Here's a kinda stupid question for SF Bay Area pilots.

Today is a nice day for some practice approaches in actual. We've got
ceilings in the 1800-2000 level, stratus, no precip or wind, generally
benign.

Okay, so I thought I'd head over from PAO and log some approaches at
the usual suspects: KLVK, KSCK, KTCY, maybe KOAK.

Thing is, getting back to PAO. There's no GPS in the A/C I fly so the
GPS-31 at PAO is out. Similarly, asking for the VOR/DME-31 seems to
result in endless, endless vectoring over San Jose.

So the best way to get back to PAO is VFR. Okay, but say I'm on an IFR
flight plan, coming over the Sunol Pass at 3000 or 4000 ft (in IMC or
on top). It's good VFR at 1500 ft. How do I get down there? They won't
give me an IFR descent to that low. It seems like the trans-bay scud
run is the right way to get back to PAO, but how to get down?

Of course, the problem is the 2500 ft or so needed to clear the Sunol
Pass. If not for that, after my last approach on the other side I's
just cancel and head over VFR.

Any advice?

Dave J

-- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

Okay, it's generally considered bad form to follow up your own post,
but looking at things, it looks like an approach to HWD or SJC,
followed by cancelling and proceeding VFR to PAO would work.

-- dj

DJ,
I never scud run in bad weather over a route that I have not 'surveyed' in
good weather. Every route has its limitations.
The Carqunez Straits have orange balls on the wires now but
You should know that above all the wires you can see by about
ten feet is another wire you won't see in time to miss it. Fly over
the towers ONLY. Fly your SVFR routes in good conditions to take the stress
out of doing it when weather is poor.

The absolute lowest route could well be by way of Susun
Bay. Never fly along the shoreline of a river used by large ships.
600' towers live there. The valley into Hayward from Dublin has
a power line. Don't fly it until you have flown over it's towers to
find your MSA (Minimum Safe Altitude)

Go from Benicia to Vallejo via freeway and then use your radio to
get through Oakland's airspace SVFR if you must. 600' will do it.

Watch out for errors in ATC instructions. Once I was told to fly
to the middle of the San Mateo Bridge enroute to PAO. My
early experience in Florida during the war taught me that a causeway was not
a bridge. I took three heads-up calls by me to get ATC
to realize that they were vectoring me right into SFO final approach
corridor which is over a bridge that has a long causeway to the west.

Use good weather as an opportunity to determine your MSA both for weather
and night. Hardly a year goes by that some high-time
pilot in the Bay Area gets down to get under when he should'nt.
Gene Whitt

> Never fly along the shoreline of a river used by large ships.
> 600' towers live there.

What towers are these? Are you referring to the masts? (Even the
original Queen Mary is only three hundred and something)

Or are you referring to the supports for wires and bridges to cross the
river high enough to let the ship pass?

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> wrote:
>Okay, so I thought I'd head over from PAO and log some approaches at
>the usual suspects: KLVK, KSCK, KTCY, maybe KOAK.
>
>Thing is, getting back to PAO. There's no GPS in the A/C I fly so the
>GPS-31 at PAO is out. Similarly, asking for the VOR/DME-31 seems to
>result in endless, endless vectoring over San Jose.


When I visited the Norcal TRACON facility last year, their advice
for getting the PAO VOR/DME-31 approach was to prefile. Asking for
this approach as a pop-up pretty much guarantees 45-60 minutes of
vectoring and/or holding. So I would suggest before departure, pick
one of the outlying airports, and prefile IFR from there to PAO.
After your practice approaches, land and open your prefiled IFR flight
plan.

Alternatively, you could ask for the Moffet ILS approach, then go
VFR or SVFR to PAO.

How do you get this approach? Isn't Moffet restricted without prior
permission to GA? I'd love to use that technique instead of shotting
the HWC LOC and going low over the bay...

Ross Oliver wrote:
> Alternatively, you could ask for the Moffet ILS approach, then go
> VFR or SVFR to PAO.

Yeah! There's a Moffet ILS approach? It's not in the regular charts.
Maybe in some military addendum? Are those flyable by civilians like
us? I'm pretty sure landing is out of the question, but if we could use
the approach, that would be perfect!

-- dave j

max wrote:
> How do you get this approach? Isn't Moffet restricted without prior
> permission to GA? I'd love to use that technique instead of shotting
> the HWC LOC and going low over the bay...
>
> Ross Oliver wrote:
> > Alternatively, you could ask for the Moffet ILS approach, then go
> > VFR or SVFR to PAO.

Taking a look at the airnav entry for Moffett (www.airnav.com/airport/KNUQ),
there is a published ILS RW 32R approach:

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0501/00410I32R.PDF

This should be in the SW-2 (20 Jan 2005) approach plates (which I don't
have physically in front of me right now to verify).

-- Dane

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>Yeah! There's a Moffet ILS approach? It's not in the regular charts.
>Maybe in some military addendum? Are those flyable by civilians like
>us? I'm pretty sure landing is out of the question, but if we could use
>the approach, that would be perfect!
>
>-- dave j
>
>max wrote:
>> How do you get this approach? Isn't Moffet restricted without prior
>> permission to GA? I'd love to use that technique instead of shotting
>> the HWC LOC and going low over the bay...
>>
>> Ross Oliver wrote:
>> > Alternatively, you could ask for the Moffet ILS approach, then go
>> > VFR or SVFR to PAO.
>

Dave,
You can find & download the approaches for Moffett (KNUQ) at Airnav.com but
that site *currently* references the last update cycle (0501 - 20 Jan 05).
To ensure you get the chart from the current cycle (0502 - 17 Feb 05), check
the source: https://164.214.2.62/products/digitalaero/index.cfm#term2

(Granted, the chart may not have changed since the 0501 cycle but it's
always best to check the fine print along the chart's margin just to be sure
you're looking at the current info.)

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Yeah! There's a Moffet ILS approach? It's not in the regular charts.
> Maybe in some military addendum? Are those flyable by civilians like
> us? I'm pretty sure landing is out of the question, but if we could use
> the approach, that would be perfect!
>
> -- dave j
>
> max wrote:
>> How do you get this approach? Isn't Moffet restricted without prior
>> permission to GA? I'd love to use that technique instead of shotting
>> the HWC LOC and going low over the bay...
>>
>> Ross Oliver wrote:
>> > Alternatively, you could ask for the Moffet ILS approach, then go
>> > VFR or SVFR to PAO.
>

It is my opinion that by shooting this approach, you are opening
yourself up to a possible violation. Let me explain... take a look at
the missed approach procedure for this IAP. You will note that it
requires you to track direct a TACAN, then a radial out of it to an
intersection. I believe if they wanted to, a fed could easily give you
a violation for not having the appropriate equipment for the approach.

Lynne

Dane Spearing wrote:
> Taking a look at the airnav entry for Moffett
(www.airnav.com/airport/KNUQ),
> there is a published ILS RW 32R approach:
>
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0501/00410I32R.PDF
>
> This should be in the SW-2 (20 Jan 2005) approach plates (which I
don't
> have physically in front of me right now to verify).
>
> -- Dane

> It is my opinion that by shooting this approach, you are opening
> yourself up to a possible violation. Let me explain... take a look at
> the missed approach procedure for this IAP. You will note that it
> requires you to track direct a TACAN, then a radial out of it to an
> intersection. I believe if they wanted to, a fed could easily give you
> a violation for not having the appropriate equipment for the approach.

So request the approach with an alternate missed approach procedure.
They can grant it or not. If they do, and it fits your equipment,
you're all set. IF they don't, it's their polite way of saing "go away".

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose,
In the northern reaches of San Francisco Bay there are rivers
flowing in from the the interior of California. Ships go all the way
to Sacrameto and Stockton. Power lines cross these waterways.

On either side of the rivers there are much higher than normal power lines
(200') needed to hold the power lines above the ships sailing
up/down river. They vary in height lbut in excess of 600' is not unusual.
These power lines love to eat low flying aircraft.

Therefore flying close along the shorlines or even along the river
can be relatively dangerous.

gene Whitt

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Never fly along the shoreline of a river used by large ships.
>> 600' towers live there.
>
> What towers are these? Are you referring to the masts? (Even the
> original Queen Mary is only three hundred and something)
>
> Or are you referring to the supports for wires and bridges to cross the
> river high enough to let the ship pass?
>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Lynne wrote:
> It is my opinion that by shooting this approach, you are opening
> yourself up to a possible violation. Let me explain... take a look at
> the missed approach procedure for this IAP. You will note that it
> requires you to track direct a TACAN, then a radial out of it to an
> intersection. I believe if they wanted to, a fed could easily give you
> a violation for not having the appropriate equipment for the approach.

I don't know about current Garmin 430 databases, but their simulator
has the PAULZ intersection in there. As for getting cleared into
Moffett, umm, you might have a better chance at getting an approach
into Nellis or Beale (NOT!). Maybe I'm wrong though. Also if you
get an approach into Moffett, they will still have to vector you
all around the bay area. You might as well get the approach into PAO.

DA for the Moffet ILS 32R is 227. MDA
for PAO is I think 460 so it is not that much better....then again
I shooting the approach into PAO to minimums must be fun since that
runway is so small. I've shot practice approaches there and have
landed there many many times but doing it to minimums must be fun.

Gerald

> Lynne wrote:
>
>> It is my opinion that by shooting this approach, you are opening
>> yourself up to a possible violation. Let me explain... take a look at
>> the missed approach procedure for this IAP. You will note that it
>> requires you to track direct a TACAN,

Doesn't matter. You request an alternate missed approach. That makes
the published missed irrelavant.

Yeah, I thought about this, and having done a lot of hangar flying in
the various flying club lounges at PAO, I've never heard of anyone
doing this. I'd bet it's off limits. And the vectoring would likely be
the same.

Actually, it's not quite clear to me why they're so willing to give the
PAO GPS approach and not the VOR/DME. They're both in the "same general
area." The VOR/DME obviously, is based on the SJC VOR, but with radar
vectors to the FAC rather than a flyover of the VOR I don't see why it
has to be so much more disruptive to SJC traffic as the PAO.

It's just one of those unknowables.

By the way, are the Moffett approaches in the NOS approach books? If
so, why? They are not in the Jepps.

PS -- It would be a truly lovely thing if Moffett were open to GA.
Imagine being able to rent a tiedown without being on a multi-year
waiting list!

-- dave j

> As for getting cleared into
> Moffett, umm, you might have a better chance at getting an approach
> into Nellis or Beale (NOT!). Maybe I'm wrong though. Also if you
> get an approach into Moffett, they will still have to vector you
> all around the bay area.

wrote:
....
> PS -- It would be a truly lovely thing if Moffett were open to GA.
> Imagine being able to rent a tiedown without being on a multi-year
> waiting list!

Let us not hold our breath. Last I knew, not only the feds but the
adjacent cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale were dead-set against it.

As for pop-up approaches into PAO, might as well try for a pop-up into
SJC, cancel IFR, and scud-run across the top of Moffett (the de-facto
PAO approach for years).


--
Weav PP ASEL IA about 10 years uncurrent