Author Topic: This airport exceeds my capabilities (Read 707 times)

Chairboy · « **on:** January 01, 2008, 10:05:27 PM »

No bones about it, I'd want some serious training for this. Here's a filmed approach to Courchevel Airport.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNFNFZq2BFY

Slash27 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 01, 2008, 10:14:15 PM »

walk in the park

Rollins · « **Reply #2 on:** January 02, 2008, 12:05:25 AM »

Pucker factor just watching that vid, can't imagine being there. Thanks for posting, very cool.

texasmom · « **Reply #3 on:** January 02, 2008, 12:45:38 AM »

That airport exceeds my capabilities as a passenger. I couldn't have made that one. whew!

rpm · « **Reply #4 on:** January 02, 2008, 02:17:35 AM »

You think that's something, try landing a 737 at Dutch Harbor, AK.
I've made it as a passenger with my fingers AND toes crossed! I also became VERY religious.

Gixer · « **Reply #5 on:** January 02, 2008, 03:29:11 AM »

Walk in the park compared to Lukla Nepal 9,200ft high, 1,400ft runway with a 2,000 ft angled drop at the end to the valley below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUQ8K1V0MQc&feature=related

~~...-Gixer~~

Viking · « **Reply #6 on:** January 02, 2008, 03:39:27 AM »

What do you mean Gixer? It looks pretty straight forward to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNqY9UY_82E&NR=1

CyranoAH · « **Reply #7 on:** January 02, 2008, 04:41:25 AM »

Courchevel, same as all altiports, requires two special endorsements: one for mountain flying and one for the particular altiport.

I recommend this training, it's incredibly useful not only for mountain flying, but for overall pilot proficiency.

Daniel

Gixer · « **Reply #8 on:** January 02, 2008, 05:07:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
What do you mean Gixer? It looks pretty straight forward to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNqY9UY_82E&NR=1

Right.... It's 9,000ft high for starters. Add some weather, passengers and give it a try.

Not the highest but I think the highest for commerical flights of this type.

~~...-Gixer~~

Viking · « **Reply #9 on:** January 02, 2008, 06:42:20 AM »

9000 feet ... so what? The only planes operating there are STOL type planes like the Twin-Otter and Dornier in those videos. I've seen a Twin-Otter take off after only 50 metre ground roll. Even at 9000 feet that runway is more then adequate for these aircraft. And the runway is nice and flat, unlike the French one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8wmZ6hhpg8

Gixer · « **Reply #10 on:** January 02, 2008, 06:37:37 PM »

Do you actually have any real world flying experience yourself or are you just comparing to high alt bases in AH?

I can only speak from helicopter experience but I would rather attempt to land on a fence post in a confined area at sea level then a platform at 9,200 feet.

Operating at high altitude means you are in high density atmosphere e.g thin air. Which means less lift and require more power. Operating at high altitude doesn't leave much power to spare if any in some situations.

That slope on the runway isn't that big a deal, fact that it's at 6,000ft is something put it at 9,000ft and difficulty is magnified again.

~~...-Gixer~~

Ripsnort · « **Reply #11 on:** January 02, 2008, 07:54:05 PM »

Pretty good piloting to land there.

Why do Brits always say "There we are" when it should be "here we are"..?

Viking · « **Reply #12 on:** January 02, 2008, 11:41:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gixer
Do you actually have any real world flying experience yourself or are you just comparing to high alt bases in AH?

I can only speak from helicopter experience but I would rather attempt to land on a fence post in a confined area at sea level then a platform at 9,200 feet.

Operating at high altitude means you are in high density atmosphere e.g thin air. Which means less lift and require more power. Operating at high altitude doesn't leave much power to spare if any in some situations.

That slope on the runway isn't that big a deal, fact that it's at 6,000ft is something put it at 9,000ft and difficulty is magnified again.

~~...-Gixer~~

Don't be such a condescending salamander. And yes I do have some real world flying experience. Unlike your rotary-wing fly swatter these aircraft can operate at much higher altitudes, and the only effect of a 9000 feet high runway is that they need higher take-off and landing speeds. With only STOL aircraft operating there that runway is more than adequate. Oh my! The Twin-Otter needs 200 metres of runway instead of 50! The horror.

Viking · « **Reply #13 on:** January 02, 2008, 11:47:36 PM »

Yes just look how dangerous this landing looks ... he must have used half the runway.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=362424

Gixer · « **Reply #14 on:** January 03, 2008, 12:42:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Don't be such a condescending salamander. And yes I do have some real world flying experience.

Nice remark.. But anyway.

Then you'd have a full understanding of the effects of high altitude on a helicopter or plane and it's performance for every 1,000ft increase in altitude which is the point I was trying to get across.

Even a your favourite STOL aircraft that can take off at 3,000ft might crash trying to land at 9,000ft.

I can only claim about 40 hours true PnC time in the Mountains flying H500's but in that time I quickly learnt that it's an environment that needs plenty of respect when it comes to aviation fixed wing or rotary. And that's on clear days.

~~...-Gixer~~