• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
10:18AM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & Headlines"Successful go around improbable" (NDB approach)

Back to Squawk list

"Successful go around improbable" (NDB approach)

Submitted
That's a notice I haven't seen before on an approach plate. (flightaware.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Rac396
Rob Cox 3
Notice the elevation change it was a good tubing hil until someone broke an arm.Also see cape Newingham,or sparrivon.
westfly
kyle estep 3
How in the world is a cat D approach airplane supposed to stop on a 4100 foot gravel runway? Why bother to post minimums for that?
mduell
Mark Duell 3
http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/PAEH/remarks has similar remarks:

High terrain both sides and south end.
Successful go around improbable.
Last 200' runway 14 may contain parked aircraft.
Citst46
A C-17 can stop in 2/3 of that distance or less!
MultiComm
The context of the topic is off ... It says improbable IF initiated after the MAP. So apparently the FAA has encountered those trying to stretch the limits of the MAP and it has not turned out too kindly so they actually put it in print.
dmaccarter
dmaccarter 2
flyboy97222
Jason Rhew 2
I have a friend that ran a PA-31 off that runway.
umritter
Uwe Ritter 2
Check out Soldier Bar USFS Airport (85U) A challenge in and out
ITnav
Dave Purscell 1
Awesome approach. Better trim those trees every couple of years. :)
umritter
Uwe Ritter 1
Awesome video clip Ricky. I found another Maule apporach video. (Gear leg cam). Might be same approach as the clip you posted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrZJvYTdimQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player.
umritter
Uwe Ritter 1
I've attempted this via FSX in the Cessna 172 departing and let me tell you it was brutal even with my feet planted firmly on Earth. :-)
WigzellRM
Ralph Wigzell 1
How about X-Plane 10?
old51crow
Yes, as well as X-Plane 7 through 9.
WigzellRM
Ralph Wigzell 1
Gonna try when I get home tonight :)
WigzellRM
Ralph Wigzell 1
Just landed there with the B738 :D Now I gotta get it out :eek:
airplanefreakz
kyle dunst 3
That really makes me want to shoot that approach
aircmdr
Doesn't sound like Utopia to me
RobDover
Rob Dover 1
you beat me to that comment
kingsmen11
Gerald Morgan 1
many of the military dewline, bmews sites have such notices. such as the one you posted.
kingsmen11
Gerald Morgan 1
The Alaska Air National Guard lost a C-123J at Cape Ramanzof Air Force Station. The crew tried a missed approach, and crashed near the crest of the of the mountain, killing all crew members. I'm not sure what year that was, maybe 1967. The 17th Tactical Airlift Squadron out of Emendorf AFB AK, lost a C-130E at Sparavohn (spelling) AFS, but they stalled the aircraft executing the go around.
italy430
italy430 1
Ok, I do agree that the "successful go around improbable..." comment does mean that there are some obstacles that could really pose a threat to the safety of the aircraft but I gotta ask: how many of you fly past the MAP before initiating a missed approach?

I would hope that you all know that you're not guaranteed obstacle clearance if you initiate the missed approach after the MAP - on ANY approach! Of course there are buffers on all the requirements and I would imaging that the reason the warning is on the plate is because obstacles are very close to the limit of protection, ie: if you go 1 foot beyond the protected area you will crash... something like that. Sure it needs some extra attention but I find the responses here a little shocking.

Another point is that the MAP is the NDB itself. It's not like you have to rely on timing and speed to identify the MAP which is obviously less accurate. You're also heading towards the navigational facility which means that your navigational accuracy is increasing. It's an interesting approach for sure... but pull yourself together people, it's still perfectly safe to fly as long as you have the equipment and follow the procedures, ie: no sloppy flying.
devsfan
ken young 1
One airport I would shun.
flypapa
Do initate past the MAP !!!!!!!!
A1Topgun
Ron Apel 1
Notice the >7% upslope of the runway? Pretty significant.
ghaussner
ghaussner 1
...if initiated post MAP... that´s the full truth!!! So always stick to procedures!
Connrad
Conn Rad 1
airport elevation 1273 ft
uncontrolled airspace below 700' (sevenhundred)
moneybags
edward sutter 1
Hello Chip,
Could you have your father contact me?
edderoyal@cox.net
Thanks
philric
philric 1
I was the commander of this AFS back in the 70's....have seen many C-124, C-130, and DC-6 aircraft land and takeoff from our "ski slope" ... Note the slope. I was also the commander at Sparrevohn for a short time also....challenging approaches all! Great tribute to he Alaska flight crews out of "the Fort" .... (Elmendorf)
graveworks
Eric Graves 1
I think many of you are confusing 'missed approach' and 'go-around'. Initiating a missed approach passed the MAP is never recommended, as the missed approach procedure assumes a certain climb gradient from the MAP. Once you're passed the MAP, any go-around should take into consideration the departure procedure for the runway in question. In this case, there is none.
manuelh
Let's see, it was the same way when I was stationed there in 1968-69. We frequently had C-130, C-141, and C-124 aircraft land. As well as various smaller aircraft. Typically the pilot applied power after touchdown in order to make it UP the hill to the end of the runway.

A go around was possible, one pilot wanted to get a look at the runway prior to landing so he made his approach and went around. Unlucky guy ran out of fuel just before touchdown. The plane flipped on its back, but both the pilot and his passenger walked away.
flyboyseth
S.A. Bunker 1
First off, this isn't an FAA approach. The approach plate (AL-2335) was created by the Air Force, which is why it has [USAF] in parentheses next to the plate number. If it was an FAA approach, it would have [FAA] at the top next to the plate number. If it were an FAA approach, but TERPS'd/certified by an Air Force team, it would have FAA [USAF] next to the plate number. Second, a C-130 or C-17 may elect to fly the approach at speed to simulate a combat arrival at an austere airfield, then "dirty up" at the last possible moment and make an assault landing. Most of the assault strips we practice on are only 3,000 to 3,500 feet long. So the idea of flying an approach at or above the Cat D airspeed to a landing on a one way 4,100 gravel airstrip in a mountain valley is not a stretch at all, but a common practice. In addition, many of the long range, over-the-horizon radar sites in Alaska are only capable of being resupplied by C-130 on way way in, one way out gravel or dirt airstrips.
cougardad
no big deal as i've been doing this approach in a f27 & dc6 for years, the same for ketchikan, skagway, kodiak and sparrevohn..
bkeirn
Bill Keirn 1
About 20 years ago (or so-may have been 30) there was a similar statement on the approach plate for Aspen.
WigzellRM
Ralph Wigzell 1
IF INITIATED PAST MAP ---> MILITARY CERTIFIED AIRCREWS OR AUTHORIZED CONTRACT AIRCRAFT ONLY. Are there any cat D a/c that can land in that distance? Would they be able to get off again?
chalet
chalet 1
Ah, one more thing, only greasers allowed otherwise licenses will revoked right on the spot(LOL!!!)
GeorgeATC
Lots of these type approaches at former LRRS in AK...not an anomaly.
Gryphon1234
Frank Morris 1
Heck, if DC-6 (and PC-12s) can get in there what's the issue?
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
Not for public use .....there....problem solved...lol
HunterTS4
Toby Sharp 1
Nah, just climb at 2,000fpm and you should be fine
w7psk
Ricky Scott 1
Yup pretty much says it all.

MILITARY CERTIFIED AIRCREWS OR AUTHORIZED CONTRACT AIRCRAFT ONLY

That pretty much limits anyone from just bopping up there an giving it a go. And I bet they go through a ton of training before they are allowed up there solo.
lacholan
C S 1
700' AGL (above ground level) 1273 is ASL(Above Sea Level)
preacher1
preacher1 1
Think you could make the descent with that, Tobe????LOL
preacher1
preacher1 1
Still oughta be.LOL I haven't been up there in years but I don't think there are a lot of significant changes. I'm thinkin that some of the Airlines are requiring a special certification for their guys to go in there, Eagle Co. too, I think.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
A sputtering engine on the missed...
grinch59
Gene Nowak 2
For the missed approach it sounds like you need a STOL acft or maybe a Harrier.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
you've only got to climb 800 ft and make climbing left handed turn to 6300 ft
bkeirn
Bill Keirn 1
I am sure they do, we operate to Aspen, Eagle & Telluride and our 135 ops manual and SOPs have a lot to say about all of those airports.
grinch59
Gene Nowak 1
Is this the cold weather testing range for Area 51?
w7psk
Ricky Scott 4
There is no area 51, you will forget about area 51 :)
grinch59
Gene Nowak 1
So they told me when I retired from the Air Force.
mikeb5618
Mike Barbato 1
Not reading the whole thing. Says it's "improbable" only if the GA is initiated after the missed approach point.
mwf117
Sounds like Utopia to me...

[This poster has been suspended.]

THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
You're still around, spam???
pop414
pop414 0
I've done this aproach many times on my flight sim and find no difficulty at all as long as i am laying on my side.
Citabria636
James Banas 0
I did this for four years back in the early '70s with the 17TAS. Indian Mountain/Utopia Creek not even the worst. There are not really BIG mountains at the upslope end as you find at Sparrevon and Cape Newenham. I recall that Cape Newenham is 7.9% slope. You can find pics of many of the remote Alaska sites at our great website of www.firebirds.org