"Jose" wrote in message
m...
No he isn't. Review the scenario.

It's my scenario. I'm talking about my hypothetical, which I'll reproduce
below:

I don't know, but in the following hypothetical case (that you could I
suppose argue would never happen) I can see it.

Fred is a certified weather observer, but the station is officially
closed. Fred is also Susan's husband, and Susan is flying back from
Kalahachee and getting ready to land at the small airstrip near their
home. So Fred goes down to wherever he can make certifiable weather
observations, looks out the window, and makes a certifiable (but not
certified) observation, which he relays to Susan on the ham radio. (As
it turns out they are both licensed amateur radio operators, so the
transmission is perfectly legal). Susan forwards this observation to ATC
and asks for a contact approach. Donna at ATC says fine and clears Susan
for the contact approach.

Something Goes Wrong.

In the subsequent investigation, the FAA throws the book at Fred, Susan,
and Donna, claiming that the contact approach should not have been
requested or granted, the observation wasn't "official", wasn't available
to ATC, and all that rot.

What sticks?

Does it matter that the weather at the time was in fact CAVU?

...to which I later clarified that Fred reported the ground visibility.

Now granted I stated that Fred was a =certified= weather observer, not
that he was an =accredited= weather observer. I expected my meaning was
clear, but just to be explicit, in the =new= scenario where Fred is not
only certified but also accredited, I ask the same question.

What sticks?


Is he accredited to take weather observations at the small airstrip near his
home where Susan wishes to land? Is there a standard or special instrument
approach procedure published and functioning for the small airstrip near his
home where Susan wishes to land? If so, wouldn't it be simpler and easier
for Susan to just fly the IAP?