A good point - but in your surgery example - one surgeon's skills might very well be better than anothers.
In this case - there are black and white limitations (right and wrongs) in play that make the go/no-go decision easier (in theory). I think your point plays more into those gray areas of 'it might be legal, but is it smart'.

 

I agree...and who knows how much experience that crew had in Aspen. That might have been their first time there - and being a crew from Mexico flying out of mountainous fields, they may not have seen it as such a big deal. We all know the dangers of Aspen and places like it - majority of our OpSpecs has it listed as a special airport requiring additional training (at least one pilot has had to of flown there within the past 12 months, pictorial view of the airport (jepp charts with a picture of it)...

But in the end:

Was it legal? - sure. Approach was authorizing LOC DME-E approaches to the airport; tower was clearing aircraft to land.

Was it safe? - Questionable. Aircraft that landed before them had ATIS reports of 6-9 knots, but reported gains and losses of airspeed on final.

Was it smart? - No.

 

I don't know if it was legal if POH/AFM limitations were exceeded to complete the approach. The FAA anyway, probably has a different opinion on it being "legal." ATC clearing aircraft for the approach and to land is just that, the airspace is clear and no traffic dangers or threats, airplane XYZ, you are cleared to Do X-Y-Z.

It is up to us to operate the aircraft safely, something ATC cannot do for us.

I would be filling out NASA forms if I was one of the aircraft that landed that day.

Just my two cents...

 

Here's my correction to legality (I was referring to shooting the approach and landing - the pilot is responsible for operating within the limits of his aircraft - ATC doesn't know the max tailwind for everyone):
Sure the FAA can go after the living pilot for 91.13 for careless and reckless operations, if he ever gets back in an aircraft...he was cleared to land with wind 330@16 one minute average 320@25G35. This is after they research the limitations he should have been operating within.

The pilots that landed with acknowledging a wind report that can be calculated to more than 10 knots of tailwind (wind was 320@18 on an aircraft that landed before N115WF's first go around) - obviously over 10 knots - better fill out a NASA report, but numerous aircraft landed beforehand with 6 knot winds...

 

Some circled for 33 prior to N115WF

 

Sad day for that crew but let's be honest after the go around with a 30 knot tail wind that should have been it . Why try again no one like to say the pilot was incorrect but maybe pressure to get to ASE to pickup the Bossand family they made a bad thing worse . And from reports the owner and his family saw their aircraft crash the aircraft they just bought . Again all respect the that crew but the proof shows after the first 30 knots go around that should have been it . It's ASE no room for messing around when you down in the pocket of ASE . If you can't land you can't no need to force it. I heard a few reports the aircraft that landed before that challenger had a hard time getting on and the winds were kicking hard . That crash could have been worse if the aircraft skidded off to the left when it was over 8 aircraft in taxi line waiting to go thank god that never happen . My son was a copilot on one of the aircraft in taxi line .

This crash at best opens up the topic of safety and owners can see ASE is no joke when sometimes they try to pressure crews . And more crews can now know why ASE can be a big deal .

 

What reports?

 

Bossand family??? Owner?

LiveATC - Challenger Crash - Aspen, CO - YouTube LiveATC recording of relevant audio.

Photo; https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BdyGiOpCMAAXtBD.jpg:large

 

The boss and his/her family...

 

The video of the crash: