KASE Night IFR
« on: January 16, 2013, 09:59:08 pm »
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-)
Chase
Private Pilot
Airplane Single Engine Land
Instrument Airplane
Based in Mansfield - 1B9 (25nm SW of KBOS)

Re: KASE Night IFR
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2013, 10:35:05 pm »
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.
Cameron32-Cameron
Class B Approach - ATC Instructor
Commercial ASEL/AMEL, CFI, CFII, MEI
[email protected]
 “Folks, we have reached our cruising altitude now, so I am g

Re: KASE Night IFR
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2013, 10:59:31 pm »
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.  :)
Chase
Private Pilot
Airplane Single Engine Land
Instrument Airplane
Based in Mansfield - 1B9 (25nm SW of KBOS)

*

Evan Reiter

  • Training Administrator
  • 6181
Re: KASE Night IFR
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2013, 11:20:45 pm »
Quote from: "Cameron32"
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As mentioned here there are a separate set of procedures which are unpublished and require special FAA authorization to fly.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 These unpublished approaches are not restricted to day-only operations and its how the commercial guys make it in after sunset.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.


Evan Reiter
Training Administrator

Re: KASE Night IFR
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2013, 07:56:59 am »
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Was there an aircraft that actually used the special unpublished approach into KASE during the RC?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
Chase
Private Pilot
Airplane Single Engine Land
Instrument Airplane
Based in Mansfield - 1B9 (25nm SW of KBOS)

Re: KASE Night IFR
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2013, 10:35:37 pm »
Quote from: "gochase85"
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....
Max E. (Ameri767300) -- <a href=\"mailto:[email protected]\">[email protected]</a>

"So yea, right, go right on Victor, right on 13L, and hold short of Zulu-Echo Ibe

Re: KASE Night IFR
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2013, 11:19:02 pm »
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.
Cameron32-Cameron
Class B Approach - ATC Instructor
Commercial ASEL/AMEL, CFI, CFII, MEI
[email protected]
 “Folks, we have reached our cruising altitude now, so I am g

Re: KASE Night IFR
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2013, 12:36:26 am »
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.
Semper Fi,
John

Re: KASE Night IFR
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2013, 08:37:54 am »
Quote from: "Cameron32"
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:
Chase
Private Pilot
Airplane Single Engine Land
Instrument Airplane
Based in Mansfield - 1B9 (25nm SW of KBOS)

Re: KASE Night IFR
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2013, 10:19:00 am »
Quote
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.
Cameron32-Cameron
Class B Approach - ATC Instructor
Commercial ASEL/AMEL, CFI, CFII, MEI
[email protected]
 “Folks, we have reached our cruising altitude now, so I am g

Re: KASE Night IFR
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2013, 11:39:40 am »
Cam,

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

Quote from: "Cameron32"
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

Quote from: "Cameron32"
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…


Quote from: "Cameron32"
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.

Quote from: "Cameron32"
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.

Quote from: "Cameron32"
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-)
Chase
Private Pilot
Airplane Single Engine Land
Instrument Airplane
Based in Mansfield - 1B9 (25nm SW of KBOS)

Re: KASE Night IFR
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2013, 12:00:44 pm »
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:
Gilles | CYUL | PRP Coach | Founder of the "TANGO SQUADRON" - BVA member since July 31st 2008


Re: KASE Night IFR
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2013, 01:01:06 pm »
Quote from: "gochase85"
Quote from: "Cameron32"
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... :)
Cameron32-Cameron
Class B Approach - ATC Instructor
Commercial ASEL/AMEL, CFI, CFII, MEI
[email protected]
 “Folks, we have reached our cruising altitude now, so I am g

*

Lucas Kaelin

  • 1499
  • aka ShyFlyGuy
Re: KASE Night IFR
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2013, 01:06:51 pm »
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).

Quote from: "BVA ASE Getaway SOP"
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.
There is an art to flying;
The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams



Re: KASE Night IFR
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2013, 01:38:33 pm »
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.
Cameron32-Cameron
Class B Approach - ATC Instructor
Commercial ASEL/AMEL, CFI, CFII, MEI
[email protected]
 “Folks, we have reached our cruising altitude now, so I am g