Contact Approach

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1108059477.955309@sj-nntpcache-3...

That sounds right.

FWIW, I've encountered another place where nearby restricted airspace
determines whether or not you'll get an approach, W95, Ocracoke Island,
NC.

Whichever approach you get, either the approach course or the missed
approach bumps up against R5306A. To compound the problem, the only
approach facility is Washington Center, and once you get down to approach
altitudes, they have neither radar nor comm coverage.

Nice to have the approaches published, but so far I've never been able to
get center to clear me for one of them.


According to the plates these approaches are handled by Cherry Point
Approach Control. The sectional says to contact Cherry Point Approach for
clearance through the restricted area. Have you ever tried that?

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

I guess what you mean is that if the observation is made but not reported
to someone other than me (as the pilot), then the requirement is not
satisfied.

Is there documentation supporting the concept that the report has to be
made to some government facility directly, and not relayed to ATC via the
pilot?


Federal Meteorological Handbook No.1 requires surface aviation observations
to be disseminated.

In a previous message you said there was an accredited weather observer on
the ground at KEPM. I've looked through a few old A/FDs and the only
weather reporting capability I can find at Eastport at any time is AWOS-A.
When were surface aviation observations taken at Eastport?

"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)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:02:23 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Federal Meteorological Handbook No.1 requires surface aviation observations
to be disseminated.

In a previous message you said there was an accredited weather observer on
the ground at KEPM. I've looked through a few old A/FDs and the only
weather reporting capability I can find at Eastport at any time is AWOS-A.
When were surface aviation observations taken at Eastport?

They were taken intermittently over probably a ten year period ending about
a year ago. The official observer (actually I think there may even have
been two of them) was also a Part 135 operator. Bob no longer flies, for a
number of reasons, and no longer makes any observations. He did not report
(or make) these observations frequently. As a matter of fact, since I've
been at KEPM (about five years), I'd be surprised if he reported as many as
ten per year. He did tell me once that he had to make the observations
with some minimum frequency in order to maintain his accreditation, but I
don't recall what that frequency was.

He was definitely accredited, and when he reported an observation, it could
be accessed via the usual channels (FSS, DUATS, ATC, etc.).


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?

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

They were taken intermittently over probably a ten year period ending
about
a year ago. The official observer (actually I think there may even have
been two of them) was also a Part 135 operator. Bob no longer flies, for
a
number of reasons, and no longer makes any observations. He did not
report
(or make) these observations frequently. As a matter of fact, since I've
been at KEPM (about five years), I'd be surprised if he reported as many
as
ten per year. He did tell me once that he had to make the observations
with some minimum frequency in order to maintain his accreditation, but I
don't recall what that frequency was.

He was definitely accredited, and when he reported an observation, it
could
be accessed via the usual channels (FSS, DUATS, ATC, etc.).


Observers are required to adhere to an observation schedule, perhaps that's
why he lost his accreditation.

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message ...
....
A local field with part-time tower (Class D airspace when tower is open) has restricted areas in close
proximity. When these areas are active, ATC will not approve the SIAPs. There is no notation on the
approach plate, nor any NOTAM, that says the approaches are not allowed when the restricted areas are active.
There is no AWOS/ASOS reporting over the radio or telephone, but recently the field began putting METARs into
the system. I don't know if the tower personnel are certified weather observers or not, so I don't know if
their observations qualify as "reported" visibility, nor do I know if the METAR visibility report qualifies
as "reported ground visibility". I was hoping someone knew of some rule that allowed a substitute for an
official ground visibility report. There is certified weather observing at a larger field five miles away,
but I don't suppose that would do.

When the restricted areas are active, there is no way to get back into the field in IMC other than a visual
or contact approach. MVA is 2400 MSL, about 1700 AGL. Well, there may be two. One is to fly the ILS into
the adjacent Class C airspace, then cancel and maneuver around the restricted areas at 1000 AGL if cloud
conditions permit, which would require 3 miles visibility. The other possibility is that there is a PAR
approach available sometimes. I haven't asked if they will approve it when the restricted areas are active.
The problem, I think, is the missed approach. Circling is not allowed east of the runway due to terrain, and
for the two published IAPs, the missed goes on the west side, which is where one of the restricted areas is.
Since there is no published missed for the PAR approach, or for a visual or contact approach, I don't know
what they will do. I have flown a visual into the field when the ceiling was overcast at 2400 MSL, but it
was a stretch to say I had the field in sight. A contact approach would have been better.

I think I just need to go talk to these people.



What airport is that?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

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)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:36:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Observers are required to adhere to an observation schedule, perhaps that's
why he lost his accreditation.


He informed me on several occasions that he was doing a bit more than the
minimum required.

After he got out of the business, I have no idea if he "lost" his
accreditation for not reporting, or if he officially retired or gave it up,
or whatever the proper term is.

I'm not sure why you bring this up since his cessation of reporting and his
accreditation, took place well after the time to which I was referring in
my previous post.


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