Hello,
My and my slow airplane are based at San Carlos, CA. Got up this
morning, looked out the window - the whole bay is blanketed in coastal
stratus. We get a lot of mornings like that.

Having gotten the rating last year, it sure would be nice to keep
proficient. The usual IFR practice run around here is to go out to the
valley and do the Stockton-Tracy-Livermore loop. Or to go out to
Watsonville/Monterey/Salinas. Either of these are a bit time consuming
because you actually have to fly somewhere.

I'm thinking of filing a pair of IFR flight plans - SQL to LVK and
LVK-SQL. Or maybe even SQL-OAK,OAK-SQL OR SQL-HWD-SQL. Sort of an
IFR version of pattern practice. Yielding the max practice per unit
time & fuel. Any Bay Area locals doing such? Or is the airspace just
way to busy to even contemplate it?

- Jerry Kaidor ( )

Have you tried just calling up clearance delivery "N1234, request local
IFR for multiple approaches at SQL and LVK".

That's how we do it here in Temple Texas, but admittedly your airspace
is a bit more crowded than ours :)

--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

John Clonts wrote:
> Have you tried just calling up clearance delivery "N1234, request local
> IFR for multiple approaches at SQL and LVK".

they'll probably laugh at you. SQL is right under the approach path
of SFO. In fact no practice approaches are allowed there. So they
might clear you for one but you'll be holding for 45 minutes each. But
certainly coming back home it is fine and I've done it a number of
times. LVK is fine.

for the original poster, if you need a safety pilot let me know. Will
trade my time for one beer at Izzy's per approach. :) The same goes
for you if I need one.

Gerald

Jerry wrote:
> Hello,
> My and my slow airplane are based at San Carlos, CA. Got up this
> morning, looked out the window - the whole bay is blanketed in coastal
> stratus. We get a lot of mornings like that.
>
> Having gotten the rating last year, it sure would be nice to keep
> proficient. The usual IFR practice run around here is to go out to the
> valley and do the Stockton-Tracy-Livermore loop. Or to go out to
> Watsonville/Monterey/Salinas. Either of these are a bit time consuming
> because you actually have to fly somewhere.
>
> I'm thinking of filing a pair of IFR flight plans - SQL to LVK and
> LVK-SQL. Or maybe even SQL-OAK,OAK-SQL OR SQL-HWD-SQL. Sort of an
> IFR version of pattern practice. Yielding the max practice per unit
> time & fuel. Any Bay Area locals doing such? Or is the airspace just
> way to busy to even contemplate it?
>
> - Jerry Kaidor ( )
>

There's good reason those are the standard IFR practice routes for the
bay. They are low traffic, and they both have cruddy weather, even
when other parts of the bay are CAVU.

I am personally not fond of the LVK route, because its no radar, busy,
and typically more clearer than stockton. My instructor likes MRY,
I like stockton. Crappy weather, radar, and lots of open flat space.

Jerry,
It's been a few years since I flew down to San Jose to watch your first
solo. Good to here that flying is keeping you young. Now
about Bay Area IFR practice.

I like to begin at South County since that makes a cross-country.
We do a pop-up into San Jose and once in contact with the tower request
tower enroute to Palo Alto. Easy flight straight out 30
and make left turn direct Palo Alto. (Never went into San Carlos
so can't say procedure) When in contact with Palo Alto Tower
request tower en route to Hayward. When cleared we get radar vectors into
Hayward. When in contact with tower request low approach and tower en route
to Oakland. The clearance takes you to the left circiling Haward and
intercepting ILS into Oakland. When in contact with tower request published
missed with hold at Pieer (sp) then ask NorCal for tower enroute to CCR or
APC.
Should you land at Napa (APC) you will need to file with FSS.
Personally I depart SVFR, contact Travis and get theLDA into Concord.

Interesting element of flight is that it approximates the same amount of
time taken VFR.

Side item:
FAA is working on an ILS 36 approach into Napa.

Gene Whitt

Speaking of quickie IFR practice... well, not so much real varied
practice, but a cheap way to stay legally current...

I fly out of Palo Alto and just yesterday did a bunch of approaches
into Moffet Field. Moffett is closed to public traffic, so you can't
actually land, but you can fly the approaches. I flew the ILS 28R and
LOC-only for about 6 approaches in a bit more than one hour. You're
flying totally pilot nav, so you're responsible for getting back to the
IAF (or less far if you want to start closer in) on your own (here's
where a safety pilot is good for "vectors").

I was amazed at how quickly I could get a bunch of shots in, and its
nice to have an ILS so close to home. I'm even going to consider it in
the future as an alternative to get into PAO. (Shoot the NUQ ILS and
then scud over to PAO)

One major caveat: The missed approach is based off NUQ -- a TACAN. That
means no course guidance -- though DME works. If you were to fly this
for real, you'll *need* a different plan for your missed. However, as
VFR practice, you can make up another fix.

Minor caveat: You'll see these approaches in the gov't plates, but not
in the Jepps unless you get the military subscription.

Anyway, kinda cool.

-- dave j

Jerry wrote:
> Hello,
> My and my slow airplane are based at San Carlos, CA. Got up this
> morning, looked out the window - the whole bay is blanketed in coastal
> stratus. We get a lot of mornings like that.
>
> Having gotten the rating last year, it sure would be nice to keep
> proficient. The usual IFR practice run around here is to go out to the
> valley and do the Stockton-Tracy-Livermore loop. Or to go out to
> Watsonville/Monterey/Salinas. Either of these are a bit time consuming
> because you actually have to fly somewhere.
>
> I'm thinking of filing a pair of IFR flight plans - SQL to LVK and
> LVK-SQL. Or maybe even SQL-OAK,OAK-SQL OR SQL-HWD-SQL. Sort of an
> IFR version of pattern practice. Yielding the max practice per unit
> time & fuel. Any Bay Area locals doing such? Or is the airspace just
> way to busy to even contemplate it?
>
> - Jerry Kaidor ( )