Aspen

[woodchucker]

Looking at flying into Aspen Tuesday if the wx holds, and leaving Sunday (flying a 172). Would likely give some friends rides, and am curious if any of you might have some preferred sightseeing routes in the area. Terrain is up there for sure, so I'm thinking of valley routes that would be fun and scenic for first-time px. Also, if you have any advice that is not published in the A/FD, feel free to share. Thanks!

 

[petrolero]

Do you have any mountain training or experience? A C172 is not a great mountain airplane. It can get you there if you are experienced flying a C172 in the mountains. If not, don't.

 

[deyoung]

Make sure you know how much space you need to make a 180. Try to make sure you know which valleys come out the other side and which are dead ends. Ideally, if you're going to be following canyons, start at the top...

 

[petrolero]

Man based on what I read in another post of yours here I'd have to strongly caution you to get some mountain training first. Aspen and other mountain airports can be done in a C172 but it is not trivial at all. You need to know which mountain passes to fly and what to do if winds are squirrelly when approaching and departing them. You really need training in mountain weather and valley flying. Winds this time of year are strong - anything over 15 knots at 12,000 and you're going to get the **** kicked out of you at the altitudes a C172 flies.

The Colorado Pilots Association doesn't like to train people in anything less than a C182. The Colorado Wing of the Civil Air Patrol flies nothing smaller than 182s. There's a reason for that.

Maybe you've had more training than I know of but your posts lead me to believe otherwise. Be safe, bro.

 

[Ozone]

Having lived in both aspen (area) and Denver area, I can tell you that almost no one uses a 172 up in the hills. In fact, my part 141 school in denver didn't let us take the planes into the mountains. My instructor once showed me the valley that leads to one of two passes to go from denver to the mountains, and it was intimidating. He said that both passes are littered with aviation parts from those who tried with inadequate equipment.

Aspen is considered quite tricky by experienced commercial pilots. For example, here's a link on how to fly in to aspen by a commercial pilot: http://www.boldmethod.com/blog/2014/01/aspen-approach/

Look at the approach plates, you have to fly over the 11,000 basalt mountain in order to land at aspen. If anything doesn't work perfectly, you will have no margin for error.

Since you are in Bountiful, why not goto Kanab or some such thing?

 

[Anthony]

Well, last time I was at Leadville the fligh school was using a 150 HP C-172 for training. No, I am NOT saying it is optimal, and agree with what others have said, especially if you're a novice to mountain flying. Take a vacation when the Colorado Pilots Association is giving their mountain flying course, then fly with an experienced mountain flyer a few times before going it alone, or schedule some time with an experienced instructor

I operated a 180 HP Tiger out of KFTG so spent a good amount of time in the mountains, and have taken the CPA mountain flying course. I chose to stay away from Aspen, but was fine going elsewhere. You can go just about anywhere at 12,500 MSL if you plan properly. I kept my Tiger WELL under gross anytime heading into the mountains.

 

[murphey]

Looking at flying into Aspen Tuesday if the wx holds, and leaving Sunday (flying a 172). Would likely give some friends rides, and am curious if any of you might have some preferred sightseeing routes in the area. Terrain is up there for sure, so I'm thinking of valley routes that would be fun and scenic for first-time px. Also, if you have any advice that is not published in the A/FD, feel free to share. Thanks!

Don't. Land at Glenwood Springs and rent a car. There are no sightseeing routes around there.

Even a 172 in cold weather, you will not be able to get over the hills. And one of 2 valley routes is NW-SE from Glenwood over Carbondale-Basalt into Aspen. Understand that Aspen is a one-way airport, regardless of weather. And the landing fee and fuel is astronomical. The other valley route is V591 but again, you end up at Carbondale.

Do not even consider McClure Pass.

But if you insist, please file VFR flight plan because flight following is very iffy out there. With the flight plan, we can let the local Sheriff know where to look for the wreckage.

Don't. Land at Glenwood Springs and rent a car.

 

[murphey]

The Colorado Pilots Association doesn't like to train people in anything less than a C182. The Colorado Wing of the Civil Air Patrol flies nothing smaller than 182s. There's a reason for that.

Colorado CAP will be moving to 206s. We can't fly the 182s with full fuel in the summer, and try not to in the winter.

 

[Ozone]

Land at Glenwood springs!?!? Have you seen that teeny tiny airport and the very mean looking red mountains on either side as well as just to the north?

In my opinion, if you decide to go anywhere near aspen, colorado, with an airplane consider landing at rifle: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KRIL

It's at an almost civilized elevation of 5400 feet and it's got a HUGE runway as well as hertz rental cars.

 

[Walt]

Aircraft performance is certainly an important aspect of planning a flight to KASE. But more importantly you should call the FBO at ASE and get an estimate of the fees for your intended flight. It may discourage you more than all that has been said here.

 

[murphey]

Land at Glenwood springs!?!? Have you seen that teeny tiny airport and the very mean looking red mountains on either side as well as just to the north?

In my opinion, if you decide to go anywhere near aspen, colorado, with an airplane consider landing at rifle: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KRIL

It's at an almost civilized elevation of 5400 feet and it's got a HUGE runway as well as hertz rental cars.

Urk! I forgot about Rifle. You're right, that would be a much better airport.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Having flown in and out of Aspen in an airplane that makes a 172 look like a stellar performer, I'd say that Aspen can be reasonably done in a 172 if you've got good mountain flying training and/or experience...or more appropriately, valley flying, because you're going to be flying through valleys and passes, not over mountains. If you don't have that, don't go. And it's not more than a two-place airplane.

Instrument procedures would be irrelevant-you don't have that kind of performance.

One of the biggest aspects of this type of flying is knowing when not to go, and that's what makes Aspen difficult for commercial operators-the company says go, and if the weather's above minimums, there's not much choice but to go. As indicated in the article, there are other factors like up- and down-slope winds and rotor that change the picture dramatically.

 

[petrolero]

Colorado CAP will be moving to 206s. We can't fly the 182s with full fuel in the summer, and try not to in the winter.

Interesting.

I know many times with 3 large dudes in those airplanes we had to start well below the tabs too. And with CAP's requirement to land with, IIRC, one hour of fuel, we often didn't have a super long time on station.

Anyway I'm wondering if the OP was just trolling since he hasn't replied. Hope he was just trolling and CAP doesn't have to go find him splattered on Independence Pass.

 

[N801BH]

Colorado CAP will be moving to 206s. We can't fly the 182s with full fuel in the summer, and try not to in the winter.

The Colorado wing had to give a REALLY nice 206 to the Jackson Wy squadren after a huge boo boo by the Cappies down there....

Thanks for the plane....

 

[MAKG1]

Colorado CAP will be moving to 206s. We can't fly the 182s with full fuel in the summer, and try not to in the winter.

I presume those are turbo 206s like elsewhere in CAP.

But saying CAP has trouble with 182s is a bit misleading. The G1000 costs 150 lb. The CAP radio and Becker cost another 150 lb. Add in three beefy adults for a standard crew, the mandatory 25-50 lb survival kit, and fuel to the tabs (64 gal), you're over the 3100 lb max gross even at sea level. There is far less issue at sea level with the older steam gauge 182s (Q and R models in NorCal).

Virtually every mission I fly in a CAP G1000 with three adults requires at least an hour airborne to get under the max landing weight. At sea level, in the winter.

The W&B for one of these things is an eye-popper. They are not flight-school 182s.

 

[narchee]

It is doable in a 172 in winter. If the weather is nice it could be a really good experience. I would personally recommend you fly first time there with a CFI. Perhaps find a CFI in Rifle that's an easy airport to land at.

A very nice scenic trip from Aspen that I've done a few times with passengers is to to depart Rwy 33, fly down the valley (stay low incoming jet traffic opposite direction!), then turn the corner left at Carbondale and fly up the Redstone Valley. Pass Marble and go through Schofield Pass. Don't do that if the winds are howling though. Fly around Crested Butte and retrace your steps. Lots of good photo opportunities and flying close to the rocks.

 

[N801BH]

I presume those are turbo 206s like elsewhere in CAP.

But saying CAP has trouble with 182s is a bit misleading. The G1000 costs 150 lb. The CAP radio and Becker cost another 150 lb. Add in three beefy adults for a standard crew, the mandatory 25-50 lb survival kit, and fuel to the tabs (64 gal), you're over the 3100 lb max gross even at sea level. There is far less issue at sea level with the older steam gauge 182s (Q and R models in NorCal).

Virtually every mission I fly in a CAP G1000 with three adults requires at least an hour airborne to get under the max landing weight. At sea level, in the winter.

The W&B for one of these things is an eye-popper. They are not flight-school 182s.

Hard to believe.....

 

[petrolero]

I presume those are turbo 206s like elsewhere in CAP.

But saying CAP has trouble with 182s is a bit misleading. The G1000 costs 150 lb. The CAP radio and Becker cost another 150 lb. Add in three beefy adults for a standard crew, the mandatory 25-50 lb survival kit, and fuel to the tabs (64 gal), you're over the 3100 lb max gross even at sea level. There is far less issue at sea level with the older steam gauge 182s (Q and R models in NorCal).

Virtually every mission I fly in a CAP G1000 with three adults requires at least an hour airborne to get under the max landing weight. At sea level, in the winter.

The W&B for one of these things is an eye-popper. They are not flight-school 182s.

Wow. I've been out of CAP for about 3 years and was inactive or minimally active for a couple years before that. But I didn't see huge problems with the normally-aspirated steam gauge 182 fleet with three-man crews. I guess that depends on how one defines the problem. I didn't ever fly in the G1000s as they were arriving as my activity was tapering off.

When I was active from 2004 to ~2010 they only had a single turbo 182 - a TR182 that they kept at Wing ( Peterson AFB ).

Going to 206s would seem to be enough for Colorado. Turbo 206s would definitely increase their performance margins and, I assume, allow a 4-man crew and still allow adequate mountain performance which gives them two scanners.

I will probably find my way back to CAP as my kids get older. Interesting changes.

 

[woodchucker]

Interesting.
Anyway I'm wondering if the OP was just trolling since he hasn't replied. Hope he was just trolling and CAP doesn't have to go find him splattered on Independence Pass.

Nope, I was just seeking expert-level advice, and I think I found it

 

[petrolero]

Nope, I was just seeking expert-level advice, and I think I found it

Fair enough. In that case I apologize. It is so easy to troll this board and occasionally people have fun spinning us up.

 

[Clark1961]

Nope, I was just seeking expert-level advice, and I think I found it

Aspen can be a challenge but the out is down valley so if the winds aren't too bad then you'll be okay (more or less). The more or less is the down valley can get real interesting at Glenwood since the valley gets narrow.

In a 160 hp 172 you'll need to be as light as you can get.

The other side of the coin is call the FBO at Aspen and beg for parking space. Not a Gulfstream? so sorry...

 

[denverpilot]

Don't. Land at Glenwood Springs and rent a car. There are no sightseeing routes around there.

To do Glenwood correctly one must be on base leg behind the mountain and not seeing the runway until you turn final, with the possibility of head-on traffic coming out since it's (generally) a one-way runway.

I wouldn't really recommend that airport for an inexperienced person either.

Were you thinking of somewhere else?

 

[Clark1961]

To do Glenwood correctly one must be on base leg behind the mountain and not seeing the runway until you turn final, with the possibility of head-on traffic coming out since it's (generally) a one-way runway.

I wouldn't really recommend that airport for an inexperienced person either.

Were you thinking of somewhere else?

Yer no fun, Murph was jus' playin' a prank!

 

[Apache123]

On the subject of Aspen being a challenge, a friend of mine wants me and a couple friends to hike Conundrum Trail just outside Aspen. Any suggestions on where to fly and drive the rest of the way in? I'm not a mountain pilot.

 

[woodchucker]

Land at Glenwood springs!?!? Have you seen that teeny tiny airport and the very mean looking red mountains on either side as well as just to the north?

In my opinion, if you decide to go anywhere near aspen, colorado, with an airplane consider landing at rifle: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KRIL

It's at an almost civilized elevation of 5400 feet and it's got a HUGE runway as well as hertz rental cars.

Thanks Ozone for that suggestion, as well as the others who are worried about my safety!

First of all, I will take this suggestion on KRIL. I called the FBO and they said that if someone is available that they will give me a lift out to the bus stop. That region does have awesome bus service.

As a theoretical aside, I'm a little curious on the some of the responses about having to fly over the tops of mountains to get into Aspen. I was doing a rough flight plan, and it seemed that you could come in from the north-west and fly down the valley, not needing anything more than 9,500.

 

[Clark1961]

Denver is a good stopping place when coming from the east, either FTG, APA, or BJC for tie-down and rental car then I-70 to Glenwood and up the Roaring Fork valley to Aspen. Accommodations and food are cheaper the further down-valley you are from Aspen.

If you're a little more adventurous then follow I-80 to about Rawlins, WY then hang a left towards Rifle, CO. Pick up a rental car there. You'll see a bit more scenery from the air but it's not really mountain flying. It will be windy between Cheyenne and Rawlins...don't fly downwind of any of the "scenery" in those parts...

 

[woodchucker]

Fair enough. In that case I apologize. It is so easy to troll this board and occasionally people have fun spinning us up.

No worries at all!
On the flip side, I've never seen so much in the way of Nooooooo, don't fly there!

For me, I'm not experienced in the mountains, but I did do my flight training in Salt Lake, and have flown through our Wasatch mountain canyons here, and landed at KEVW which is only a few hundred feet less in elevation than Aspen. So, it's why I post here. To get perspective. Last month I flew the wife to Denver, and Throttle and a few others here provided invaluable advice.

 

[Clark1961]

As a theoretical aside, I'm a little curious on the some of the responses about having to fly over the tops of mountains to get into Aspen. I was doing a rough flight plan, and it seemed that you could come in from the north-west and fly down the valley, not needing anything more than 9,500.

The potential problem is that your only "out" is that valley. It's not a huge problem but if there is any weather around then it better not close the valley exit which ends up being the Colorado River if the ceilings are too low. Then of course any winds in the valley can ruin your day and chances are that you won't be able to get away from them laterally or vertically. With the twists and turns of the valley any significant winds are going to cause a problem somewhere along the route.

 

[denverpilot]

No worries at all!
On the flip side, I've never seen so much in the way of Nooooooo, don't fly there!

For me, I'm not experienced in the mountains, but I did do my flight training in Salt Lake, and have flown through our Wasatch mountain canyons here, and landed at KEVW which is only a few hundred feet less in elevation than Aspen. So, it's why I post here. To get perspective. Last month I flew the wife to Denver, and Throttle and a few others here provided invaluable advice.

It's extremely hard to judge whether or not someone has appropriate skill and a desire for self-preservation on an Internet forum, when they say they want to fly airplanes where they can not out-climb the terrain.

Thus, the standard answer from anyone who lives here:

"Stop. Do you really want to do this without even a little training?"

Most of us have seen all the wreckage up there and heard news stories our whole lives about those who visited, did it wrong, and died. We even know a handful who knew how to do it right, who also died. They don't truck out all of the wreckage. It's right there to see if you know where to look.

A lovely young family tried the I-70 thing westbound last year, and once again, ran out of options and airspeed all at the same time, and killed themselves at the Loveland Ski Area.

It's an annual thing.

Most of us aren't going to take the chance that we can properly teach techniques best shown by a CFI in a cockpit, via posts on the Internet. There's whole books on the topic and CFIs who specialize in teaching it.

On a good day, a 172 will struggle to go to ASE but it can do it without much safety margin. That's the hard part. We all know it can be done. But we can't guarantee you a good day.

 

[N801BH]

Denver is a good stopping place when coming from the east, either FTG, APA, or BJC for tie-down and rental car then I-70 to Glenwood and up the Roaring Fork valley to Aspen. Accommodations and food are cheaper the further down-valley you are from Aspen.

If you're a little more adventurous then follow I-80 to about Rawlins, WY then hang a left towards Rifle, CO. Pick up a rental car there. You'll see a bit more scenery from the air but it's not really mountain flying. It will be windy between Cheyenne and Rawlins...don't fly downwind of any of the "scenery" in those parts...

Great advice.......

Especially the " don't fly downwind of any of the "scenery" part....

 

[chartbundle]

Going to 206s would seem to be enough for Colorado. Turbo 206s would definitely increase their performance margins and, I assume, allow a 4-man crew and still allow adequate mountain performance which gives them two scanners.

Round dial 206 you can fill the tanks and 4 seats. The T206 G1000 you can't. Ours is Empty 2401, Max: 3600. Fuel of 87 gallons: 522, CAP 'stuff' in the back 50 lbs. So, 3.6 FAA standard 170lb people. Which most of us aren't.

Obviously the standard reduced fuel of 64 gallons makes it all work out just fine, as long as you remember to lean and aren't going too far.

I'm still always amazed that takeoff fuel flow is an eye watering 34 GPH, reduced quickly to 20GPH for the climb. 70% cruise looks to be about 17-18GPH.

 

[woodchucker]

On a good day, a 172 will struggle to go to ASE but it can do it without much safety margin. That's the hard part. We all know it can be done. But we can't guarantee you a good day.

But Nate, I really wanted a good day! Come on, pleaaassseee?

To be honest, I had scrolled through only five responses and already had my mind changed. I'm not one to turn down good advice.

 

[BoxCar]

Aspen appears to have size issues with Commercial Aircraft Landing there. Are there any smaller aircraft which are fit for purpose and fit in with the constraints of the airfield?