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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
