![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jose" wrote in message m... Sure there is. Fred reported it to Susan when he "observed" the weather, unofficially but equally competently. Nope. Ground Visibility is defined as "Prevailing horizontal visibility near the earth's surface as reported by the United States National Weather Service or an accredited observer." Fred is not an accredited weather observer. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Fred is not an accredited weather
observer. Yes he is. He just happened not to be officially on duty at the time, but he made the same kind of weather observation he would have, as a favor to Susan. Jose |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jose" wrote in message m... Yes he is. He just happened not to be officially on duty at the time, but he made the same kind of weather observation he would have, as a favor to Susan. No he isn't. Review the scenario. There are no accredited weather observers at this location because it is not a certified station. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? Jose |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPS approach question | Matt Whiting | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | August 29th 08 03:54 AM |
Contact approach question | Paul Tomblin | Instrument Flight Rules | 114 | January 31st 05 06:40 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate? | S. Ramirez | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | April 2nd 04 11:13 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |