Hey Guys.

So my dad is flying out at the end of July. He is a commercial rated
pilot who has not been behind the yoke of an aircraft in nearly thirty
years (I'm 25... he quit flying when he moved from TX to DC a few
years before I was born).

We've decided we're going to have a good old father-son adventure.
I'm already flight-planning a trip from the Bay Area to Anchorage, Up
By way of the 101 and lost coast, back by way of 5 and the central
valley. (taking the inland route to Anchorage, following US90 to CA1
and up).

One of the stops that he would very much like to make is Juneau... We
have family there, but alas, two previous attempts to visit have
resulted in failure ( Both due to various ferry strikes). My question
is..., is there a reasonably safe, over-land route from the mainland?
I know there are no roads in and out of Juneau because of the
glaciers... But is there a standard aviation route we could take that
would maximize ditching/rescue opportunities?

We're both reasonably compitent outdoorsmen. We'll be carrying cold-
weather camping survival gear. My main worry is simply having route
that leaves plenty of places to put down that A- would allow for a
reasonable chance of ditching survival and B- allow for a reasonable
chance of rescue and recovery within 24-48 hours.

Of course we'll be flying with a VFR flightplan.

Any suggestions? Any ideas where I would begin to look for such
information?

-Scott

In article . com>,
EridanMan > wrote:

> Hey Guys.
>
> So my dad is flying out at the end of July. He is a commercial rated
> pilot who has not been behind the yoke of an aircraft in nearly thirty
> years (I'm 25... he quit flying when he moved from TX to DC a few
> years before I was born).
>
> We've decided we're going to have a good old father-son adventure.
> I'm already flight-planning a trip from the Bay Area to Anchorage, Up
> By way of the 101 and lost coast, back by way of 5 and the central
> valley. (taking the inland route to Anchorage, following US90 to CA1
> and up).
>
> One of the stops that he would very much like to make is Juneau... We
> have family there, but alas, two previous attempts to visit have
> resulted in failure ( Both due to various ferry strikes). My question
> is..., is there a reasonably safe, over-land route from the mainland?
> I know there are no roads in and out of Juneau because of the
> glaciers... But is there a standard aviation route we could take that
> would maximize ditching/rescue opportunities?
>
> We're both reasonably compitent outdoorsmen. We'll be carrying cold-
> weather camping survival gear. My main worry is simply having route
> that leaves plenty of places to put down that A- would allow for a
> reasonable chance of ditching survival and B- allow for a reasonable
> chance of rescue and recovery within 24-48 hours.
>
> Of course we'll be flying with a VFR flightplan.
>
> Any suggestions? Any ideas where I would begin to look for such
> information?
>
> -Scott

Make sure your dad has a valid medical and current BFR, to make it
enjoyable for both of you! Good luck!

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hey Guys.
>
> So my dad is flying out at the end of July. He is a commercial rated
> pilot who has not been behind the yoke of an aircraft in nearly thirty
> years (I'm 25... he quit flying when he moved from TX to DC a few
> years before I was born).
>
> We've decided we're going to have a good old father-son adventure.
> I'm already flight-planning a trip from the Bay Area to Anchorage, Up
> By way of the 101 and lost coast, back by way of 5 and the central
> valley. (taking the inland route to Anchorage, following US90 to CA1
> and up).
>
> One of the stops that he would very much like to make is Juneau... We
> have family there, but alas, two previous attempts to visit have
> resulted in failure ( Both due to various ferry strikes). My question
> is..., is there a reasonably safe, over-land route from the mainland?
> I know there are no roads in and out of Juneau because of the
> glaciers... But is there a standard aviation route we could take that
> would maximize ditching/rescue opportunities?
>
> We're both reasonably compitent outdoorsmen. We'll be carrying cold-
> weather camping survival gear. My main worry is simply having route
> that leaves plenty of places to put down that A- would allow for a
> reasonable chance of ditching survival and B- allow for a reasonable
> chance of rescue and recovery within 24-48 hours.
>
> Of course we'll be flying with a VFR flightplan.
>
> Any suggestions? Any ideas where I would begin to look for such
> information?
>
> -Scott
>

I've been up the Coastal route, and you can expect Juneau to be 800 to
1200 OVC, and 2-5 miles from June through at least September. There are 2
lighted runways, one with a Green and White beacon, and one with a Yellow
and White beacon. You want the runway on the right, with the green one. I've
never landed westbound. From 10,000 feet over the airport, you can see east
to the point where the glaciers are higher than the mountain peaks. Just a
little north of there, I popped out on top at 18,000 feet, and was looking
up at the adjacent rocks(The Brooks Range). Take a camera, it will be a
fascinating trip.

Al G

> I've been up the Coastal route.

Where could I get more information on what routes are available and
pros and cons to either? Frankly, I would much prefer to fly
coastal... its just the whole 'single-over-freezing-water' deal that
has both of us nervous.

> and you can expect Juneau to be 800 to
> 1200 OVC, and 2-5 miles from June through at least September. There are 2
> lighted runways, one with a Green and White beacon, and one with a Yellow
> and White beacon. You want the runway on the right, with the green one.

We're VFR-only pilot's in a VFR only bird. That weather report does
not sound promising.

> I've never landed westbound. From 10,000 feet over the airport, you can see east
> to the point where the glaciers are higher than the mountain peaks. Just a
> little north of there, I popped out on top at 18,000 feet, and was looking
> up at the adjacent rocks(The Brooks Range). Take a camera, it will be a
> fascinating trip.

We're both photo dorks... we'll be toting 2 DSLR's and an arsenal of
glass (from 18/1.8 to 300/4). Just need to make sure the windows are
nice and polished:)

Thank you for the advice... Are there any websites or forums I could
go to for specific information about flying in Alaska? Routes/Weather/
Etc? Google searching hasn't lead to anything definitive.

EridanMan wrote:
>
>Any suggestions? Any ideas where I would begin to look for such
>information?
>

Weather will definitely be an issue flying VFR to the southeast coast in
the summer. There will be a low overcast more often than not, although it
does tend to break up a few times a week. You'll have to watch it closely
and plan accordingly.

One of the best resources for flying in Alaska is the "Logbook" published
by the Alaska Airmens' Association. It has chock full of Alaska fly tips and
has detailed info on routes. I didn't see it advertised on their website
this morning, but I'd recommend contacting them to see if it is available. I
know they were selling an updated version a few years ago.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200706/1

EridanMan wrote:
> One of the stops that he would very much like to make is Juneau... We
> have family there, but alas, two previous attempts to visit have
> resulted in failure ( Both due to various ferry strikes). My question
> is..., is there a reasonably safe, over-land route from the mainland?
> I know there are no roads in and out of Juneau because of the
> glaciers... But is there a standard aviation route we could take that
> would maximize ditching/rescue opportunities?

Depends on what you mean by standard, but the route with the shortest
over-water exposure is probably out of Atlin, BC, down the Taku River.
Down to the mouth of the Taku, hang a right, up the Gastineau Channel to
the airport dodging all the Otters and Beavers on floats carrying cruise
ship tourists. It's a well-known route and has a relatively low pass to
cross compared to, say, coming down from Skagway. Which helps with those
low ceilings someone mentioned.

I did a VFR trip up that way (from Minnesota) in a 182 a few years ago.
I had a higher tolerance for risk, though, so I flew the coast all the
way from Anchorage to Prince Rupert. Spent a week on the ground in
Juneau due to weather, but that was just fine as I had a bunch of
friends there I wanted to visit anyway.

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I've been up the Coastal route.
>
> Where could I get more information on what routes are available and
> pros and cons to either? Frankly, I would much prefer to fly
> coastal... its just the whole 'single-over-freezing-water' deal that
> has both of us nervous.
>
I don't blame you. I've made the trip in a Lear, a C340, a 414, and up
to Juneau in a C206.

The 206 was a very long trip.I never completely put my weight down. No
floats, No beach to land on, Nobody around to rescue you. I stopped at
Prince Rupert, Sitka, Ketchican and Juneau. There is damn little between
those points unless you are a sea lion. Most of the trip was flown under a
1000' ceiling, within sight of the coast. Not within gliding distance of the
coast, mind you, as that would make a much longer trip. This is probably why
everyone up there flies on floats. While I was there, a Canadian 182 shot
the SDF(Simplified Directional Facility) approach only to land on the
lighted water runway(Yellow beacon), where it promptly sank. There were no
injuries.



>> and you can expect Juneau to be 800 to
>> 1200 OVC, and 2-5 miles from June through at least September. There are 2
>> lighted runways, one with a Green and White beacon, and one with a Yellow
>> and White beacon. You want the runway on the right, with the green one.
>
> We're VFR-only pilot's in a VFR only bird. That weather report does
> not sound promising.
>
>> I've never landed westbound. From 10,000 feet over the airport, you can
>> see east
>> to the point where the glaciers are higher than the mountain peaks. Just
>> a
>> little north of there, I popped out on top at 18,000 feet, and was
>> looking
>> up at the adjacent rocks(The Brooks Range). Take a camera, it will be a
>> fascinating trip.
>
> We're both photo dorks... we'll be toting 2 DSLR's and an arsenal of
> glass (from 18/1.8 to 300/4). Just need to make sure the windows are
> nice and polished:)
>
> Thank you for the advice... Are there any websites or forums I could
> go to for specific information about flying in Alaska? Routes/Weather/
> Etc? Google searching hasn't lead to anything definitive.
>
>

I don't know of anywhere that covers this. Maybe an Alaskan Aviation
site. Maybe read some Wiley Post?

Here are the current middle of the day reports:
CYPR 181900Z AUTO 23005KT 9SM OVC065 11/06 A3008 RMK SLP189
PASI 181853Z COR 28004KT 10SM SCT014 BKN070 OVC100 11/06 A3004 RMK AO2
SLP171 T01060061
PAKT 181853Z 12007KT 10SM FEW018 BKN035 OVC050 11/07 A3007 RMK AO2 RAB26E40
SLP184 HARBOR WND 16008KT P0000 T01110067
PAJN 181900Z 32004KT 10SM BR FEW006 BKN025 OVC039 10/07 A3002 RMK AO2

Sitka(PASI) is generally a little better than the others, because it is out
on an island. Ketchican and Juneau are up against cold land masses, with
warm Japanese current water, so they get low clouds/fog/drizzle. From Prince
Rupert to Juneau today the overcast slopes from 6500' to 3900', with layers
down to 600'. 10 miles off the coast it is probably clear. The float planes
go off the coast, drop down, and come back if they are VFR.

AOPA or somebody ought to have something. I'll let you know if I find it.

Al G

Al G wrote:
> I've been up the Coastal route, and you can expect Juneau to be 800 to
> 1200 OVC, and 2-5 miles from June through at least September. There are 2
> lighted runways, one with a Green and White beacon, and one with a Yellow
> and White beacon. You want the runway on the right, with the green one. I've
> never landed westbound.

Wait a minute. If you're landing eastbound, the relatively dry one is on
the *left* (runway 8, not 8W)...

For the original poster, here's a snapshot of both from a while ago:

http://www.visi.com/~rma/jnu_approach/Image6.jpg

Notice the offset VASI. There's a reason, obvious from this snapshot:

http://www.visi.com/~rma/jnu_approach/Image2.jpg

> We're both photo dorks... we'll be toting 2 DSLR's and an arsenal of
> glass (from 18/1.8 to 300/4). Just need to make sure the windows are
> nice and polished:)

If you are shooting aerials, you may want to consider this latest
advance in photography: chemical imaging ribbon. It uses an advanced
molecular process and has extremely high resolution, maybe four to ten
times what even high end digital cameras have. This allows enlargements
to be made much bigger, and from smaller areas of the picture. The
imaging material is easy to change without upgrading the entire camera.

Imaging material is available inexpensively at many stores all across
the country. Since it's a new technology, most cameras accept only the
smaller imaging packages, but even those can hold up to 72 images at
half resolution. More advanced cameras can accept the high capacity
ribbons and give you thousands of full resolution pictures with no
compression artifacts at all.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
...
> Al G wrote:
>> I've been up the Coastal route, and you can expect Juneau to be 800
>> to 1200 OVC, and 2-5 miles from June through at least September. There
>> are 2 lighted runways, one with a Green and White beacon, and one with a
>> Yellow and White beacon. You want the runway on the right, with the green
>> one. I've never landed westbound.
>
> Wait a minute. If you're landing eastbound, the relatively dry one is on
> the *left* (runway 8, not 8W)...
>
> For the original poster, here's a snapshot of both from a while ago:
>
> http://www.visi.com/~rma/jnu_approach/Image6.jpg
>
> Notice the offset VASI. There's a reason, obvious from this snapshot:
>
> http://www.visi.com/~rma/jnu_approach/Image2.jpg

Oops, you're right, er, left, whatever.

By the way, I think that photo is photo-shopped, I didn't know there was
that much sky up there. I have never seen it from the ground. To the OP, I
found these:

Alaskan Aviation Safety Foundation:
http://www.alaska.net/~etc/aasf/

Aopa:
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/travel/alaska/chapter1.html (Chapters
1-5)

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/travel/alaska/appendixa.html


Al G

Al G wrote:
> By the way, I think that photo is photo-shopped, I didn't know there was
> that much sky up there. I have never seen it from the ground. To the OP, I
> found these:

I took it myself from the right seat of a 172, so I know it isn't. A
shame you've never see a bright sunny day in Juneau. They're gorgeous.

Some more online resources:

http://www.alaska.faa.gov/fai/airports.htm
http://www.dot.alaska.gov/stwdav/AirportList.shtml
http://www.seizethesky.com/alaskan/forward.htm

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
...
> Al G wrote:
>> By the way, I think that photo is photo-shopped, I didn't know there was
>> that much sky up there. I have never seen it from the ground. To the OP,
>> I found these:
>
> I took it myself from the right seat of a 172, so I know it isn't. A shame
> you've never see a bright sunny day in Juneau. They're gorgeous.
>
> Some more online resources:
>
> http://www.alaska.faa.gov/fai/airports.htm
> http://www.dot.alaska.gov/stwdav/AirportList.shtml
> http://www.seizethesky.com/alaskan/forward.htm

You really took that? I thought it was from the postcard I saw in the
tourist shop downtown.
a VERY nice shot. How long were you there before it cleared up?

Al G

> If you are shooting aerials, you may want to consider this latest
> advance in photography: chemical imaging ribbon.

LOL... I hadn't heard that one before;)

> It uses an advanced
> molecular process and has extremely high resolution, maybe four to ten
> times what even high end digital cameras have. This allows enlargements
> to be made much bigger, and from smaller areas of the picture. The
> imaging material is easy to change without upgrading the entire camera.

I've also heard that it provides Foveon-like 'true color' reproduction
by recording R B and G values at each and every location on the image,
meaning its immune to bayerization artifacts. Beyond that, in
standard SLR cameras, it tends to have larger sensors, extracting more
information from any given lens (assuming the lens can provide a large
enough image circle.

While Overall image "Test-Bench" resolution tends to be higher, this
is largely because of the greater sensor size, encoding more net
information from the lens's image circle, rather than actually
encoding more lpmm^2. While certain lens/imager combinations _CAN_
render higher absolute resolution than digital sensors, these tend to
be impractical setups in an SLR format, where reflex/shutter vibration
quickly eats away at any extra available resolution.

There are a few downsides though. Signal to noise ratio tends to be
substantially higher across the entire range of sensitivities. Color
Balance, Resolution and sensitivity are set at time of manufacture,
and cannot be changed on the fly. Not to mention, actually seeing
your image after the shot takes a factor of 2 x 10^5 _TIMES_ longer,
and at separate cost.

Not to mention, these imager strips don't tend to mount well on
gimbals, meaning that Image stabilization (Useful when shooting from a
moving aircraft) must be applied to each lens at great expense, rather
than in the imager itself. Negating some of the cost savings.

;)

I mean this entirely tongue in cheek... I spent many years shooting,
and enjoying, film. I will always appreciate the meticulous art that
goes into a good Large-format Print, and I am taking my 120 Practicon
with me.

But, for my mainline shooting- shooting to capture an image, rather
than photography for the art and process of photography, I've made the
switch and I'm happy with it.

Great post though:)

-Scott

Thank you so much guys... I just read the 'seizethesky' article
completely.

Wow... Its clear to me that what I had in mind as a 'neat vacation' is
much more of a serious adventure, and I have a lot of work to do to
prepare.

Thanks again.

-SCott

Al G wrote:
> You really took that? I thought it was from the postcard I saw in the
> tourist shop downtown.

Yeah, right... There's a reason I called it a snapshot - taken with a
junk camera with poor lighting conditions. Should see the shot of Denali
out the front window of the 182 the time I flew it up there.
Unfortunately I don't have it online.

> a VERY nice shot. How long were you there before it cleared up?

Actually, I've been to SE Alaska so many times I don't recall which trip
that was. Probably late 80s or early 90s. Believe it or not, they string
days like that together in the summer on a not-uncommon basis. Just
gotta get lucky and hit one. But this one must have been on the edge of
winter judging by how low the snow is showing and how high the shadows
are. Probably early spring.

EridanMan wrote:
> Thank you so much guys... I just read the 'seizethesky' article
> completely.
>
> Wow... Its clear to me that what I had in mind as a 'neat vacation' is
> much more of a serious adventure, and I have a lot of work to do to
> prepare.

Yeah, she wrote a great story on that site. It's part of what inspired
my trip. Don't let any of this intimidate you, though. It's a trip well
worth taking. Just accept that the weather will be your master and it
will dictate your schedule enroute.

"EridanMan" > wrote in message > Thank you for the
advice... Are there any websites or forums I could
> go to for specific information about flying in Alaska? Routes/Weather/
> Etc? Google searching hasn't lead to anything definitive.
>
>

Try this:
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/alaska

"Curator"

> I've also heard that it provides Foveon-like 'true color' reproduction
> by recording R B and G values at each and every location on the image,
> meaning its immune to bayerization artifacts.

In fact, it uses an advanced three dimensional data storage structure to
hold color information.

> Beyond that, in standard SLR cameras,
> it tends to have larger sensors, extracting more
> information from any given lens

This also alters the focusing parameters, allowing more control over
depth of field (though admittedly, for aviation photos, this should not
be much of a consideration!)

> While Overall image "Test-Bench" resolution tends to be higher, this
> is largely because of the greater sensor size

Some cameras take advantage of this by halving the sensor area, thus
doubling the number of images on each imaging ribbon.

> While certain lens/imager combinations _CAN_
> render higher absolute resolution than digital sensors, these tend to
> be impractical setups in an SLR format, where reflex/shutter vibration
> quickly eats away at any extra available resolution.

A true digital SLR is not immune to vibration either, as their
mechanical components are the same. And chemical imaging ribbon is
available in a wide variety of form factors to fit non-SLR cameras,
including ultra high resolution video.

> There are a few downsides though. Signal to noise ratio tends to be
> substantially higher across the entire range of sensitivities.

Well, no. I've found that the better digital cameras do provide better
signal amplification and can capture images at very low light settings
(though the less expensive ones still struggle). However, at normal
light levels, the chemical imaging ribbon has far greater exposure
depth, or brightness bandwidth. It does however take some skill to
extract the information, whereas in the digital realm, all it takes is
the push of a button.

> Color Balance, Resolution and sensitivity
> are set at time of manufacture,
> and cannot be changed on the fly.

This is true, and is one reason that professional photographers often
carry several cameras to a single event. (The other reason, of course,
is it looks cool!)

> Not to mention, these imager strips don't tend to mount well on
> gimbals, meaning that Image stabilization (Useful when shooting from a
> moving aircraft) must be applied to each lens at great expense, rather
> than in the imager itself. Negating some of the cost savings.

I had not considered that, as I hadn't really explored image
stabilization much. There is no technical reason I can think of that
the stablization cannot be applied to the lens mount, since after all,
in either case, one is changing the relationship between the lens and
the imager. Einsten had a theory of relativity that might apply if the
vibration is fast enough.

> I spent many years shooting, and enjoying, film...
> But, for my mainline shooting [...] I've made the
> switch and I'm happy with it.

Yes, I too have largely switched to digital, since my chemical ribbon
image aquisition device has succomed to mechanical failure. I've taken
lots more digital pictures, and it can be said that I've acquired more
digital pixels than chemical ones (though the digital ones are spread
out over more images)

> ...and I am taking my 120 Practicon with me....

Keep an eye out for a very promising new development in image capture -
large scale rigid transparant emulsion base, or "Lascar TEB". Utilizing
technology similar to the high resolution plexiglass displays popular in
VFR aircraft (and underused by IFR pilots). Still in the experimental
stage, the instrumentation is still bulky, but images can be captured in
incredible detail.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.