Narrative:

Inbound to oak on runway 27R ILS, at about 150-160 KTS, observed aircraft ahead on TCASII at approximately 1300 ft MSL. At approximately 1700 ft we got an RA to 'monitor vertical speed' ie, stop descent. We leveled off until 'clear of conflict,' then dove back onto the GS to complete the approach. We broke out about 1550 ft. After landing, I contacted the tower. The other aircraft was transiting to hwd airport en route from pao to controller in charge. I understand the airspace and terrain constraints involved here, however, there has got to be a better way to transition aircraft northbound during MVFR conditions. Aircraft based at hwd tend to know of the ILS (LOM crossing, 1350 ft, just north of the airport) but obviously not all area pilots do, and know what it implies. If the aircraft transited oak at 1000 ft, mid-field, it could avoid future conflicts. VMC conditions, this is usually not a problem (the current situation), although we can get busy looking for traffic, but IMC, this is not the first time I've had this unpleasant experience. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he had just changed over to oak tower. The tower controller did mention traffic in the 'area' just before the reporter's TCASII gave a TA. The other aircraft was on the same frequency and only responded to being on frequency when the reporter asked for a tail number of the other aircraft. The WX was 1500 ft ceiling with about 10 mi visibility. The miss distance was 400 ft vertical and about 2500 ft horizontal. Reporter stated that the small aircraft was too close to the clouds, about 200 ft below the bases. He was a VFR transit from pao to controller in charge and had asked bay approach for an 'up the bay, direct oak' clearance but that had been refused. Reporter cited an LOA that he thought existed regarding these VFR transit flts and that the older procedure of going 'up the bay, direct oak' was no longer authority/authorized. A route over hwd must be flown. The reason was given, the hwd class D had been widened some time ago by a radius of 1 mi, supposedly for GPS approach criterion. This reporter has a private aircraft and makes requests to fly the same route as requested, via up the middle of the bay. It is denied every time. The change back to the 'old way' was supposed to take place the first of the yr but didn't. Reporter wants to know what is the future plan. Continued potential conflicts?

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CPR JET STAYS ABOVE THE GS AT 1700 FT OF OAK RWY 27R ILS WHEN THE ACFT'S TCASII DETECTS TFC AHEAD AT 1300 FT. THE PA28 WAS TRANSITING FROM PAO VIA HWD TO CIC, CA. THE JET WAS IMC AT 1700 FT. COUNTING HORIZ MISS DISTANCE THE INCIDENT APPEARS TO BE A POTENTIAL CONFLICT.

Narrative: INBOUND TO OAK ON RWY 27R ILS, AT ABOUT 150-160 KTS, OBSERVED ACFT AHEAD ON TCASII AT APPROX 1300 FT MSL. AT APPROX 1700 FT WE GOT AN RA TO 'MONITOR VERT SPD' IE, STOP DSCNT. WE LEVELED OFF UNTIL 'CLR OF CONFLICT,' THEN DOVE BACK ONTO THE GS TO COMPLETE THE APCH. WE BROKE OUT ABOUT 1550 FT. AFTER LNDG, I CONTACTED THE TWR. THE OTHER ACFT WAS TRANSITING TO HWD ARPT ENRTE FROM PAO TO CIC. I UNDERSTAND THE AIRSPACE AND TERRAIN CONSTRAINTS INVOLVED HERE, HOWEVER, THERE HAS GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY TO TRANSITION ACFT NBOUND DURING MVFR CONDITIONS. ACFT BASED AT HWD TEND TO KNOW OF THE ILS (LOM XING, 1350 FT, JUST N OF THE ARPT) BUT OBVIOUSLY NOT ALL AREA PLTS DO, AND KNOW WHAT IT IMPLIES. IF THE ACFT TRANSITED OAK AT 1000 FT, MID-FIELD, IT COULD AVOID FUTURE CONFLICTS. VMC CONDITIONS, THIS IS USUALLY NOT A PROB (THE CURRENT SIT), ALTHOUGH WE CAN GET BUSY LOOKING FOR TFC, BUT IMC, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I'VE HAD THIS UNPLEASANT EXPERIENCE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAD JUST CHANGED OVER TO OAK TWR. THE TWR CTLR DID MENTION TFC IN THE 'AREA' JUST BEFORE THE RPTR'S TCASII GAVE A TA. THE OTHER ACFT WAS ON THE SAME FREQ AND ONLY RESPONDED TO BEING ON FREQ WHEN THE RPTR ASKED FOR A TAIL NUMBER OF THE OTHER ACFT. THE WX WAS 1500 FT CEILING WITH ABOUT 10 MI VISIBILITY. THE MISS DISTANCE WAS 400 FT VERT AND ABOUT 2500 FT HORIZ. RPTR STATED THAT THE SMA WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE CLOUDS, ABOUT 200 FT BELOW THE BASES. HE WAS A VFR TRANSIT FROM PAO TO CIC AND HAD ASKED BAY APCH FOR AN 'UP THE BAY, DIRECT OAK' CLRNC BUT THAT HAD BEEN REFUSED. RPTR CITED AN LOA THAT HE THOUGHT EXISTED REGARDING THESE VFR TRANSIT FLTS AND THAT THE OLDER PROC OF GOING 'UP THE BAY, DIRECT OAK' WAS NO LONGER AUTH. A RTE OVER HWD MUST BE FLOWN. THE REASON WAS GIVEN, THE HWD CLASS D HAD BEEN WIDENED SOME TIME AGO BY A RADIUS OF 1 MI, SUPPOSEDLY FOR GPS APCH CRITERION. THIS RPTR HAS A PVT ACFT AND MAKES REQUESTS TO FLY THE SAME RTE AS REQUESTED, VIA UP THE MIDDLE OF THE BAY. IT IS DENIED EVERY TIME. THE CHANGE BACK TO THE 'OLD WAY' WAS SUPPOSED TO TAKE PLACE THE FIRST OF THE YR BUT DIDN'T. RPTR WANTS TO KNOW WHAT IS THE FUTURE PLAN. CONTINUED POTENTIAL CONFLICTS?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.