Contact Approach

"oneatcer" wrote in message
...
My book say PIREPs are acceptable for the fact that I have to disseminate
them. Controllers can make a ground vis report. AWOS/ASOS is ground vis.
METARs 45 minutes old will suffice due to the requirements of issuing a
new
METAR when the vis changes by a reportable value. And if my memory serves
me right, that is +/- 1/4 mile when it gets down around 1 mile.

It is interesting: A USA weather service observing manual:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ohx/dad/sfc/chapter9.pdf
only specify visibility crossing 3, 2, and 1 miles, plus the lowest
published limit.

In the Canadian rules, the requirement was crossing 3, 1.5, 1, and .5 miles.
Also, crossing 3/4 and 1/4 mile was a requirement when the airport has
precision approach equipment. (Not sure how that relates to published GPS
approaches... not an IFR guru.)

In either case, once the visibility falls below the lowest published minimum
(the airport is effectively closed), no special METAR need be issued until
the visibility rises back up above that minimum.

This means that mountain airports with relatively "high" minimums.... such
as The Dalles, Oregon.... once the METAR was issued showing visibility below
1.25 miles.... there need not be any special METARS issued, (even if it
goes to zero as I understand it)... until it gets back up above 1.25.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news

Why and when did they cease taking observations?


About a year ago; because he was no longer in the flying business for
personal reasons.


That is unlikely. A/FDs from 1997 and 2001 show nothing more than AWOS-A
under Weather Data Sources for EPM. It should show LAWRS if surface weather
observations are being taken.

What you've described here for EPM simply does not fit NWS requirements for
weather observations. It's not even close. It's not just observers that
require NWS certification, stations require it as well. The instruments and
procedures used in taking observations must meet NWS standards, a program of
maintenance and calibration is required. There is quality control,
observations taken must meet the requirements established, observations are
required to be taken at scheduled times and records must be maintained and
archived. Your buddy at EPM certainly wasn't adhering to any schedule.

I phoned the local NWS office and asked if he could find out if a specific
location had ever had weather reporting, he checked a couple of sources for
EPM and found nothing. I relayed to him what you described of EPM and he
concurred that it was very unlikely such an operation could maintain NWS
certification. I think your guy's a faker.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

Uh, the altimeter setting at KEPM ... Only available on an ADF receiver
tuned to 260.


EPM has had an AWOS-A for some time now. Why would one be installed at a
field where manual weather observations are being taken? The observers
would still have to determine visibility, cloud cover, temperature,
dewpoint, and wind.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

He informed me on several occasions that he was doing a bit more than the
minimum required.


The minimum required for any one observer is not the same as a station's
observation schedule.



After he got out of the business, I have no idea if he "lost" his
accreditation for not reporting, or if he officially retired or gave it
up, or whatever the proper term is.

I'm not sure why you bring this up since his cessation of reporting and
his accreditation, took place well after the time to which I was referring
in
my previous post.


I don't think he ever lost his accreditation because I don't think he ever
had it, at least not at EPM.

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

Does it matter how old the report is?


Old reports don't remain available in the system. If a current hourly
observation is not entered to replace the previous hourly observation at the
specified time a request for that site's weather observation will show only
the time of the scheduled observation and an "M" to indicate it is missing.



KHUA


Yeah, I'd say the restricted area is in close proximity. Adjacent to the
runway is certainly close proximity. But this is a military field and
according to my not-so-current information prior permission is required to
operate there. One would think if permission to operate there can be had
then permission to enter the restricted area could he had as well.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

Ok, I should have read on a bit more before posting. I take it that a
certified weather observer loses his certification every time the station
closes (say for the evening), and regains it whenever the station opens in
the morning. So if Fred goes there when the station is closed, and does
=exactly= the same thing he would have when it was open (except for the
reporting path), then the observation is not official.


I see. "The station is officially closed" means part-time weather station
in your scenario, not former weather station as I took it. Let's take
another look at your scenario:

"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."

So Donna wants to get in to this small airstrip near their home. The
weather doesn't permit a visual so she calls hubby/observer Fred and asks
him to take the needed observation for a contact approach because Fred's
station is closed. It sounds like Fred's station is somewhere other than
this small airstrip near their home, so his report is of no value here
anyway. But even if it was, wouldn't it be quicker and easier for Susan to
just fly the instrument approach?

"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?

"Newps" wrote in message
...

There are four maps per station. A short range(0-3 miles) and long range
(0-x). X depends on your terrain. When I worked at GFK the horizon was
at 10 miles so that's as far as the chart went. Here at BIL the farthest
mountains are 100 miles away so thats how far the chart goes out. There
are two charts for daytime and two charts for nighttime


There is no fixed number of visibility maps per station. The number
provided is whatever is deemed necessary and daytime and nighttime
visibility markers can be on the same map.

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...

ATC tapes? I won't argue with what the rules =are= (now that I know them)
but the question applies a higher standard to records of weather that the
pilot can actually see when he gets there, than it does to IFR clearances
which can be relayed to a pilot from some other airplane in the system.


ATC tapes would record the pilot's statement of what the "weather observer"
told him, they would not identify the observer or what he actually reported.



OK, ATC tapes are definately not available in my ham radio relay scenario.
However, I wonder if all ATC clearances are recorded - specifically those
that are relayed via other aircraft, perhaps on a unicom frequency.
Suppose there is an accident due to an aircraft cleared for an ordinary
approach after the airspace had been (supposedly) vacated by the
cancellation of an IFR flight plan which was relayed from the ground via
another aircraft? Only half the conversation would be on tape (the ground
half isn't received directly by ATC, hence the need for the relay).


In cases like this the aircraft providing the relay tends to be the aircraft
waiting for the approach. If he trusts the previous pilot there's no reason
for the controller not to.



How is that covered in the regs?


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 4. IFR

Section 2. Clearances

4-2-4. CLEARANCE RELAY

Relay clearances verbatim.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Communications Failure, Para 10-4-4.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:43:21 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

EPM has had an AWOS-A for some time now. Why would one be installed at a
field where manual weather observations are being taken? The observers
would still have to determine visibility, cloud cover, temperature,
dewpoint, and wind.

Not being a mindreader, I cannot answer your question about "why"?

Nor do I know when the AWOS was installed, or how that correlates with
"manual weather observations".

However, as one who frequently flies SIAP's into KEPM, I find it quite
useful to have a current altimeter setting, so as to take advantage of the
lower minimums compared with using an altimeter setting from KBHB.

As I previously wrote, when manual observations were being done, the
frequency with which they were disseminated was perhaps one every few
weeks. This was not very useful to me for routine operations.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)