Logging Approach Question

Hilton wrote:
Could you control the aircraft using outside references (only)?

I could see the cloud layer and I could see the lights through the haze
so for the most yes. could I see a defined horizon, definitely
not as there are many black hills, the San francisco bay that was
black and it was night time. And the airport was obscurred until
turning onto the FA Course as the initial approach course was
over the black clouds.

So overall, really this is a grey area. I'm definitely leaning
towards that I can't count it even though I highly depended on it.
Part of the issue was that I was not free to fly anywhere
due to the SFO Bravo pushing down onto the cloud layer.
It shouldn't matter all that
much as I did 5 partial panel with failed GPS approach a couple
of weeks earlier under the hood. Being new to the game, I don't
plan on letting my skills deteriorate from lack of use.

thanks everyone.

Gerald

Gerald wrote:
So overall, really this is a grey area.

Sure sounds like it.

BTW: Wasn't that SQL GPS marked N/A for a really long time, or am I thinking
of another approach?

Hilton

Hilton wrote:
BTW: Wasn't that SQL GPS marked N/A for a really long time, or am I thinking
of another approach?

correct it was but they opened it up about a year ago.

Gerald

Gerald,
Hilton wrote:
BTW: Wasn't that SQL GPS marked N/A for a really long time, or am I
thinking
of another approach?

correct it was but they opened it up about a year ago.

Thanks, I never knew they opened it up. I seem to remember that the missed
went over SFO and they didn't want a 'missed' to hold up operations at SFO.
Now I see the missed is a left turn away from SFO - perhaps they changed the
missed and that allowed them to remove it from the NA list? Someone correct
me if my memory of the 'old' missed is incorrect.

Thanks,

Hilton

"Hilton" wrote in
. net:

Gerald,
Hilton wrote:
BTW: Wasn't that SQL GPS marked N/A for a really long time, or am I
thinking
of another approach?

correct it was but they opened it up about a year ago.

Thanks, I never knew they opened it up. I seem to remember that the
missed went over SFO and they didn't want a 'missed' to hold up
operations at SFO. Now I see the missed is a left turn away from SFO -
perhaps they changed the missed and that allowed them to remove it
from the NA list? Someone correct me if my memory of the 'old' missed
is incorrect.

Thanks,

Hilton




Your memory of the old missed is indeed correct! From the chart dated 15
JUL 1999, "MISSED APPROACH - Climb to 4000 via 302 course to SFO VOR/DME
and hold."

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Marty wrote:
Your memory of the old missed is indeed correct! From the chart dated 15
JUL 1999, "MISSED APPROACH - Climb to 4000 via 302 course to SFO VOR/DME
and hold."

Marty, thanks for the post. I remember being amazed that given an infinite
number of points to choose from (since it is a GPS approach), they chose the
SFO VOR!

Hilton

You did not have to fly soley by reference to instruments, so it was a
visual approach even though it was below VFR minimiums. If you didn't even
have to look at the instruments, I don't see how it could be considered an
actual instrument approach.

Mike
MU-2


"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
. ..
Mike Rapoport wrote:
I wojuld say no. You made a vistual approach in VMC.

It was not a 'visual approach.' I required a GPS approach
but the approach kept me in VMC that was below VFR....
(500 below, 1000 feet above, etc. for each airspace).

Gerald

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
m...

Tonight I was flying back to SQL GPS 30. There was a dense, 100' thick
ceiling covering half the airport at 800' AGL/MSL.


It's not a ceiling if it only covers half the airport.



I was
in VMC the whole time yet it probably would have been illegal
to fly in VFR as I would have been close to the clouds (see note
below about this). So even though visibility was 10nm below
the clouds, only have the airport had the ceiling and I never
passed through any clouds, I presume I can still log this
as an approach in "actual."


How could it have been illegal to fly in VFR if you were able to remain VMC
the whole time?



So can you actually log an approach in actual and never go through
IMC? Sounds strange but I guess you are able to do this. Same
goes passing through a broken layer.


I log an approach whenever it's necessary to fly an SIAP in order to get in
to the field. You say you could have gotten in VFR, thus an SIAP was not
necessary.



Note: my passenger picked out a plane probably at about 600' flying
from PAO to SQL while I was on final. I called out on CTAF (tower
was closed) and didn't hear anything. I wouldn't be surprised
they kept hush knowing they were breaking the regulations. I
had not cancelled IFR and was on the approach and ended up doing
a 360 and climbing. I contacted approach immediately telling him
what I was doing but it could have caused a go around for a heavy
if there was an inbound a/c going into SFO. Fortunately
no one was around. Fortunately my passenger saw the traffic
as they were below me, I was in a low wing, night, with clouds
around and I wasn't expecting him.


What regulation do you think he was breaking?

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
...

SQL was not VFR (despite the moron flying at tree top levels with no
radio).


Your observation made it 800' scattered and 10 miles visibility. Sounds
like VFR to me.

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
. ..

It was not a 'visual approach.' I required a GPS approach
but the approach kept me in VMC that was below VFR....
(500 below, 1000 feet above, etc. for each airspace).


You described VFR conditions. Why did you require the GPS approach?