Contact Approach

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 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.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:37:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"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.


KEPM is an SAWRS and has been so designated since 1994.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

KEPM is an SAWRS and has been so designated since 1994.


It was not so designated in the A/FD during that period. I spoke with an
NWS troop and he could find no record of a certified weather station at EPM
at any time. I relayed your description of the operation and he found it
very unlikely that such an operation would ever be certified and definitely
could not retain certification.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:20:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

It was not so designated in the A/FD during that period.

Irrelevant.
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

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:45:22 -0700, Newps wrote:



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

I'll have to look more closely. I've only seen the two maps, and what I
noted was that they had two different observing points.

There are no landmarks visibile more than a few miles away from the ground,
and there's only one lighted obstruction (not counting runway lights) that
would be visible at night.

I'd guess that if there were a tower at EPM, visibility distances would be
greater, but from the ground, I don't think there's anything to be seen
more than three or four miles distant.


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

Some of the places I've been certified at only had 2 maps total; one
short range and the other long. Any of the visibility checkpoints that
were also qualified for nighttime were annotated that way on those charts.

JPH

Newps wrote:


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