A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Contact Approach



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 12th 05, 09:01 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 13th 05, 05:30 AM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 13th 05, 08:50 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 13th 05, 11:15 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 15th 05, 06:05 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.