of story, nuff said. Just because we make an exception for an event, that should not in any way shape or form change who BVA is and what we stand for. Your right it isn't a game but it isn't real life either, it is a Simulation as such the parameters can sometimes be tweaked