Contact Approach

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:09:44 -0700, Newps wrote:



Jose wrote:





Is there any official weather that is not available at all to ATC?

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


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

"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.

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)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

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


No need to. It was a rhetorical question.



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


The AWOS-A would be redundant and thus a waste of money as the altimeter
setting is part of a manual weather observation.



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.


A preponderance of evidence indicates certified weather observations were
never taken at EPM.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:58:22 GMT, Jose wrote:

My take on it is that the =reason= the requirement is not satisfied is
that the observation is not "official" unless it meets certain
requirments, among them being made by a suitably qualified
("certificated?") observer.

In my initial post to Steve concerning this, I *did* mention that the
observation was made by an official weather observer.


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

In my initial post to Steve concerning this, I *did* mention that the
observation was made by an official weather observer.


Official weather observers take observations at official weather observing
stations. I'm an official weather observer, I take official weather
observations at KGRB. But I can't take them at WI78, where I keep my
airplane. That would require, for just the visibility observation alone, a
certified map provided by the NWS showing distance and direction to
specified visibility markers from the observation point. Was your
accredited weather observer on
the ground at KEPM using such a map when he determined the visibility?

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:10:29 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .

In my initial post to Steve concerning this, I *did* mention that the
observation was made by an official weather observer.


Official weather observers take observations at official weather observing
stations. I'm an official weather observer, I take official weather
observations at KGRB. But I can't take them at WI78, where I keep my
airplane. That would require, for just the visibility observation alone, a
certified map provided by the NWS showing distance and direction to
specified visibility markers from the observation point.

Was your
accredited weather observer on
the ground at KEPM using such a map when he determined the visibility?


Yes he was. There are actually two maps, depending on whether the
observation is taken from the (so-called) terminal building, or from the
intersection of the taxiway and runway.


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

Yes he was. There are actually two maps, depending on whether the
observation is taken from the (so-called) terminal building, or from the
intersection of the taxiway and runway.


Why and when did they cease taking observations?

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:28:12 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Why and when did they cease taking observations?

About a year ago; because he was no longer in the flying business for
personal reasons.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


Yes he was. There are actually two maps, depending on whether the
observation is taken from the (so-called) terminal building, or from the
intersection of the taxiway and runway.

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