Craig Prouse wrote in message ...

(The PAO)
VOR/DME RWY 31 is good down to 460/1.
Those are not particularly high minimums for a VOR/DME approach.
PAO weather only goes below 500 and 1 maybe six hours per year.

This is correct. I was wrong.

Having no access to IFR GPS and therefore not flown any GPS
approaches, but having looked at a lot of the
plates, many these approaches seem to be on the order of
850-900 and 1. For a few airports I know, such as KHAF,
which is frequenlty clear or has a very low layer, that
would appear to make them more or less useless.

(waiting to get the PAO VOR/DME 31 apch)

Sometimes you'll wait even when it's not IMC. The approach path is
incompatible with SJC operations. That's the real problem with that
approach.

Yeah, as an IFR student on a budget, I have noticed myself starting
to mentally convert EFC times into dollars. "hold north of foobs,
expect clearance for bar approach in forty-one of your hard-earned
bucks."

Of course, the worst is on the ground, engine running, waiting
for t/o clearance.

PAO has a fantastic GPS approach. It was designed not to conflict with SJC.
Unlike the VOR/DME, the only delays I've ever experienced getting on the GPS
approach were due to the traffic volume into PAO on the GPS. If you're
going to be based at PAO and want to realize the utility and convenience of
your instrument rating, you'll need to be equipped for and proficient at
flying the GPS approach.

This is good information. None of the trainer aircraft my club has,
except a Duchess and a Bonanza, have GPS, which a bummer. I don't
think either of those planes would be a good choice for me getting
my IA.

In any case, for *lots* of reasons, I think that if I want to
realize the utility and convenience of my instrument raiting,
I'll want access to better equipment. (That said, I'm already
getting a lot of satisfaction in just being a more proficient
and precise pilot.)


-- dave j