Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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
-
walk in the park
-
Pucker factor just watching that vid, can't imagine being there. Thanks for posting, very cool.
-
That airport exceeds my capabilities as a passenger. I couldn't have made that one. whew!
-
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.
-
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
-
What do you mean Gixer? It looks pretty straight forward to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNqY9UY_82E&NR=1
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Do you actually have any real world flying experience yourself or are you just comparing to high alt bases in AH? :lol
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
-
Pretty good piloting to land there.
Why do Brits always say "There we are" when it should be "here we are"..?
-
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? :lol
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.
-
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
-
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
-
Of course flying at high altitude in mountainous terrain demands respect. However considering the Twin-Otter has about twice the service ceiling of your H500 it has a lot more reserve power at 9000 feet than your heli. Considering the DHC-6 has a landing speed of 80 knots at sea level, at 9000 feet it would still be less than the normal landing speed of jet airliners at sea level.
I have a feeling Lukla is a good-weather only airport.
-
The Tecnams P92 and P96 are constantly landing at altiports in the Alps, and we are talking 100 HP engine light airplanes, not much power to spare.
These runways require a different approach, with a decision point where you have to commit to the landing, as there is no second chance for a go-around.
Daniel
-
How on earth could you get that high on 100hp? I used to fly Rallye 100s on 100hp. With three up you could barely get above 2500 feet:eek:
The shortest field I ever landed in was 416 metres (1364feet) in a Cessna 172. No real margin for error but at least it's not at 9000 feet!
-
Viking could do it "no sweat."
Guess that makes us lesser beings especially with his vast experience with mountain flying proving his exceptional knowledge on the subject...
Sometimes even I think I'm funny :D
-
Originally posted by Viking
Of course flying at high altitude in mountainous terrain demands respect. However considering the Twin-Otter has about twice the service ceiling of your H500 it has a lot more reserve power at 9000 feet than your heli. Considering the DHC-6 has a landing speed of 80 knots at sea level, at 9000 feet it would still be less than the normal landing speed of jet airliners at sea level.
I have a feeling Lukla is a good-weather only airport.
I wasn't comparing the power reserves of a H500 to the Twin-Otter... It's all relevant even the mighty Otter isn't going to have the same performance at 9,000ft the pilot taking off at sea level is going to have to make considerable calculations to allow for the higher altitude landing then if he was landing at another field at or near sea level.
Even a Harrier Jump Jet is going to suffer operating at higher altitudes for example Afghanistan. Then it would operating from a ship.
I can't remember the maths calculation (and can't be bothered to google it)but for every 1,000ft there is a performance degredation for any aircraft/helicopter. Same as for every deg increase in temp or increase in moisture content in the air. Get a very hot/humid day and you have double the problems.
It's just basic met and aircraft tech papers, even PPL theory covers it.
...-Gixer