ADIZ question

kimberlyanne546

kimberlyanne546

Final Approach
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
7,726
Location
California
Display Name
Display name:
Kimberly
I was speaking with a local pilot about something.

This pilot told me it was awesome to fly over / around / near the Farallons.

Problem is, I thought they were affected by ADIZ? And it looks like there is a marine sanctuary too.

Can I be bombed in the ADIZ - ?


farallones.map1.jpg



7270344748_3ff23bee61_c.jpg
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Problem is, I thought they were affected by ADIZ?
Click to expand...
Your chart indicates they are inside the inner perimeter of the ADIZ, and thus you can to there and back without penetrating the ADIZ.

And it looks like there is a marine sanctuary too.
Click to expand...
That indicates you should not fly under 2000 AGL in the area, but that is just a request, not an FAA regulation, although any polite, courteous, and environmentally-conscious pilot will accede to that request.

Can I be bombed in the ADIZ - ?
Click to expand...
Not unless you're also in a W-area (there being no R-areas that far from the coast). But that's purely an issue of being in the W-area (where air-to-surface weapons training may be conducted), and the fact that it's also in the ADIZ is immaterial. You might get misseled or gunned in the ADIZ if you do not follow the proper procedures and you act in a way which gets you declared "hostile," but that's another matter entirely, and they don't use bombs as air-to-air or surface-to-air weapons.
 
Flying into or through an ADIZ is perfectly OK as long as you follow the rules which IIRC require you to be on a discrete transponder code if VFR (IFR already has you covered) and flying the route filed in a DVFR flight plan.
 
gismo said:
Flying into or through an ADIZ is perfectly OK as long as you follow the rules which IIRC require you to be on a discrete transponder code if VFR (IFR already has you covered) and flying the route filed in a DVFR flight plan.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but if I read that chart at the top correctly, overflight of the Farallons does not require flight in the ADIZ.
 
  • Disturbance of wildlife by aircraft can be a violation of 50 CFR 19.11, punishable by a $1,000 citation or a mandatory court appearance that could result in a fine up to $10,000, one year in jail, aircraft forfeiture, and/or revocation of your airman’s certificate.

  • The following can be a violation under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act:
1) Flying motorized aircraft at less than 1000 feet over designated zones within Monterey Bay Sanctuary
and Gulf of the Farallones Sanctuary. Failure to maintain a minimum altitude of 1,000 feet above
ground level in these areas is presumed to disturb marine mammals or seabirds.
​
Click to expand...
http://farallones.noaa.gov/eco/seabird/pdf/pilotpacket.pdf
 
Last edited:
You Will be inside the adiz, the sanctuary is only a requested altitude. But being what looks about 25 miles out over water, that would be my only concern. If you are comfortable flying over water then you should have no problem.
 
You have no airspace concerns, you will remain within the ADIZ, even if you do breach some on a non stop flight that stays on radar you'll never hear a word about it especially if you're on FF. I used to fly out there a lot doing shark survey/count spotting. If I was flying out there single engine I'd be in a Gumby suit to the waist with it flipped over the seat back for a quick slip in during the glide. I'd also have a life raft and a large container of industrial strength shark repellant. Everglade here we're Swamp Snacks if we go in. It's a rare man that walks out of the Everglades. Out there at the Farralons, you're serious shark snack and that water is COLD!
Do it when the sea conditions are near flat and wear polarized shades, you can see a long way down into the water out there.
 
Last edited:
Sigh.

Kimberly, the ADIZ is way out there, you have to seriously overfly the Farralones to bust it.

As I said before, stay above 2,000 feet to avoid getting bitched out by Fish & Game. They have a couple houses out there and presumably they could report tail numbers of planes buzzing the island. But also, it's the only place within 20 miles that birds have a place to rest. Get too low and you end up in bird soup. You don't want that.
 
kkoran said:
http://farallones.noaa.gov/eco/seabird/pdf/pilotpacket.pdf
Click to expand...

This nonsense is new. The same airspace grab by NOAA is also in force along parts of the Washington coast. In fact, you now have to be careful on a northbound departure from S16 as the Olympic Coast National Marine Sancturary butts right up against the charted location of the airport. Effective with the new SEA sectional that goes into effect on May 31 this prohibition of flying below 2000 AGL over the sanctuary is shown on the chart. Now, just how you are supposed to know where the boundaries of the santuary are is anybody's guess. A sectional isn't that precise. D#$%@d bureaucrats.
 
I did this about eight years ago in a twin. I found the view from above 2000 MSL to be quite satisfactory, and didn't feel in any way deprived by not going lower.

If I were going to do it in a single, I would probably climb to 9,500 MSL or higher before getting too far from land. According to the glide performance chart for a 1979 172, that should be enough to glide to either the islands or the mainland, whichever is closer. One can descend after getting close enough to the islands in order to get a better view, and then climb back up again before returning.

I did it in October, and I waited for a day when Satellite photos indicated that the islands had clear weather. I'm not sure whether the weather will cooperate this time of year, although right now, it looks pretty good out there.

http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/sat-bin/epac_westcoast.cgi

http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/NEXSAT.html

http://www.wunderground.com/satellite/vis/1kU/F.html
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
I did this about eight years ago in a twin. I found the view from above 2000 MSL to be quite satisfactory, and didn't feel in any way deprived by not going lower.

If I were going to do it in a single, I would probably climb to 9,500 MSL or higher before getting too far from land. According to the glide performance chart for a 1979 172, that should be enough to glide to either the islands or the mainland, whichever is closer. One can descend after getting close enough to the islands in order to get a better view, and then climb back up again before returning.
Click to expand...

That's a double edged sword those of who lived on islands used to discuss. The flip side is exposure time on trips when the entire climb is over water. You'll notice the locals fly to Catalina at 1500-2000' and the tourists go to 9500. Thing is in order to make that altitude and have it do any good you have to do a Vx climb since it's the only way to get glide altitude in any time.

Most of us worked out that it's a fools errand to climb while over water to increase glide range; that's not to say that approaching the water at altitude is not a good idea, just the descend to location and then climb to return.
 
Henning said:
Most of us worked out that it's a fools errand to climb while over water to increase glide range; that's not to say that approaching the water at altitude is not a good idea, just the descend to location and then climb to return.
Click to expand...

If your planned climb profile has you beyond gliding distance from land during the climb, I would agree, but I when I did my flight to Catalina, I planned enough of my climb over land so that that didn't happen.
 
Palmpilot said:
If your planned climb profile has you beyond gliding distance from land during the climb, I would agree, but I when I did my flight to Catalina, I planned enough of my climb over land so that that didn't happen.
Click to expand...

There are very few planes that can climb Vx steep enough to take off at Catalina and make the runway, you don't hit the runway, you hit the cliff or the hill, either end is not landable. However, you already have 1640 of altitude on TO, so engine failure is best handled with a turn towards the Isthmus where you have a low flat spot of land and a Shoreboat in the water running with a driver waiting to pick you up from the water.

Fly safe guys and think about all your options.
 
Henning said:
There are very few planes that can climb Vx steep enough to take off at Catalina and make the runway, you don't hit the runway, you hit the cliff or the hill, either end is not landable. However, you already have 1640 of altitude on TO, so engine failure is best handled with a turn towards the Isthmus where you have a low flat spot of land and a Shoreboat in the water running with a driver waiting to pick you up from the water.

Fly safe guys and think about all your options.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about climbing straight out in a single from either the Farallons or Catalina. I'm talking about circling as needed, to stay within gliding distance of land during the climb.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm not talking about climbing straight out in a single from either the Farallons or Catalina. I'm talking about circling as needed, to stay within gliding distance of land during the climb.
Click to expand...

Bad idea if you think about it, what is the primary factor involved in engine failure? Fuel exhaustion. When you sort fact from fear in the analysis you'll see that the time exposure from your circling climb adds more risk than it eliminates. It's really not as easy of an equation as it appears and can vary significantly from aircraft to aircraft.

In the end what was figured (not by me, by a statistician that happened to be in the group who started the whole discussion and series of experiments) was limiting the time exposure led to the most favorable odds out of AVX. There were many factors involved including the average density of boat traffic.
 
Henning said:
Bad idea if you think about it, what is the primary factor involved in engine failure? Fuel exhaustion. When you sort fact from fear in the analysis you'll see that the time exposure from your circling climb adds more risk than it eliminates. It's really not as easy of an equation as it appears and can vary significantly from aircraft to aircraft.

In the end what was figured (not by me, by a statistician that happened to be in the group who started the whole discussion and series of experiments) was limiting the time exposure led to the most favorable odds out of AVX. There were many factors involved including the average density of boat traffic.
Click to expand...

I would think that concern could be almost entirely eliminated by ensuring that the fuel quantity is more than adequate prior to takeoff.
 
Palmpilot said:
I would think that concern could be almost entirely eliminated by ensuring that the fuel quantity is more than adequate prior to takeoff.
Click to expand...

That wasn't factored into the calculation as a risk, it was an example of why there is mitigation on the engine failure side of the equation. When you eliminate fuel exhaustion from the equation, the engine failure risk drops greatly. I'm not a statistician and those types of equations give me a headache to look at, I just know what was worked out after 5 really bored people during off season got together to answer a question asked in the presence of a freaking mathematical genius lol. Joey was worse than me about "not sure, let's find out!" lol.
 
I would have to remain skeptical without seeing the analysis and the data that went into it.
 
Yeah whatever anyway it's like seven o'clock local and I might
Just make that run before the sun goes down
 
By the way slight terminology nit, note that the offshore ADIZ is a ZONE not just a line. The islands are NOT inside the zone, they are outside of it and between ADIZ and the continental US.
 
Pictures from October 2004:
 

Attachments

  • 104_0419.JPG
    104_0419.JPG
    1.4 MB · Views: 12
  • 104_0467.JPG
    104_0467.JPG
    1.3 MB · Views: 10
Henning said:
He kept calling Ralph and some chick from the gym he's stalking and telling them that he loves them.;):D
Click to expand...

Dude, I NEVER invoke the L Word.

Unless circumstances are dire......
 
Old Geek said:
Winds are gusting to 25 on the coast and 30+ inland. I was supposed to pick up my airplane today with the annual completed. Instead I'm on the ground wishing I was flying.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem flying in this wind, I just don't particularly want to be outside in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top