Instrument Approaches
Instrument Approaches in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area
When training instrument students, I find it beneficial to expose the student to a wide variety of approaches and minimums, not just the most common ILS, VOR, and RNAV approaches. The approaches enumerated below are some of the approaches that I use when training students, and where to find them. This does not imply that these approaches are the only ones available of the particular type, just that they are at least one example, and one that usually works well for instrument training.
Note: In most of the approaches listed below, I try to provide a link to the relevant approach. But since approaches get updated all of the time, a link to a given approach tends to become invalid rather quickly. So I now provide a link to the AirNav.com page for the relevant airport instead. Once on the airport page, scroll down to the approach section and click on the appropriate link for the specific approach being discussed. AirNav is a great site, and it does all of the work to update these links as the approach plates are updated. But be warned that some of the links below are still of the old form, linking directly to a given (outdated) approach plate. I am working on updating all of these outdated links, but it is still a work in progress.
Note: Since most approaches (other than ILS approaches) can be flown to LNAV and/or circling minimums, I do not explicitly list such approaches here unless they appear for another reason.
A note about using larger (class B and C) airports for IFR training:
Class G, E, and D airports are generally the best match for IFR training operations due to lower traffic volumes and standard GA (non-jet) operations. Conversely, class B and C airports are usually not a good match for IFR training operations due to higher traffic volumes and a high percentage of jet operations. Here is my local experience/opinion:
San Francisco (SFO) is simply out of the question for any training operations - go somewhere else.
San Jose (SJC) will accommodate you if/when they can, but IFR training operations don't always mesh very well with their jet traffic unless you are flying a relatively fast aircraft. If they do take you in for an approach they will usually ask you for your "best forward speed until a 3 mile final" or something like that.
Oakland (OAK) is essentially two airports in one: one side (and tower) for commercial (airline) operations, and one side (and tower) for the GA side. So flying into the GA (north) side is fine traffic-wise. But Oakland has now implemented some sort of tracking and billing system to charge a landing fee for all operations, even on the GA side. But I recently heard that the GA landing fee only applies if you do a full-stop landing and go to the FBO (or a tie-down?), although I have not been able to personally verify this. If/when I get more definitive information on the landing fee situation I will update this page.
Sacramento International (SMF) is often surprisingly accommodating. They sometimes might need to vector you around for traffic, but they don't seem to mind bringing you in on an approach, especially if you are able/willing to take an approach on "the other runway" (Left vs Right) from the current traffic. If you indicate this willingness/flexibility on your initial call-up it might help.
I do find it worthwhile to take IFR students to at least one class C or B airport for the "larger airport experience", both in the air and on the ground. But this is best done near the end of the training, possibly as part of the long instrument cross-country.
A note about circling approaches: From the AIM (Approach and Landing Minimums, 5-4-20(c)):
Straight−in Minimums are shown on the IAP when the final approach course is within 30 degrees of the runway alignment (15 degrees for GPS IAPs) and a normal descent can be made from the IFR altitude shown on the IAP to the runway surface. When either the normal rate of descent or the runway alignment factor of 30 degrees (15 degrees for GPS IAPs) is exceeded, a straight−in minimum is not published and a circling minimum applies. The fact that a straight−in minimum is not published does not preclude pilots from landing straight−in if they have the active runway in sight and have sufficient time to make a normal approach for landing. Under such conditions and when ATC has cleared them for landing on that runway, pilots are not expected to circle even though only circling minimums are published. If they desire to circle, they should advise ATC.
ILS Approach - with dedicated ILS approach plate
Approach - ILS RWY 25R @ KLVK (Livermore) ... or ... ILS RWY 31 @ KSNS (Salinas)
ILS approaches are the standard at larger airports, and are therefore relatively common. But very often, the approach plates for the ILS and LOC approaches at a given airport are combined into a single approach plate. This can also lead to some confusion as to which symbols go with which approach (the ILS vs the LOC). I like to compare and contrast these two types of charting (individual vs combined) to help the student to understand the difference. This allows the student to build a much better understanding of which symbols apply to which approach, and why.
Besides the approach itself, the Livermore missed approach is good for training due to an interesting problem: Depending on the winds, and exactly when and how the missed is executed, it is easy to end up in a situation where you will miss the ALTAM intersection (used for the hold) unless you take some sort of corrective action that is not specified on the approach plate. It is an interesting problem and one to be discussed with the student.
The Salinas ILS has two Initial Approach Fixes (IAF): one is at the UAD NDB and requires a procedure turn, the other starts out on a 22 NM DME ARC with no procedure turn. This is a good approach to show the difference on the chart between the altitude/position of initial glideslope intercept vs the cross-check glideslope intercept altitude at the UAD NDB.
ILS Approach - with combined ILS or LOC approach plate
Approach - ILS or LOC RWY 29R @ KSCK (Stockton) ... or ... ILS or LOC RWY 32R @ KNUQ (Moffett)
This Stockton ILS is a good example of a typical ILS approach down to minimums at 200' AGL. It also offers an RVR reduction for use of a FD, AP, or HUD. As noted, this is on a combined approach plate with the LOC approach, which has it's own training value.
The Moffett ILS is great when you are tight on time yet would like to get in a quick approach or two. But there are a few downsides: 1) You will not be allowed to land or to touch your wheels to the ground in any way. 2) The Moffett tower will usually (always?) have you turn away from the runway and start some sort of VFR departure before reaching the MAP. This means that you will typically need to execute your modified missed approach before reaching DA. It is also not uncommon to be vectored for traffic and/or get an altitude restriction somewhere along the approach - and if this happens it totally messes up the approach.
ILS Approach - with Marker Beacon
Approach - ILS or LOC RWY 17R @ KSMF (Sacramento International)
Marker beacons, once the standard on an ILS approach, seem to be almost as rare has hen's teeth these days. This approach uses the inner marker (IM) to indicate the MAP. This is the only marker beacon of any type (of the outer, middle, or inner markers - OM, MM, IM) that I've been able to find in the Greater Bay Area (at least so far). It is good to fly an approach with a marker beacon so that you can see and hear the beacon, and learn how to use it as part of an approach if/when needed.
LOC Approach - with dedicated LOC approach plate
Approach - LOC RWY 25R @ KLVK (Livermore) ... or ... LOC/DME RWY 31 @ KSNS (Salinas)
I like these approaches since they have their own approach plate (not shared with the ILS). This eliminates any distracting symbology or notes that are only relevant for the ILS.
LOC Approach - with combined ILS or LOC approach plate
Approach - ILS or LOC RWY 29R @ KSCK (Stockton) ... or ... ILS or LOC RWY 32R @ KNUQ (Moffett)
This Stockton LOC is a good example of a typical LOC approach, although it offers a hold in lieu of a procedure turn rather than a procedure turn. This approach is a good example of a greatly reduced MDA if you are able to identify an additional waypoint inside of the FAF (in this case WIGBI).
The Moffett LOC is great when you are tight on time yet would like to get in a quick approach or two. But there are a few downsides: 1) You will not be allowed to land or to touch your wheels to the ground in any way. 2) The Moffett tower will usually (always?) have you turn away from the runway and start some sort of VFR departure before reaching the MAP. This means that you will typically need to execute your modified missed approach before reaching the MAP. It is also not uncommon to be vectored for traffic and/or get an altitude restriction somewhere along the approach - and if this happens it totally messes up the approach.
VOR Approach - VOR on-field
Approach - VOR RWY 13 @ KSNS (Salinas) ... or ... VOR RWY 28R @ KMOD (Modesto)
This is a good example of a typical on-field VOR approach where the final approach course doesn't line up very well with the runway heading - they differ by 12°. This approach is also attractive for a number of other reasons: 1) you can often get cleared for the option as either a straight-in for runway 13, or as a circling approach to runway 26, 8, or 31, 2) it has an interesting missed approach that can be a bit challenging, especially if hand flying, 3) it works nicely with other approaches, such as following it with the VOR-A at WVI starting at JEJZE.
The Modesto approach is another good example of an on-field VOR approach, where the sensitivity increases as you get closer to the runway. It lends itself to entering pilot-nav via the hold in lieu of a procedure turn, a NoPT IAF or feeder route, or vectors to final. Also, the hold over the on-field VOR is a bit more demanding than a hold a ways away from the airport.
VOR Approach - VOR off-field
Approach - VOR RWY 26 @ KTCY (Tracy) ... or ... VOR-A @ 1O3 (Lodi)
This is a good example of an off-field VOR approach, where the sensitivity decreases as you get further from the VOR. Basically, the VOR signal sucks in this area, and it only gets worse as you get further away. By the time you get to the Tracy airport you are 22 NM from the MOD VOR as the signal scallops all over the place. You usually really have to look around to find the runway before landing. It is also worth noting that the MAP is 1.0 NM from the runway 26 threshold - this will affect your missed approach, your landing, or your circle-to-land maneuver. I often like to fly this approach with a circle-to-land to runway 30 (the most common runway in use at Tracy).
The VOR signal for the approach at Lodi is better behaved than the VOR signal for the Tracy approach, but it can still be challenging. The only minimums offered are circling, and Lodi usually favors runway 26. Note that Lodi uses right traffic for runway 26 due to jump activity on the south side of the field — make sure to avoid the jump zone whenever it is in use (which is pretty much all of the time). Your best bet for a circling approach to runway 26 is usually to do a jog to the right and then a turn left onto final, similar to a left base.
VOR with no Final Approach Fix (FAF)
Approach - VOR RWY 32 @ MYV (Marysville)
This is a very simple approach — about as simple as it gets. As a matter of fact, it's so simple that it doesn't even have an final approach fix (FAF), only a final approach segment. Once quite common, these types of simple VOR approaches are rapidly disappearing.
RNAV (GPS) Approach with LPV minimums (as well as LNAV/VNAV, LNAV, and Circling)
Approach - RNAV (GPS) RWY 30 @ C83 (Byron) ... or ... RNAV (GPS) RWY 30 @ KTCY
These are both good examples of RNAV approaches with Circling, LNAV, LNAV/VNAV and LPV minimums. The Byron approach is also good for teaching/testing "activate leg" functionality since there are numerous course changes before the FAF, and none of them align with the final approach course. The key issue here is that you CAN NOT use the GPS "vectors to final" function (note that this is slightly different from ATC giving you vectors to final, which is OK) to fly any segment other than the final segment. If you try to do this you will not be on the appropriate course. It is particularly important to learn how to use the "activate leg" function of the GPS for this approach since ATC tends to bring you in outside of either DASVE or MOVDD and then clears you for the approach.
RNAV (GPS) Approach with LP minimums
Approach - RNAV (GPS) RWY 25 @ O88 (Rio Vista)
This is one of only two RNAV approaches in the greater Bay Area with LP minimums. (The other is the RNAV (GPS) RWY 28L @ KMRY.) Rio Vista's approach is a great example of such an approach since it reduces the category-A minimums from 460 feet for the LNAV to 300 for the LP (note: that's without any vertical guidance!).
RNAV (GPS) Approach with LNAV/VNAV minimums (but without LP or LPV minimums)
Approach - RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34R @ KSMF (Sacramento International)
It is rare to find an RNAV (GPS) approach with LNAV/VNAV minimums without also having LP or LPV minimums. In this case, the WAAS certified GPS should annunciate the LNAV/VNAV approach and you can fly to the specified DA before continuing to land or starting your missed approach.
RNAV (GPS) Approach Z vs Y - different minimums for virtually the same approach
Approach 1 - RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 30 @ KSQL (San Carlos)
Approach 2 - RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 30 @ KSQL (San Carlos)
The RNAV (GPS) Z vs Y at San Carlos is an excellent example of the impact of different missed approach climb gradients on the approach minimums for approaches that are otherwise virtually identical. It should be noted that the LNAV straight-in MDA is 900 feet for the Z vs 1260 feet for the Y. Why? Because the Z requires a climb gradient of 302 feet per NM to 540 vs a standard climb gradient of 200 feet per NM for the Y.
Unfortunately, you can't always actually fly these two approaches as practice approaches due to staffing problems at the San Carlos tower and traffic issues that sometimes arise due to the proximity to SFO, especially in marginal weather. Taxiing back and waiting to depart again can also be a problem. Due to these issues, I only occasionally use San Carlos for IFR training operations; most of the time I usually find it best to go elsewhere.
Localizer Back Course Approach
Approach - LOC BC RWY 12 @ KMCE (Merced) ... or ... LOC/DME BC RWY 16 @ KRDD (Redding)
Back course approaches can be tricky to fly for a number of reasons, and the details can vary greatly from one avionics configuration to another. What course do you set for the localizer? Does your CDI indicate LEFT/Right correctly, or is it reverse sensing? What about coupling your autopilot? How, exactly, do you use the BC button (if available)? Etc. The back course approach is probably one of the most confusing approaches to most pilots, at least with respect to properly configuring and using your avionics and instruments. It is definitely best to get proficient on back course approaches by practicing (either solo, or with a safety pilot or CFII) before you need to do an actual back course approach in IMC.
The Merced approach has an interesting "shallow-angle" intercept to final at the beginning of the approach. And the Redding approach has a DME ARC entry to the approach, which makes it doubly interesting from a training standpoint.
LDA Approach
Approach - LDA RWY 19R @ KCCR (Concord)
An LDA approach is like a localizer approach (LOC), but the final approach does not align with the runway centerline, as is the typical case for a localizer approach, due to terrain or other factors that prevent locating the localizer antenna at the far end of the runway. This offset angle can be more disorienting than you might think as you break out at or near minimums. The LDA approach at Concord is only about 4.7° offset from the runway centerline, but it is significant enough to make breaking out and landing a challenge at or near minimums. This is also a good approach to use for practicing a procedure turn (which are not all that common in the Bay Area).
I also like to do this approach with students for another reason. I like to do it without using GPS, as if we are in an aircraft with only dual VOR/LOC capability. If you study this approach you will see that this is possible, but it takes some planning. For example, you can identify JOANS and ZUKOP using the LOC and a cross-radial from SGD. But how do you identify the FAF to commence your descent to MDA? And how are you going to identify the MAP? You will need to work out the answers to these questions before you begin the approach.
NDB Approach
Approach - NDB or GPS-A @ KSIY (Siskiyou County)
This approach is in very Northern California up near the Oregon border, far from the greater Bay Area, but it is the only NDB approach left in California! So I have included it here for completeness - but I have not yet done this approach, either with or without a student. There are so few IFR aircraft left these days that can fly a real NDB approach (due to a lack of an ADF receiver) that this scarcity doesn't seem to be a real problem. But note that this approach is actually an "NDB or GPS-A" approach, so you are allowed to fly it with your GPS rather than ADF. But in that case it's not all that different that other GPS approaches, other than the relatively high MDA and circling only minimums.
Radar Approaches: Precision (PAR) and Surveillance (ASR)
Approach - Radar Approach Procedures @ KNLC (Lemoore NAS) - No longer available to civilians
... or ... There are also 6 military fields in SoCal that still have approach radar, but I believe that all of them are unavailable to civilians
It MAY still be possible to get a practice PAR approach in VFR conditions (with a low pass only) at a military field, but I believe that the odds are slim to none. Although I had the pleasure of doing a PAR approach at Beale AFB as part of my IFR training over 20 years ago, these approaches are so rare, and so hard to get today, that training for them is pointless (and basically impossible anyway).
Approach with Terminal Arrival Area (TAA)
Approach - RNAV (GPS) RWY 29R @ KSCK (Stockton)
This is one of the closest approaches to the Bay Area with a Terminal Arrival Area (TAA). This is because TAAs are not normally used in areas of heavy concentration of air traffic (per the AIM). See the AIM, Terminal Arrival Area, 5-4-5(d) for more details about TAA procedures. But, in a nutshell, they allow you to fly the approach from 25-30 NM outside of the IAF with a minimum of ATC interaction since they specify how to fly to the IAF on your own from a wide variety of locations (sectors).
Approach with DME ARC
Approach - VOR-A @ KWVI (Watsonville) ... or ... ILS or LOC RWY 21L @ KSUU (Travis AFB)
Flying a DME ARC with a GPS and autopilot coupled is not that much of a challenge (but always worthwhile to see how it works). But to get the most out of this approach try hand flying it using DME (or GPS distance) and either the VOR needle and/or bearing pointers. It's really not that hard, but it does take some getting used to. And, as is the case for most types of approaches, you should become proficient with this type of approach before executing one for real in actual IMC. Also, this approach works well in a sequence with other approaches. My typical sequence is: VOR RWY 13 @ SNS followed by the published hold at MARNA, the VOR-A @ WVI starting at JEJZE, then the RNAV (GPS) RWY 31 @ CVH starting at RUDNY. (Watch the initial segment altitudes on the published approach!)
Unless they are particularly busy (which does happen), Travis is usually happy to accommodate practice approaches. Just make it clear that you are only requesting a VFR practice approach, with a low pass (no wheels touching the ground!), and that you can execute whatever missed approach works best for them.
Sidestep Minimums
Approach - ILS or LOC/DME RWY 28R @ KOAK (Oakland) ... or ... ILS or LOC RWY 30L @ KSJC (San Jose)
Comments - Oakland and San Jose both offer approaches with sidestep minimums. Of the two, Oakland is potentially easier to actually get the approach since it is on the GA side of the airport. The only downside is that you might have to deal with the aforementioned landing fees issue. It San Jose isn't that busy you might be lucky enough to get the approach there.
The details of executing the side-step maneuver are explained in the AIM 5-4-19, Side-step Maneuver, as follows:
ATC may authorize a standard instrument approach procedure which serves either one of parallel runways that are separated by 1,200 feet or less followed by a straight-in landing on the adjacent runway.
Aircraft that will execute a side-step maneuver will be cleared for a specified approach procedure and landing on the adjacent parallel runway. Example, “cleared ILS runway 7 left approach, side-step to runway 7 right.” Pilots are expected to commence the side-step maneuver as soon as possible after the runway or runway environment is in sight. Compliance with minimum altitudes associated with stepdown fixes is expected even after the side-step maneuver is initiated. ...
Side-step minima are flown to a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) regardless of the approach authorized.
Landing minimums to the adjacent runway will be based on nonprecision criteria and therefore higher than the precision minimums to the primary runway, but will normally be lower than the published circling minimums.
Circling Minimums - Aligned with the runway
Approach - RNAV (GPS)-B @ KUKI (Ukiah) ... or ... VOR/DME-A @ KHWD (Hayward)
I realize that the Ukiah approach is relatively far from PAO, but it is an excellent example of this type of approach (an approach that is aligned with a runway but that only has circling minimums.) Take a few minutes to brief this approach plate. Go ahead, I'll wait. ...
OK, now that you have briefed the approach, here is my question: The final approach course and the runway center-line only differ by 3°. Since this is far less than the 15° maximum offset from runway alignment before a GPS approach is automatically deemed a circling approach (no straight-in minimums line), how come there is only a CIRCLING minimums line and no straight-in minimums?
Take a look at the descent angle required to descend from GOXTU (the last fix before the MAP) to the threshold crossing height of 40 feet. This is shown on the plan view between GOXTU and the MAP (RW33) — the required descent angle is 7.49°, which is far steeper than the maximum allowed straight-in descent gradient of 400 feet/NM (essentially 4°). This explains why this is a circling-only approach. You will have to maneuver near the airport (within the circling protected area, making sure to note "Circling NA west of Rwy 15-33") in visual conditions, as appropriate, to land on either runway.
The Hayward approach is much, much closer to Palo Alto than Ukiah. And, although not as dramatic as the Ukiah approach, it is none-the-less a good example of an approach that only has circling minimums even though the approach course and runway heading differ by only 7°. The issue with the Hayward approach is that the approach course is also offset from the runway. The combination of the two - alignment and offset - is enough to eliminate the straight-in minimums.
Straight-in Minimums - Not aligned with the runway
Approach - RNAV (GPS) RWY 31 @ KPAO (Palo Alto)
The RNAV approach at Palo Alto is a good example of a "straight-in" runway approach that is not aligned with the runway (it's offset by 14°). This is almost as extreme as it gets for a GPS straight-in approach — the TERPS only allows up to 15° of offset before a GPS approach can no longer have a straight-in minimums line (30° for a non-GPS approach). The descent gradient from the FAF is also right at the maximum allowed of 400 feet/NM for a straight-in approach. If landing straight-in on runway 31, after passing the FAF at PUDBY, you must quickly start your descent to minimums. Assuming that you break out an adequate distance before the MAP, you must then jog to the right (typically inside of the Amphitheater) to align with the runway, and then capture the PAPI for the final portion of the straight-in approach and landing.
Procedure Turn
Approach - VOR RWY 19R @ KCCR (Concord) ... or ... LDA RWY 19R @ KCCR (Concord)
The procedure turn is an important staple of instrument flight, but they are getting harder to find since RNAV approaches don't use them and ILS and localizer approaches seem to be using them less and less. But both the VOR and the LDA approaches at Concord (KCCR) include a procedure turn as part of the approach.
Hold in lieu of a procedure turn
Approach - RNAV (GPS) RWY 30 @ KTCY (Tracy) ... or ... ILS or LOC RWY 29R @ KSCK (Stockton)
I like to do this approach pilot-nav, starting at NAPYI, entering from the west/south-west. When entered in this way fly the hold in lieu of a procedure turn. I will often also clear the student to "Cross NAPYI at 4,000, cleared for the RNAV RWY 30 approach at Tracy." Note that this is a 4 NM hold and not a 1 minute hold - this will impact the number of degrees of offset used when flying the teardrop entry.
The hold on the Stockton ILS or LOC is anchored at IPDEW and has 1 minute legs.
Visual Approach (an IFR procedure, but it is not an instrument approach)
Note: A visual approach is an IFR procedure, but it is not an instrument approach. It is included here for completeness, not to imply that it is an instrument approach. Be warned that there is no published missed approach when on a visual approach. If you loose contact with the airport, or otherwise need to go around or to "go missed", then you will need to talk with the tower and/or ATC as appropriate to get instructions and/or a clearance for whatever it is that you do next.
From the AIM, 5-4-23 Visual Approach:
A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft in sight. This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate air traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must have a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater. ATC may authorize this type approach when it will be operationally beneficial. Visual approaches are an IFR procedure conducted under IFR in visual meteorological conditions. Cloud clearance requirements of 14 CFR Section 91.155 are not applicable, unless required by operation specifications.
Contact Approach (an IFR procedure, but it is not an instrument approach)
Note: A contact approach is an IFR procedure, but it is not an instrument approach. It is included here for completeness, not to imply that it is an instrument approach. Be warned that there is no published missed approach when on a contact approach. If you loose contact with the airport, or otherwise need go around or to "go missed", then you will need to talk with the tower and/or ATC as appropriate to get instructions and/or a clearance for whatever it is that you do next.
From the AIM, 5-4-25 Contact Approach:
Pilots operating in accordance with an IFR flight plan, provided they are clear of clouds and have at least 1 mile flight visibility and can reasonably expect to continue to the destination airport in those conditions, may request ATC authorization for a contact approach. ...
... A contact approach is an approach procedure that may be used by a pilot (with prior authorization from ATC) in lieu of conducting a standard or special IAP to an airport. It is not intended for use by a pilot on an IFR flight clearance to operate to an airport not having a published and functioning IAP. Nor is it intended for an aircraft to conduct an instrument approach to one airport and then, when “in the clear,” discontinue that approach and proceed to another airport. In the execution of a contact approach, the pilot assumes the responsibility for obstruction clearance. If radar service is being received, it will automatically terminate when the pilot is instructed to change to advisory frequency.