Nice video! Thanks for sharing, Kim!
By the way, if anybody wonders about the whole "dragon" reference: when Kim flew out of KLAX, he mentioned to me that he didn't see any "drones." On my end, it sounded at first like he said "dragons." From that point on, we had a little fun with it. I guess you had to be there.
[Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area
-
Anthony Santanastaso
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:29 am
- Location: Long Island, NY (KFRG)
-
Keith Smith
- Posts: 9942
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:38 pm
- Location: Pompton Plains, NJ
- Contact:
Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area
The decision has been made earlier than expected. We will keep SFO as a permanent addition to the coverage area.
Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area
Loving flying GA into KSFO both IFR & VFR. The VFR "Bay Tour" flight without flight following was challenging to remain beneath the Bravo (with all those changes in height) not to mention the Charlie airspaceKeith Smith wrote:The decision has been made earlier than expected. We will keep SFO as a permanent addition to the coverage area.
http://skyvector.com/?ll=37.71968358884 ... :A.K2.KSFO
Glad it is now a permanent feature of PE
Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area
Thanks for posting the "bay tour" route - I've heard of that but never knew just what it consisted of. Going to try it this weekend.
-
Nick Warren
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:09 pm
Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area
I understand the business aspect decision in adding SFO, and it is great being a Norcal guy, but I rarely, if ever fly in or out of SFO on the sim. That said, hypothetically, if I wanted to embark on a "Bay Tour" (being any myriad of sightseeing ventures around the bay), and wanted to do so out of a secondary field such as KSQL or KPAO, what kind of services could I expect based on the confides of the new coverage? I assume SFO Tower would be available, but also am guessing that the secondary field towers would not be. Additionally, what Norcal sectors are available? Just the ones that would factor in a typical IFR flight from SFO to LAX or vice versa? I really would like to venture out in the SFO area, but am trying to figure out when I would be talking to someone and when I shouldn't expect anyone to be available. Thank you for your time.
Nick
Nick
Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area
I'm curious about the above as well. Would it be appropriate to request flight following from an airport within ZLA to one in ZOA other than SFO, as long as we don't expect tower services?
-
Keith Smith
- Posts: 9942
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:38 pm
- Location: Pompton Plains, NJ
- Contact:
Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area
I tried to position our support for SFO very carefully, and specifically avoided any implication that it would be open season up in Norcal. It is not the case that we provide full radar service all over norcal, and have simply left all airports other than SFO as non-towered.
The controllers have ONLY been trained on:
- operations that originate from ZLA (ie, the LA Center area) to SFO, and
- flights that originate from SFO and are heading to ZLA, typically at 'jet altitudes'.
That last part about 'jet altitudes' is important because it means that Fresno TRACON, for example, isn't something that controllers are familiar with right now.
If you were to fly from SFO to BFL at a typical piston altitude, you'd expect to be handed to Fresno, but right now, it'd be a mixed bag on PE because some of the controllers who were around when we fully supported Norcal know about Fresno TRACON, but other controllers who came on board later, or weren't trained on Norcal to begin with, have no idea where that is, or what the airspace looks like.
The only solid, repeatable experience you can get in Norcal right now is SFO-ZLA and ZLA-SFO at jet-like altitudes.
As it happens, MRY is on the path from ZLA to SFO, so if you were to take off from MRY (real life Class C, but considered non-towered on PE right now), you could theoretically call us up for radar service to SFO, or vice versa. If you're ok with having MRY as a non-towered airport (complete departure from reality), I suppose it might work, but this is not really why we opened up SFO.
Again, SFO was added so jet and turboprop pilots could stretch their legs. It's not a poor-man's implementation of Norcal. It's not intended to open the door to a lot of Norcal related operations outside of SFO.
Please bear in mind, operations at SFO are relatively taxing on the controllers compared to ZLA operations, partially because it's new, but mostly because it's so far away from our core operating area. The scan that's involved in working SFO and ZLA simultaneously is not pretty. Therefore, operations that loiter around Norcal (such as a Bay Tour) are troublesome (if you're looking for ATC service). I worked out the Bay Tour on Bruce's flight (for better or worse) as an experiment and also because he wasn't looking for radar service outside of the Bravo. I regret giving the impression that it was open season for Bay Tour flights with full radar service.
The list of "what's ok and what's not ok" is fairly grey. For example, while MRY would be workable because it's in a sector that the controllers have trained for, OAK, RNO, RDD, CIC, SJC, RHV, APC & CCR are in sectors that most controllers currently know NOTHING about, so it's a real mixed bag. Pilots have know way of knowing what's ok and what's not.
To that end, I would ask that you consider only using SFO in Norcal and not try to stretch the current service offering beyond the point that it was designed for. You will hit the limits very quickly, after which, the result will be random and inconsistent among the controllers. SFO was opened to let pilots stretch their legs on longer flights, not to conduct operations entirely within Norcal. Believe me, I miss Norcal, too, and I hope we can have it fully opened again in the future!
The controllers have ONLY been trained on:
- operations that originate from ZLA (ie, the LA Center area) to SFO, and
- flights that originate from SFO and are heading to ZLA, typically at 'jet altitudes'.
That last part about 'jet altitudes' is important because it means that Fresno TRACON, for example, isn't something that controllers are familiar with right now.
If you were to fly from SFO to BFL at a typical piston altitude, you'd expect to be handed to Fresno, but right now, it'd be a mixed bag on PE because some of the controllers who were around when we fully supported Norcal know about Fresno TRACON, but other controllers who came on board later, or weren't trained on Norcal to begin with, have no idea where that is, or what the airspace looks like.
The only solid, repeatable experience you can get in Norcal right now is SFO-ZLA and ZLA-SFO at jet-like altitudes.
As it happens, MRY is on the path from ZLA to SFO, so if you were to take off from MRY (real life Class C, but considered non-towered on PE right now), you could theoretically call us up for radar service to SFO, or vice versa. If you're ok with having MRY as a non-towered airport (complete departure from reality), I suppose it might work, but this is not really why we opened up SFO.
Again, SFO was added so jet and turboprop pilots could stretch their legs. It's not a poor-man's implementation of Norcal. It's not intended to open the door to a lot of Norcal related operations outside of SFO.
Please bear in mind, operations at SFO are relatively taxing on the controllers compared to ZLA operations, partially because it's new, but mostly because it's so far away from our core operating area. The scan that's involved in working SFO and ZLA simultaneously is not pretty. Therefore, operations that loiter around Norcal (such as a Bay Tour) are troublesome (if you're looking for ATC service). I worked out the Bay Tour on Bruce's flight (for better or worse) as an experiment and also because he wasn't looking for radar service outside of the Bravo. I regret giving the impression that it was open season for Bay Tour flights with full radar service.
The list of "what's ok and what's not ok" is fairly grey. For example, while MRY would be workable because it's in a sector that the controllers have trained for, OAK, RNO, RDD, CIC, SJC, RHV, APC & CCR are in sectors that most controllers currently know NOTHING about, so it's a real mixed bag. Pilots have know way of knowing what's ok and what's not.
To that end, I would ask that you consider only using SFO in Norcal and not try to stretch the current service offering beyond the point that it was designed for. You will hit the limits very quickly, after which, the result will be random and inconsistent among the controllers. SFO was opened to let pilots stretch their legs on longer flights, not to conduct operations entirely within Norcal. Believe me, I miss Norcal, too, and I hope we can have it fully opened again in the future!
-
Kim Ellis
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:47 am
- Location: Mengyuan, Moolboolaman, Qld, Australia
- Contact:
Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area
Concise and understandable. Hopefully everyone will abide by the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. And please Keith and gang, don't for one moment think that those of us flying the big iron, aren't totally grateful for having somewhere like KSFO to head for. KLAX to KLAS and I can barely turn 'the choke off' in the 744. Put me in the plane as a single PF, add real world ATC, with all the attendant frequency changes, and a flight from KONT to KSFO, at correct fuel economy cruise, and checklists by the book, is just doable. And please, no comments from heavies pilots who cheat and do a generic approach solution on the ground prior to departure, we're onto you 
And if any of that gibberish doesn't make sense, ask a heavies pilot to share his cockpit screen with you in Skype and take you for a real flight as observer, but you'll have to set aside a couple hours for a flight without cheats. Then you'll appreciate how grateful they really are to Keith and the ATCs for KSFO and what it provides, even if they don't articulate it clearly. Hopefully we can all respect what Keith wrote about KSFO so we don't loose it.
And if any of that gibberish doesn't make sense, ask a heavies pilot to share his cockpit screen with you in Skype and take you for a real flight as observer, but you'll have to set aside a couple hours for a flight without cheats. Then you'll appreciate how grateful they really are to Keith and the ATCs for KSFO and what it provides, even if they don't articulate it clearly. Hopefully we can all respect what Keith wrote about KSFO so we don't loose it.Re: [Jul 17] Adding SFO to coverage area
................"Therefore, operations that loiter around Norcal (such as a Bay Tour) are troublesome (if you're looking for ATC service). I worked out the Bay Tour on Bruce's flight (for better or worse) as an experiment and also because he wasn't looking for radar service outside of the Bravo. I regret giving the impression that it was open season for Bay Tour flights with full radar service."........."To that end, I would ask that you consider only using SFO in Norcal and not try to stretch the current service offering beyond the point that it was designed for. ".............
Does that mean I can loiter no more?
If so, shame, I would have liked to do the Highway 101 thing again (correctly this time). The only reason I posted the route I flew was to illustrate a visually stunning flight (with VFR photo scenery) that can be done without any radar control & because of that is more challenging with all the height changes above you effecting the Bravo airspace.
I have heard it said that flying/navigating VFR is often more challenging than IFR, I would add that VFR without flight following can be even more so, hence the flight!
For the curious, apart from an initial brain fade regarding Highway 101 & a height restriction (can't wait for you to get a Biggleswade By pass ref. in the UK
) I believe I maintained the integrity of all airspace, including the San Jose Charlie, even managing to call SFO Twr/Apr in good time for the rejoin (Dumbarton Bridge).
Great fun.
Does that mean I can loiter no more?
If so, shame, I would have liked to do the Highway 101 thing again (correctly this time). The only reason I posted the route I flew was to illustrate a visually stunning flight (with VFR photo scenery) that can be done without any radar control & because of that is more challenging with all the height changes above you effecting the Bravo airspace.I have heard it said that flying/navigating VFR is often more challenging than IFR, I would add that VFR without flight following can be even more so, hence the flight!
For the curious, apart from an initial brain fade regarding Highway 101 & a height restriction (can't wait for you to get a Biggleswade By pass ref. in the UK
) I believe I maintained the integrity of all airspace, including the San Jose Charlie, even managing to call SFO Twr/Apr in good time for the rejoin (Dumbarton Bridge).Great fun.