" wrote in message
...

I disagree tha this sugests you must "recognize" something on the surface.


It doesn't suggest it, it states it.



"Visual reference to the surface" references a condition to be maintained.


No, it specifies how the procedure is flown, "proceed to the destination
airport by visual reference to the surface" is pretty clear. That's what
contact flying is.



It certainly doesn't mean that you cannot use other means to navigate to
the airport.


Of course not, you're free to use other means of navigation to supplement
the primary means at any time. It's like using GPS for supplementary
information on an ILS approach. But the supplementary means cannot be used
in lieu of the primary means and on a contact approach the primary means of
navigation is by visual reference to the surface.



It would be ridiculous to suggest this. It would mean that one
would have to be familiar with terrain in order to accept a contact
approach, or be screwing around with a sectional and picking out ground
characteristics while in limited visbility in order to navigate.

A rididulous notion to say the least.


Actually, it's your notion that you can simply follow a VOR radial or a
localizer course, or use your handheld GPS or anything else that you feel
will safely take you to the field once cleared for a contact approach, just
as long as you maintain 1 mile visibility, you should be all set. That's an
absurd notion, when you stop to think about it.

I noticed you didn't answer my question, where is it written that you are
free to navigate any way you wish on a contact approach?

I have another question. Where and why might you be using a localizer
course to take you to the field once cleared for a contact approach?
Localizer courses tend to be final approach courses and aligned with a
runway. Why choose a contact approach over the charted IAP?