Air Wagner..... He’s baaaaackk.

There just might be a reason that CUVSA is at-or-above 1500'... perhaps VFR traffic into KHWD?
screenshot9.png
 
Last edited:
I liked how he said at the beginning of the video “we’re going to try to get in VFR, but we have to do it safely...”


Ohh the irony... :)
 
Salty said:
Looks like foreflight to me.
Click to expand...
Salty, yes, it's the web version of ForeFlight (plan.foreflight.com)... a limited version of the comprehensive iPad product (but I was sitting at my laptop, so there you are :)).
 
asicer said:
So, it's an airspace bust?
Click to expand...
Maybe a CFI can chime in... I'm guessing it's not an airspace bust, because he was IFR. But his clearance for the instrument approach (NOT a visual approach) would, I expect, require meeting the altitude restrictions on the approach chart... which he most certainly violated. Don't know what that means regulations-wise.
 
wayneda40 said:
Yes, as Mark notes, Jerry did indeed bust the FAF altitude by 500'... and my YouTube comment to that effect got "closed" with the whatever other comments had been made to that point. Here's my original comment (partial) followed by the partial response from Jerry (the full comment and response are of course now hidden).

View attachment 94491

View attachment 94492
Click to expand...
Just to clarify: he was cleared to land while on an instrument approach, before reaching the FAF? Does that happen? I've never seen it. And, he was cleared for some instrument approach, hadn't cancelled IFR, and hadn't gotten an amended clearance for the visual approach. Is that about right? If so, he doesn't know what he's talking about and he busted the fix and possibly the underlying airspace.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Just to clarify: he was cleared to land while on an instrument approach, before reaching the FAF? Does that happen? I've never seen it. And, he was cleared for some instrument approach, hadn't cancelled IFR, and hadn't gotten an amended clearance for the visual approach. Is that about right? If so, he doesn't know what he's talking about and he busted the fix and possibly the underlying airspace.
Click to expand...
I’ve been cleared to land prior to the FAF, but the rest of what you said is accurate.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’ve been cleared to land prior to the FAF, but the rest of what you said is accurate.
Click to expand...
Now that I think of it, "One Charlie Tango, three miles from VIKKY, cross VIKKY at or above four thousand three hundred, cleared to land runway one four" does have a familiar ring to it. I may need to do more chair flying!
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Just to clarify: he was cleared to land while on an instrument approach, before reaching the FAF? Does that happen? I've never seen it. And, he was cleared for some instrument approach, hadn't cancelled IFR, and hadn't gotten an amended clearance for the visual approach. Is that about right? If so, he doesn't know what he's talking about and he busted the fix and possibly the underlying airspace.
Click to expand...
Either he was ifr and busted the fix or he was vfr and busted the airspace. He’s trying to pick and chose which parts of which rules he’s complying with.
 
What's an ASA standard and what is this 50 foot tolerance he's talking about?
 
It's ok, per another poster in this thread we all make mistakes like this, and that makes it OK for Jerry to do the same.
 
dmspilot said:
What's an ASA standard and what is this 50 foot tolerance he's talking about?
Click to expand...
I expect he meant ACS (Airman Certification Standards; previously Practical Test Standards).
 
Salty said:
Either he was ifr and busted the fix or he was vfr and busted the airspace. He’s trying to pick and chose which parts of which rules he’s complying with.
Click to expand...

If he was vfr, what airspace do you think he busted? He was talking with someone and Oakland is only class C.

But I didn't hear him cancel, so I agree he was too low crossing the fix.
 
bflynn said:
If he was vfr, what airspace do you think he busted? He was talking with someone and Oakland is only class C.

But I didn't hear him cancel, so I agree he was too low crossing the fix.
Click to expand...
HWD (Hayward) is up to not, but not including 1,500.
 
MarcusSD said:
HWD (Hayward) is up to not, but not including 1,500.
Click to expand...

Yes, but above 1500 he was in class C, right T/15? That section overlaps Oakland airspace and then has class B above that 4000

I don't know how to find them, but such messy airspace, there has to be agreements in place where the various controllers know what others are going to do. Jerry can't be the first person to fly VFR on approach to Oakland and go through Hayward.

The only serious fault I'm seeing is that he was still ifr. But I think what he did for vfr is probably fine.
 
bflynn said:
Yes, but above 1500 he was in class C, right T/15? That section overlaps Oakland airspace and then has class B above that 4000

I don't know how to find them, but such messy airspace, there has to be agreements in place where the various controllers know what others are going to do. Jerry can't be the first person to fly VFR on approach to Oakland and go through Hayward.

The only serious fault I'm seeing is that he was still ifr. But I think what he did for vfr is probably fine.
Click to expand...
I’m not IR, but if the FAF is CUVSA to cross at or above 1,500 and he was 500ft below, that would put him in HWD’s delta I would believe?
 
Sure it would. Is there an agreement between oakland and hayward that that's OK? With such complex airspace there, I think there has to be. He WAS talking to Oakland, right?
 
bflynn said:
Sure it would. Is there an agreement between oakland and hayward that that's OK? With such complex airspace there, I think there has to be. He WAS talking to Oakland, right?
Click to expand...
He was. But I wouldn’t go below without clarifying with tower. I’m not trying to bust airspace. I’m just a lowly 300 hour pilot who doesn’t want to get a number to call.
 
bflynn said:
Sure it would. Is there an agreement between oakland and hayward that that's OK? With such complex airspace there, I think there has to be. He WAS talking to Oakland, right?
Click to expand...
The agreement would be for normal flight through the airspace at the approach altitudes, not an inadvertent altitude bust.
 
I would have to think there's an LoA. I would agree it would be for normal flight on the approach. Suppose he cancelled IFR and was cleared for the visual? Would being at that altitude constitute a violation? Without knowing the contents of the LoA I would think not. Everyone who crosses the FAF at 1400 on a visual approach on a CAVU is going to get a Brasher? I would think not.
 
You’re assuming there is an LOA, and you’re assuming the content of assumed LOA. With the facts in hand, I’ll stick with the conclusion he did bust the D airspace
 
bflynn said:
Sure it would. Is there an agreement between oakland and hayward that that's OK? With such complex airspace there, I think there has to be. He WAS talking to Oakland, right?
Click to expand...

He was at 1000’. No letter of agreement is going to allow him to bomb through there at pattern altitude.
 
LesGawlik said:
Suppose he cancelled IFR and was cleared for the visual?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be cleared for a visual approach if you cancelled IFR, as a visual approach is an IFR procedure.

LesGawlik said:
Would being at that altitude constitute a violation?
Click to expand...

Violating an altitude constraint is a violation, regardless of whether that constraint comes from a chart, a radar vector and altitude assignment, or a "maintain VFR at or above" instruction.
 
WDD said:
You’re assuming there is an LOA, and you’re assuming the content of assumed LOA. With the facts in hand, I’ll stick with the conclusion he did bust the D airspace
Click to expand...

Without facts at hand, I assume nothing, I'm considering if there are other options. Jumping to conclusions is out of control enough, we don't need to do it here for our entertainment.

Regardless, he never cancelled, so the VFR discussion is meaningless for Jerry.
 
Just to stoke the fire, I believe there’s guidance from FAA on when you can descend on a visual also, but most pro crews aren’t going to go below anything published before the FAF. Whether by guidance, OpSpecs, or just self preservation.
 
denverpilot said:
Just to stoke the fire, I believe there’s guidance from FAA on when you can descend on a visual also, but most pro crews aren’t going to go below anything published before the FAF. Whether by guidance, OpSpecs, or just self preservation.
Click to expand...
couldn’t agree more Nate.

If I’m honoring all the constraints published on the procedure I don’t have to worry about why it exists or what airspace is below. All of which is self preservation. Preserve my income and my well-being.
 
Jerry is in the run up now (1620z) at AUN to go IFR to OAK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top