Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gulfstream Flir Landing At Aspen (video)  
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 59
Posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11031 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

This is an F-16 on a visual landing to Aspen, Colorado at night.

The right half of the view is the pilot's normal visual path to the runway during darkness - in other words totally black.

The left side of the screen is the Forward Looking Infrared which paints the heat signature of the outside terrain for pilots so they can see at night as though it were daytime.



My question - based upon the apparent altitude (AGL) at the start of the video, is that rate of descent abnormally high?

2H4

[Edited 2008-02-14 20:53:23]


Intentionally Left Blank
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11011 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Thread starter):
This is an F-16 on a visual landing to Aspen, Colorado at night.


It's actually from a Gulfstream belonging to one of the outfits that makes EVS/FLIR equipment...

Original video is here: http://www.gulfstream.com/gulfstreamevs/evs_window.cfm and there are also clips from low-viz approaches, plus flights near terrain in Idaho and near the Tetons. Impressive technology....

As for the altitude readout, I can't even make it out...

[Edited 2008-02-14 21:07:07]

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10997 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Thanks for the correction, OPNL. That'll teach me to trust email forwards....

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10985 times:

No prob...

The low-viz clip is pretty good too... As they're going missed, they even see a bird on the EVS...


User currently offlineYYZSaabGuy From Canada, joined Jun 2006, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 10842 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Thread starter):
My question - based upon the apparent altitude (AGL) at the start of the video, is that rate of descent abnormally high?

Cool video - thanks for posting!

To address your question: descending from the 1,000' callout to 10' AGL took 48 seconds more or less, so a descent rate of approximately 1250 feet per minute. Can't find data on this forum, but I seem to recall reading that airlines target descents of approx 700 feet per minute as being best to optimize passenger comfort. If that's correct, then the Aspen sink rate was quick. On the other hand, convention might be different for bizjets, particularly those with no passengers (I'm assuming this last, given that it was obviously a test flight). In any event, the approach didn't exceed, or probably even come near, the structural limits of the airframe.


User currently offlineGkyip From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 10800 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That's nice, good video.

Would this eventually be certified to allow pilots to land purely with visual reference to the EVS or is this simply an aid to SA?

Gary



The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 10734 times:



Quoting Gkyip (Reply 5):
Would this eventually be certified to allow pilots to land purely with visual reference to the EVS or is this simply an aid to SA?

Not right now, the system is considered a "Category 1 Visual System", allowing you to descend to 100' on a CAT I approach, then you must be able to make out the field visually. Gulfstreams (the ones Ive flown at least), are not equipped with an Autoland system like your average airliner is.

Quoting YYZSaabGuy (Reply 4):
On the other hand, convention might be different for bizjets, particularly those with no passengers (I'm assuming this last, given that it was obviously a test flight).

Indeed...plus Aspen has alot of different dynamics associated with it's approaches and go-arounds, RNP, things like that. I know the pilots who flew this approach. Aspen is constantly considered as the best test-site for EVS and SV-PFD (Synthetic Vision displayed on the PFD).

It's a really neat system, dig around and you may be able to find some videos from the new EVS II...lighter, smaller, and much more capable. Seeing it superimposed on the newest HUD to be flown on the 450/550 is even better.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10679 times:



Quoting YYZSaabGuy (Reply 4):
but I seem to recall reading that airlines target descents of approx 700 feet per minute as being best to optimize passenger comfort

No, 700 - 750 fpm is the descent rate on a 3 degree glideslope in a zero wind condition. With a headwind, that value decreases and therefore increases with a tailwind.


User currently onlineKLASM83 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10667 times:

Quoting YYZSaabGuy (Reply 4):

Probably its to avoid the conveniently placed mountains along the approach. DME+OR+GPS-C" target="_blank">This shows that there is some interesting terrain on approach. It also indicates that from the 6 DME of DBL to 11 DME you go from 12200 to about the ASE airfield TPA, or something close to it.

Working every day here (esp at night) the planes-both the biz jets and the pax planes- seem just to drop in and at the last minute stabilizes to make a pretty good landing.

edited for error I saw

[Edited 2008-02-15 20:26:50]


Don't you want to hang out and waste your life with us?
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10521 times:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MOCIikZ4tCU&feature=user

Here is an excellent video of the G450 HUD in use, with the EVS operating. This HUD appears in the PlaneView equipped G350/450/500/550.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10484 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 2):
That'll teach me to trust email forwards....

.......and you're an A.net Editor....??? What happened to checking your facts before posting.....??? I think the dead give away would be the two pilots talking about the pre-landing check list and which taxiway they wanted to take.  Smile

[Edited 2008-02-16 19:27:17]


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10427 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting EMBQA (Reply 10):

Sorry, EMB. The version I was sent didn't have sound, and I don't typically make a point to learn HGS symbology unless I'm the one flying the approach.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 10):
What happened to checking your facts before posting.....???

I asked you the same thing when you claimed that the spoilers on "most aircraft" lift very slightly when the flaps are retracted. Still waiting for an explanation on that one...  Wink

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10363 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11):
Still waiting for an explanation on that one...

Who..? What...? Big grin Don't know to what you refer...?

Yea, that video is a few years old. I saw it first maybe 3 years ago. VERY cool system.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2110 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10210 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Thread starter):
My question - based upon the apparent altitude (AGL) at the start of the video, is that rate of descent abnormally high?

They were on autopilot from the beginning of the video until just below 1,000', just an fyi.


Very cool video, thanks for sharing!



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineSprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1853 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10196 times:



Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 6):
Not right now, the system is considered a "Category 1 Visual System", allowing you to descend to 100' on a CAT I approach, then you must be able to make out the field visually. Gulfstreams (the ones Ive flown at least),

DeltaGuy, have you flown with these systems? If yes, does the fact that the EVS is about 5 feet below you mess with you depth perception? In the video, the numbers go by first on the "normal" vision and then on the EVS. Seems to me that would be a little disorienting at first.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 10174 times:



Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 1):

It's actually from a Gulfstream belonging to one of the outfits that makes EVS/FLIR equipment..

That funny because throughout the entire video I was thinking "Why is a F-16 landing at Aspen?"  Silly


User currently offlineDragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 10162 times:

Maybe we can get the thread title changed to something more appropriate? A good video and technology, watched it on the Gulfstream site a few weeks ago.


Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineDonnieCS From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9995 times:

The Gulfstream EVS system was a decent system but not perfect. The image it the HUD had a tendency to appear left or right of center when used with the HUD unless "sited" exactly on target (better than required per the CMP card). Also unless it was CAVOK outside the EVS image didn't quite live up to standard. The joke is the best that the EVS will work is in the simulator and most operators will say the system was nice but waste of money and they don't have a lot of faith in it.

On a few occasions the EVS has help us out as our fleet only hold Cat 1 certification. A HUD and EVS combination is a sort of easy way to maintain a quasi CAT 2 certification. On a HUD/EVS equipped Gulfstream during HUD/EVS operations, only the PF has to identify the runway environment at DH, then you’re allowed to decent another 100' not to exceed 100" AGL. After you descend another 100' below DH, the PNF has to have visual on the runway landing environment and the responsibility for the go-around call then lies on the PNF. So theoretically in laymen’s terms on a CAT 1 certified aircraft with the HUD/EVS system you can go to CAT II minima (even on a CAT 1 approach), that’s if you have faith in your EVS and it picks up the runway at 200'.

Gulfstream just released an ASC for a "generation II" system that is supposed to be quite a bit better than the first generation system, although I don't have any experience with it. Generation II has now been incorporated into production as an option but I don’t believe any operators have yet upgraded their pre generation II systems.

The video posted was of a generation 1 system without the HUD image. It has some HUD symbology in the video but is the image displayed on the cockpit (via CDU, Airshow display or on the Planeview system).

By the way this is my first meaningful airliner.net post after observing for quite some time, so I hope this is up to the appropriate technical standard and hello to all the .netters out there!



Charlie - Gulfstream flight mechanic
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9993 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting DonnieCS (Reply 17):
this is my first meaningful airliner.net post after observing for quite some time

Welcome sir...great to have you aboard!

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4280 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9669 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Thread starter):
My question - based upon the apparent altitude (AGL) at the start of the video, is that rate of descent abnormally high?

Having dispatched planes into ASE, I can tell you what I know about the airport. The approach into ASE uses a descent angle of 9.69 Degrees (Source: Jepp 13-1 plate for ASE). Thats over three times the normal 3 degree descent rate. So yes, the rate of descent is a little high, but like LCY, this is normal procedure. The lowest minimums you will get in ASE will be 2 or 3 miles, depending on the approach category (Cat D ac not authorized to shoot the VOR/GPS C approach), with a decision height of 2380 AGL (or 10,200 MSL). Also, the MCA at the final approach fix is 12,200, which is 6.4 miles from the runway threshold. That means you have 6.4 miles to descent nearly 4,400 feet to land. Thats steep.

Air Wisconsin had a special procedure for ASE exclusive to them when they flew the 146's into there, which made the minimums a bit lower. But its still one tough airport to navigate. I still can't believe the FAA is letting Skywest fly RJ's into that place.


User currently onlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1528 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9610 times:

Only been to ASE in the sim, but it does take a higher rate of descent to make the field than most places. High altitude airport, so the true airspeed is going to be higher than at normal elevations. This is going to lead to higher groundspeeds necessitating a higher descent rate. I think you only have 6.5 miles or something like that to lose almost 5000 ft on the VOR approach.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Gulfstream Flir Landing At Aspen (video)
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
JetBlue Emerg Landing At RSW posted Mon Oct 8 2007 07:04:33 by Stratosphere
Aborted Landing At BUR posted Tue Dec 26 2006 19:19:46 by ArcrftLvr
Cabin Lighting At Take-off And Landing At Night posted Mon Dec 18 2006 03:04:40 by Goodday
UPS 757 Landing At Night W/o Lights? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 08:00:51 by Motopolitico
Zero Flap Landing At TRF Today (Ryanair) posted Tue May 16 2006 21:51:38 by MerlinIIIB
Landing At Heathrow posted Wed Jul 13 2005 00:46:35 by Rwylie77
Landing At NCE posted Tue May 18 2004 06:57:56 by VS346
Landing At Heathrow. posted Wed Feb 11 2004 19:56:00 by Codeshare
Hard Landing At SNA posted Thu Oct 30 2003 06:29:53 by FlyLAX
Feasibility Of Landing At ASE Rwy 33 & SXM Rwy 27 posted Sun Sep 21 2003 17:58:34 by Phatfarmlines

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format