Contact approach question

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
news

Let's see: The message he responded to stated "when an instrument letdown
to
a civil airport is necessary". Are you saying the gist of the thread was
the opposite of this?


No.



I'm trying to figure out why he's addressing an instrument letdown being
necessary and your addressing visual letdown.


It's the other way round.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
news

Seems obvious to me. Why is McNicoll changing the context 180 degrees?


Seems you and Paul made the same mistake.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

The only failure was your change in context.


That didn't happen.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:29:58 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Paul stated "canceling when you have sufficient visibility..." which
indicates a change in status/condition/visibility (at the point
visibility
becomes adequate).


Paul wasn't following the thread very closely. The message he responded
to
stated "when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary". As
I
said, if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
necessary.

Let's see: The message he responded to stated "when an instrument letdown
to
a civil airport is necessary". Are you saying the gist of the thread was
the opposite of this?

Your reply infers that there was adequate visibility prior to that.


No, you're inferring.

I'm trying to figure out why he's addressing an instrument letdown being
necessary and your addressing visual letdown.


Because the original post described a situation which required an
instrument letdown, namely landing under IFR.


He's got it backward. It was I that addressed an instrument letdown being
necessary and Paul that addressed a visual letdown.

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
wrote in message
Because the original post described a situation which required an
instrument letdown, namely landing under IFR.
He's got it backward. It was I that addressed an instrument letdown being
necessary and Paul that addressed a visual letdown.

No, I was *asking* a question, not stating something was possible. You
see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything between
you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities. But while
I got an answer about the contact approach thing, I never got an answer
about cancelling. Instead of an answer, all I get is people quoting rules
without explaining how they are relevant to the question. Which is par
for the course around here, it seems.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Just another organic pain collector racing to oblivion

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

No, I was *asking* a question, not stating something was possible.


Which question? I believe you asked several.



You see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything
between
you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities.


You can use a contact approach whenever the required conditions are met.
Seeing the runway is not one of the required conditions, by the way. Are
you asking if one can cancel IFR and land VFR when it's below VFR minima?
No, one cannot do that.



But while I got an answer about the contact approach thing, I never got an
answer
about cancelling. Instead of an answer, all I get is people quoting rules
without explaining how they are relevant to the question. Which is par
for the course around here, it seems.


Perhaps nobody understood you were asking such a basic question. You can
cancel IFR whenever you are in VFR conditions. You cannot cancel IFR and
proceed VFR when you are in IFR conditions.

Paul Tomblin wrote:



We were talking about cancelling the IFR clearance and proceeding VFR when
you piped up with this "you've got to fly the instrument procedure"
business. He's not flying a "home-made procedure", he's proceeding VFR.

Nope, can't do that, the field is IFR.

Paul Tomblin wrote:

You
see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything between
you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities.

No you cannot. If the field is IFR you must land under IFR, you may not
cancel. At a towered airport there's really no reason to cancel. You
may not get a contact approach either as that requires a mile vis. The
instrument approach merely puts you in a position to see the runway. At
some airports, the one I work at is one, we get conditions due to local
terrain where one half the airport is 0/0. The other half is clear and
a million. Legally you need an instrument approach to land. However
there's no reason to fly an extra 10-20 miles after receipt of said
clearance before landing. Once you have the runway in sight you proceed
visually to your runway. Very simple.

In article ,
Newps wrote:

Paul Tomblin wrote:

You
see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything between
you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities.

No you cannot. If the field is IFR you must land under IFR, you may not
cancel. At a towered airport there's really no reason to cancel. You
may not get a contact approach either as that requires a mile vis. The
instrument approach merely puts you in a position to see the runway. At
some airports, the one I work at is one, we get conditions due to local
terrain where one half the airport is 0/0. The other half is clear and
a million. Legally you need an instrument approach to land. However
there's no reason to fly an extra 10-20 miles after receipt of said
clearance before landing.

There is if you want to keep your ticket.

Once you have the runway in sight you proceed
visually to your runway. Very simple.

Simple, but illegal. You can only descend below minimums once you have
the field in sight AND you're on the final approach segment (and, if you
really want to pick nits, have reached DH or MDA). If you're on an IFR
clearance, busting minimums is busting minimums even if you and the
airport you're heading to and everything in between is CAVU.

rg

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:09:57 -0700, Newps wrote:

Legally you need an instrument approach to land. However
there's no reason to fly an extra 10-20 miles after receipt of said
clearance before landing. Once you have the runway in sight you proceed
visually to your runway. Very simple.

As it has been pointed out, there is a reason to fly those extra 10-20
miles, unless you have been otherwise authorized to not do so.

There are regulations that require it.