I see. But Fred must still be some distance away from the observation point
or he wouldn't have to go "down to wherever he can make certifiable weather
observations".

"Down" could be down one flight of stairs. Fred doesn't have to be any
appreciable distance from the observation point, in fact he could even
be =at= the observation point. He might have even made the observation
expecting Susie to request a contact approach.

This is a =hypothetical=, and it is =my= hypothetical, designed to help
me see what is the =specific= mandated part of a weather observation
that is missing, which would prohibit a contact approach. As such, it
is not designed to be a real world example, and "it wouldn't happen that
way", while probably true, does not serve the purpose of my question.

You get picky on nits, allow me to do the same. I might learn something
(besides never to try to teach a pig to sing).

It's probably still quicker to fly the IAP. ...

Irrelevant.

Fred still has to go to the
observation point, take the observation =and= get it into the system.

Is it true that, unless the observation is "in the system", it is not
sufficient, by regulation, to issue a contact approach? That's the
impression I'm getting.

If
Susie flys the approach while she's waiting she'll likely be on the ground
before that's done.

Also irrelevant.

IAF is twenty miles away? What kind of approach is this?

A long one.

I realize this is
a hypothetical situation, but a hypothetical with no real world similarity
is not particularly useful.

It is useful for pedagogical reasons, as explained above.

How does a small airstrip generate enough traffic to justify a certified
weather station yet remain a small airstrip?

Graft.

Describe the IAP.

No. It's irrelevant.

Your hypothetical has Susie telling the controller she's talking to a
certified observer and he says the ground visibility is one mile or more.
No competent controller will issue a contact approach clearance based on
that.

Ok, so an =in=competent controller does so, and the FAA hears of it and
wants to bust him. Do they get to cite a specific reg that he broke
(what does it say?), or do they instead rely on some equivalent of the
"careless or reckless" rule?

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.