Question about going to Catalina

Dav8or

Dav8or

Final Approach
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
5,174
Location
Discovery Bay, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Dave
The other thread about the guys ditching on their way to Catalina got me to thinking about the safest way to get there. I calculate that if I flew my Mooney from San Pedro there and back and I went at 8500' out (with Bravo clearance) and 7500' return, that I should always be with glide distance of either KAVX, or land in San Pedro, even with a head wind. On departure from KAVX, I would circle overhead the airport until reaching 7500' and then cross.

Does this make sense? Do other people do this?
 
Dav8or said:
The other thread about the guys ditching on their way to Catalina got me to thinking about the safest way to get there. I calculate that if I flew my Mooney from San Pedro there and back and I went at 8500' out (with Bravo clearance) and 7500' return, that I should always be with glide distance of either KAVX, or land in San Pedro, even with a head wind. On departure from KAVX, I would circle overhead the airport until reaching 7500' and then cross.

Does this make sense? Do other people do this?
Click to expand...

No, nobody does this. You can head over at whatever altitude you like, but I would suggest you stay below the layer. Personally I always pointed myself at the Isthmus on my way over, even at 1500-2500' there's plenty of boat traffic you'll be in gliding range of, plus most all of the air traffic will be to your left. For departure I would turn left and head over to Avalon and and take that boat traffic route back to LGB. Catalina Express runs out of both Long Beach and San Pedro with the majority of the boats operating to Avalon.
 
Henning describes pretty much the routing we took during my "Catalina Checkout" some years ago. Even on the day we went, midweek without great weather, there was a comforting amount of boat traffic below us.
 
Actually that's the way I was instructed to fly it VFR almost 20 years ago, but like ihenning said you can legally cross at any altitude in any direction. I used to rent 172's from Sunrise aviation at KSNA, and they wanted you to turn north and fly up the coast to the Queen Mary while climbing and stay "hi" to maintain the best glide options you could. I don't remember if LAX class B was there back in the mid 90's - probably was- but I'm sure I wasn't talking to them, so maybe 7,500 would be your max altitude. You will be talking to SOCAL approach. It's an amazing airport to land at. I only had 70 hours when I moved to Orange County - all in Kansas, so flying over ocean and near mountains was incredible. You'll love it!
 
I used to cross Long Island Sound (width varies between about 10-20 mi.) regularly in a 172. I sometimes did what you suggest, but mostly I picked a narrow crossing point and kept the life preservers in arm's reach. What may help you -- if, out of an abundance of caution, you'd like to climb to a gliding distance from either shore -- you can leave your departure shore before reaching your top of climb, and continue to climb out over the water. You'll be gaining altitude as you climb, and can turn back in case of emergency. Plan to reach your top of climb at the midpoint, where you might need all that altitude.
 
Dav8or said:
The other thread about the guys ditching on their way to Catalina got me to thinking about the safest way to get there. I calculate that if I flew my Mooney from San Pedro there and back and I went at 8500' out (with Bravo clearance) and 7500' return, that I should always be with glide distance of either KAVX, or land in San Pedro, even with a head wind. On departure from KAVX, I would circle overhead the airport until reaching 7500' and then cross.

Does this make sense? Do other people do this?
Click to expand...

That's the way I did it the one time I went. I used that method again a couple of weeks ago when the weather was uncharacteristicly clear over the Farallon Islands off San Francisco.
 
Once in while I give checkouts for AVX. Ideally I prefer the shortest distance between the island and mainland, but it works out better flying from north LA.
Practically flying from the south I cross the water ( in single engine) few miles to the north passed Dana Point at 6,500 ft. It gives me about 30 miles wet run and plenty of altitude to deviate
 
One of the places my brother and I need to cross off the list this year. Looks like a blast...
 
By the way runway is not in very good condition. Soft filed landing and take off in on my checkout prerequisite list
 
Dav8or said:
The other thread about the guys ditching on their way to Catalina got me to thinking about the safest way to get there. I calculate that if I flew my Mooney from San Pedro there and back and I went at 8500' out (with Bravo clearance) and 7500' return, that I should always be with glide distance of either KAVX, or land in San Pedro, even with a head wind. On departure from KAVX, I would circle overhead the airport until reaching 7500' and then cross.

Does this make sense? Do other people do this?
Click to expand...

Sunrise still teaches that high is best, but staying near the boat traffic sounds rational to me too. On a “just for fun” flight last month, before my checkride, I did a flight to Catalina with my instructor as roughly charted below.

After continuing past HB Pier, SoCal asked about my intended route. I told them via Point Fermin and then south across the channel, asked for 8,500, and got 7,500. I was never cleared into the bravo.

Beautiful airport.

Catalina_800.jpg
 
"Staying high" works most of the year, this time of year though it's not particularly feasible to rely on as the cloud deck will rarely allow for a successful instrument approach. I used to have to climb to the runway threshold to get to work quite frequently. On the days when the deck was below 1600' (runway in the clouds) you could see all the locals stacked up over the airport waiting for the hole over the 22 numbers to open and everyone would then dive for it in file, no brakes on the runway, keep your speed up till the second exit. Most of the time though the base will be between 1700' and 2300' allowing you to come in underneath.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
They charge $25 to land so one would hope they're doing a little upkeep!
Click to expand...

Hope in one hand and **** in the other and see which fills first.:rofl: BTW, if you're in a 182 and you land long, DON'T get on the brakes, the 'speed bump' about 1/3rd of the way up the runway has collapsed more than a few 182 nose gears from guys standing on the brakes not realizing that there was another half of the runway they couldn't see. My boss at the CRS at LGB used to have me store a 182 prop in my apartment on the island for that purpose.:rofl: If you land on the numbers in most anything you'll make the first turn off and not get to the bump.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
After continuing past HB Pier, SoCal asked about my intended route. I told them via Point Fermin and then south across the channel, asked for 8,500, and got 7,500. I was never cleared into the bravo.

Beautiful airport.

Catalina_800.jpg
Click to expand...

You asked for a measly 500' in an area that I doubt they use all that much and they said no??!! Tight ass bastards! In the SFO class Bravo I get Bravo clearances pretty frequently. I guess they would rather have you swim than give up their precious gaseous territory. :rolleyes2::mad2:
 
Henning said:
"Staying high" works most of the year, this time of year though it's not particularly feasible to rely on as the cloud deck will rarely allow for a successful instrument approach.
Click to expand...

I don't have to go there... ever. If there is a marine layer, I don't go. I am not going to scud run it, or hope for a hole. When I go there, I will stay over night... as long as it takes. I'll likely wait for perfect weather and go. I'm not a big risk taker in aviation. I do it for fun and that's it.
 
I used to fly to Catalina from SNA a couple times a month. Just flew direct and I don't think I ever got over 2500'. If I had a passenger that had never been there I would usually give them a tour of the whole island at 500-1000'. It is fun to go over for Sunday brunch and watch the Bonanza and 210 guys go around after a steep way to fast approach and get freaked out when they start to flare and with the hump in the runway it looks like you are way too long. If the wind isn't howling just make a normal approach as there isn't much of a downdraft of the end. By the time you circle up to 7500' you could be half way across the channel and your landing options in the circle aren't much greater than ditching. You have one shot at the runway and if you miss it the terrain around the airport is very unforgiving. When is the last time you took the Mooney up high and cut the power to idle and landed? Or when is the last time you pulled the engine to idle on downwind and landed? Odds are you will not have an engine failure between the mainland and Catalina. DOn
 
Not sure why someone says "no one does it". I do. I go there all the time because I live there part time. I attended an FAA briefing on flying to Catalina. Their recommendation was to fly at these altitudes...8,500, 7,500.

These altitudes give you time to troubleshoot if the unthinkable happens. Remember, even if you survive the water landing, the Pacific is REALLY cold, even in summer.

Here's a way to make it easier, at least on the return: give your passengers a nice "island tour" as you climb for the return. The island is drop dead gorgeous, and a circumnavigation gives you just enough time to get up to 7,500 for the return.

Finally...use Flight Following! As these altitudes can put you in LA Bravo depending on your route...plus you will be in the middle of some approach paths.

Enjoy!


Dav8or said:
The other thread about the guys ditching on their way to Catalina got me to thinking about the safest way to get there. I calculate that if I flew my Mooney from San Pedro there and back and I went at 8500' out (with Bravo clearance) and 7500' return, that I should always be with glide distance of either KAVX, or land in San Pedro, even with a head wind. On departure from KAVX, I would circle overhead the airport until reaching 7500' and then cross.

Does this make sense? Do other people do this?
Click to expand...
 
register@teamandras.com said:
Sunrise still teaches that high is best, but staying near the boat traffic sounds rational to me too. On a “just for fun” flight last month, before my checkride, I did a flight to Catalina with my instructor as roughly charted below.

After continuing past HB Pier, SoCal asked about my intended route. I told them via Point Fermin and then south across the channel, asked for 8,500, and got 7,500. I was never cleared into the bravo.

Beautiful airport.

Catalina_800.jpg
Click to expand...

Personally, I just would have done a straight shot and climbed as high as the Bravo floor would allow. The straight route doesn't put you over that much more water.

Coming from the North, I'm not squeamish about a direct shot from Camarillo to Catalina, which puts me outside of LAX Bravo.
 
yakdriver said:
I used to fly to Catalina from SNA a couple times a month. Just flew direct and I don't think I ever got over 2500'. If I had a passenger that had never been there I would usually give them a tour of the whole island at 500-1000'.
Click to expand...

I guess your point being your engine never quit and you're sure it never will?

...and your landing options in the circle aren't much greater than ditching. You have one shot at the runway and if you miss it the terrain around the airport is very unforgiving. When is the last time you took the Mooney up high and cut the power to idle and landed? Or when is the last time you pulled the engine to idle on downwind and landed?
Click to expand...

This is a very valid point that I did consider. To answer your question, I practiced dead stick from altitude and also in the pattern back in August with mixed results. Some of the approaches from many miles out came up right on the numbers and others, well, a little short. I do realize that coming up short, or going long at Catalina can be disastrous. I realize that I am no ace of the base when it comes to dead stick landings but I would like a shot at it. I have absolutely zero idea of how well I can ditch a plane in the chopping ocean! I guess my plan would be to make the approach and if it was clear that the landing isn't going to work out, plan B is wave off the approach and go and ditch.

Odds are you will not have an engine failure between the mainland and Catalina.
Click to expand...

True. However I'm not that great of a gambler and so I like to stack the odds in my favor.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Coming from the North, I'm not squeamish about a direct shot from Camarillo to Catalina, which puts me outside of LAX Bravo.
Click to expand...

So... the topic of this thread is kind of moot for you. You have no fear, or concerns with ditching in the Pacific ocean and you're near 100% sure your engine will never quit. That's fine. I'm good with that.
 
I just thought of another way to get to Catalina, be as safe as possible and actually be kind of fun I think. Since I have to come from the San Joaquin valley and have to climb to get over mountains, why not keep climbing and go over the top of LAX Class B?

I could go direct to Compton say at 11,500, then turn and go direct to Catalina island and start descending. Obviously I would be way too high for a normal approach, so I could just do a descending circle tour of the island to get down to pattern altitude. The added benefits of this plan is no hassles with ATC if I don't want to and it gives me lots of glide options over the LA basin, which is nearly as unforgiving as the Pacific ocean if your engine quits. At that altitude I could have my pick of airports in an emergency.

Is this the fastest, cheapest way to KAVX? no. Just perhaps the safest.
 
Dav8or said:
So... the topic of this thread is kind of moot for you. You have no fear, or concerns with ditching in the Pacific ocean and you're near 100% sure your engine will never quit. That's fine. I'm good with that.
Click to expand...

Sure I do. But let's put things in to perspective - there are people that fly single engine airplanes over long stretches of the North Atlantic on a routine basis. There's going to be some risk any way you break it down. The incremental probability of an engine going out over a 45 NM over sea leg vs. a 20 NM leg on a 350 NM flight is inconsequential.

Same analogy can be applied to mountain flying. How far out of my way do I go to ensure I have 100% safe, survivable terrain to land on if something goes South? Well I can't get to 100% anyway so it becomes a judgment call. I'll take Mammoth Pass to get over the Sierras to Bishop vs. a direct route over the Desolation Wilderness. If I wanted to be safer I'd fly all the way South to the end of the range and back up the Owens Valley. Nobody is going to do that.
 
If you fly you have to play the odds a certain amount. I have had one engine failure on take off but was able to get it down on the remaining runway. I have had two partial failures that I got it back to the airport. When I flew to Catalina I did have a lifevest on for the flight so it wasn't like I wasn't prepared. Also Ditching a low wing retractable would give you great odds of surviving it over trying to make a dead stick on the Catalina runway if you aren't sure that you can put the airplane down on the first third of the runway. I also fly in the Idaho backcountry and that requires a great amount of trust in your engine. Flying over water is safer than flying single engine on top over mountainous terrain as the Bonanza pilot found out last month up here. Don
 
Sac Arrow said:
Personally, I just would have done a straight shot and climbed as high as the Bravo floor would allow. The straight route doesn't put you over that much more water.
Click to expand...

In my little trainer, my top of climb would have occurred about 10 nm after reaching the shore. Maybe even farther because I would be altitude restricted to 2400 or 3000 by tower, and then by SoCal Departure, as I left the airport on a "Mesa Departure" of 220 magnetic. My instructor's thought process was that it's better to get high and then start crossing, rather than climb while crossing. I completely understand that others may draw different risk lines in the sand - just FYI.

Out of curiosity, if you did a straight shot as with the red line below, what issues are there if any with the charted "IFR Arrival Route" used, presumably, by commercial flights? I added a red arrow which points to "6000-1600" which seems to suggest that they will be coming in from the SXC VOR, near Catalina Airport, at altitudes from 6000 MSL down to 1600 MSL.

Any issue?

Catalina_800_2.jpg
 
Last edited:
register@teamandras.com said:
Out of curiosity, if you did a straight shot as with the red line below, what issues are there if any with the charted "IFR Arrival Route" used, presumably, by commercial flights? I added a red arrow which points to "6000-1600" which seems to suggest that they will be coming in from the SXC VOR, near Catalina Airport, at altitudes from 6000 MSL down to 1600 MSL.

Any issue?
Click to expand...

See and avoid, just like being on or near any Victor airway. Offsetting it would help.
 
Sac Arrow said:
See and avoid, just like being on or near any Victor airway. Offsetting it would help.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. How about wake turbulence, flying under those big guys?

If you're with approach, on flight following, would they just help you see and avoid, or might they vector you away from the IFR arrival route? i.e. force the offset?
 
register@teamandras.com said:
That makes sense. How about wake turbulence, flying under those big guys?

If you're with approach, on flight following, would they just help you see and avoid, or might they vector you away from the IFR arrival route? i.e. force the offset?
Click to expand...

Flight following is an advisory, in that airspace they can't tell you where to go.
 
Henning said:
Flight following is an advisory, in that airspace they can't tell you where to go.
Click to expand...

Can you clarify? In my very limited experience, and while flying in echo space, I've had them tell me where to go while receiving advisories, i.e. "turn left 330" and a few minutes later "resume own navigation."

I know I can cancel advisory services, but while receiving them, they seem to essentially be telling me where to go on occasion.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
Can you clarify? In my very limited experience, and while flying in echo space, I've had them tell me where to go while receiving advisories, i.e. "turn left 330" and a few minutes later "resume own navigation."

I know I can cancel advisory services, but while receiving them, they seem to essentially be telling me where to go on occasion.
Click to expand...

They can request or advise, but they can't order. If you don't, they can drop services, but they can't violate you.
 
Henning said:
They can request or advise, but they can't order. If you don't, they can drop services, but they can't violate you.
Click to expand...

Got it. Thanks!

By the way, in post 15, you mention having an apartment on the island. Do you still live out there?
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Flight following is an advisory, in that airspace they can't tell you where to go.
Click to expand...

Except that in Class C and for some limit past it (I don't know what that limit is) he would be receiving Class C services.
 
I could go direct to Compton say at 11,500, then turn and go direct to Catalina island and start descending. Obviously I would be way too high for a normal approach, so I could just do a descending circle tour of the island to get down to pattern altitude. The added benefits of this plan is no hassles with ATC if I don't want to and it gives me lots of glide options over the LA basin, which is nearly as unforgiving as the Pacific ocean if your engine quits. At that altitude I could have my pick of airports in an emergency.

Dave I am fellow chicken of the air and this plan sounds perfect to me.........why limit your options if you don't have to, and plopping your plane into the sea for a guaranteed total loss when you could add some altitude and potentially land safely is a no brainer. I do recommend the scenic circle of the island on takeoff, absolutely a stunning sight you won't soon forget..........happy trails......
 
Vf6cruiser said:
I could go direct to Compton say at 11,500, then turn and go direct to Catalina island and start descending. Obviously I would be way too high for a normal approach, so I could just do a descending circle tour of the island to get down to pattern altitude. The added benefits of this plan is no hassles with ATC if I don't want to and it gives me lots of glide options over the LA basin, which is nearly as unforgiving as the Pacific ocean if your engine quits. At that altitude I could have my pick of airports in an emergency.

Dave I am fellow chicken of the air and this plan sounds perfect to me.........why limit your options if you don't have to, and plopping your plane into the sea for a guaranteed total loss when you could add some altitude and potentially land safely is a no brainer. I do recommend the scenic circle of the island on takeoff, absolutely a stunning sight you won't soon forget..........happy trails......
Click to expand...

If I had an engine failure mid channel and was gliding in, I would still be ditching, aiming for the Isthmus or Avalon. **** the airplane, save your life. Ditching in the water is not a bad deal as long as you have a pickup available. Either the Isthmus or Avalon have the shore boat running, you will be picked up within minutes. If you mess up your glide to the runway, you are likely dead, at least quite injured. The terrain surrounding AVX is hostile, in fact the whole island is.
 
And like I said. I bet less than 5% of the pilots could land within 500ft of their target power off from any altitude because very few practice it. I practice stuff like that all the time and I would have to be set up perfectly before I would attempt a deadstick into the airport. Landing short is not an option, landing long is probably going to kill you also. Much higher odds to ditch. Don
 
Sac Arrow said:
Except that in Class C and for some limit past it (I don't know what that limit is) he would be receiving Class C services.
Click to expand...

Nobody knows what that limit is, because the boundaries of class C outer areas vary, and are not charted.
 
Palmpilot said:
Nobody knows what that limit is, because the boundaries of class C outer areas vary, and are not charted.
Click to expand...

It kind of begs the question, if you're in a Class C outer area and receive a directive from ATC that you didn't like, can you at that point drop flight following and deviate without violating 91.123(b)?
 
Sac Arrow said:
It kind of begs the question, if you're in a Class C outer area and receive a directive from ATC that you didn't like, can you at that point drop flight following and deviate without violating 91.123(b)?
Click to expand...

No. The reg says "where air traffic control is exercised," and it clearly is in an outer area. It also is in Class E, even if it isn't an outer area.

You can tell them to take a hike BEFORE getting the directive, but once given an instruction, you have to comply or justify it with 14 CFR 91.3 c.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top