Contact Approach

Fred is a certified weather observer, but the station is officially
closed.

Then Fred is not certified to take weather observations at that station.

If your FBO has a
certified weather observer on staff it's because he's at a certified weather
observing station.

Ok, I should have read on a bit more before posting. I take it that a
certified weather observer loses his certification every time the
station closes (say for the evening), and regains it whenever the
station opens in the morning. So if Fred goes there when the station is
closed, and does =exactly= the same thing he would have when it was open
(except for the reporting path), then the observation is not official.

Is this ultimately what it rests on?

Jose

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
Fred is a certified weather observer, but the station is officially
closed.

Then Fred is not certified to take weather observations at that station.

If your FBO has a certified weather observer on staff it's because he's
at a certified weather observing station.

Ok, I should have read on a bit more before posting. I take it that a
certified weather observer loses his certification every time the station
closes (say for the evening), and regains it whenever the station opens in
the morning. So if Fred goes there when the station is closed, and does
=exactly= the same thing he would have when it was open (except for the
reporting path), then the observation is not official.

Is this ultimately what it rests on?


An "official weather observation" is not only made by a "certified weather
observer", but it makes it onto "official telecommunications channels"
(which include a drop to ATC), and it is recorded in "official databases"
(whether paper or electronic). Part of all that is specifically so that the
details of record can be examined in case of an air accident.

So Fred's after-hours personal report is official only if it makes it
through all those steps.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

Ok, I should have read on a bit more before posting. I take it that a
certified weather observer loses his certification every time the station
closes (say for the evening), and regains it whenever the station opens in
the morning. So if Fred goes there when the station is closed, and does
=exactly= the same thing he would have when it was open (except for the
reporting path), then the observation is not official.


I see. "The station is officially closed" means part-time weather station
in your scenario, not former weather station as I took it. Let's take
another look at your scenario:

"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."

So Donna wants to get in to this small airstrip near their home. The
weather doesn't permit a visual so she calls hubby/observer Fred and asks
him to take the needed observation for a contact approach because Fred's
station is closed. It sounds like Fred's station is somewhere other than
this small airstrip near their home, so his report is of no value here
anyway. But even if it was, wouldn't it be quicker and easier for Susan to
just fly the instrument approach?

So Donna wants to get in to this small airstrip near their home. The
weather doesn't permit a visual so she calls hubby/observer Fred and asks
him to take the needed observation for a contact approach because Fred's
station is closed. It sounds like Fred's station is somewhere other than
this small airstrip near their home, so his report is of no value here

Fred's station is in fact at the airport in question, and Fred is there
waiting to pick Susan up after she lands.

But even if it was, wouldn't it be quicker and easier for Susan to
just fly the instrument approach?

If Susan had to call Fred at the house, and Fred had to drive over to
the airport, yes, it probably would be quicker and easier to just fly
the IAP. But if Fred is already there, and they are already in
communication ("Hi honey, are the kids in bed yet?") and the IAF is
twenty miles in the other direction, and Susan is in and out of the
clouds over familiar terrain, a quick call on the radio could save half
an hour. Especially if the approach minima are very high at this
airport (for any number of reasons).

Is he accredited to take weather observations at the small airstrip near his
home where Susan wishes to land?

Yes.

Is there a standard or special instrument
approach procedure published and functioning for the small airstrip near his
home where Susan wishes to land?

Yes.

If so, wouldn't it be simpler and easier
for Susan to just fly the IAP?

Sometimes. I'd even venture =usually=. But my hypothetical is aimed
not at what would be easier, but whether such a scenario would be legal,
because that helps illuminate exactly where (in the regs) the hangup is.

Once located, it's a separate question as to whether it should (always)
be that way, but at least we'd be asking the right question. (not that
it would actually do any good!)

For example, in an earlier post you stated that the observation had to
be made when the official station was open, and recorded and
dissemenated according to certain criteria, for it to "count" towards a
contact approach. This would provide a paper trail in case of accident.
However no such paper trail exists for relayed messages of equal
criticality (such as clearances). Far be it from me to expect
consistancy from the FAA, but I at least want to know whether it is =me=
that is wrong, or the =FAA= that is inconsistant.

I have similar pathological cases for "comensation or hire" which appear
to be unintended consequences of the fair share rule.

Jose

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...

Fred's station is in fact at the airport in question, and Fred is there
waiting to pick Susan up after she lands.


I see. But Fred must still be some distance away from the observation point
or he wouldn't have to go "down to wherever he can make certifiable weather
observations".



If Susan had to call Fred at the house, and Fred had to drive over to the
airport, yes, it probably would be quicker and easier to just fly the IAP.


It's probably still quicker to fly the IAP. Fred still has to go to the
observation point, take the observation and get it into the system. If
Susie flys the approach while she's waiting she'll likely be on the ground
before that's done.



But if Fred is already there, and they are already in communication ("Hi
honey, are the kids in bed yet?") and the IAF is twenty miles in the other
direction, and Susan is in and out of the clouds over familiar terrain, a
quick call on the radio could save half an hour. Especially if the
approach minima are very high at this airport (for any number of reasons).


Fred is at the field but not at the observation point and communications
with Susie accomplishes nothing with regard to the weather observation. The
IAF is twenty miles away? What kind of approach is this? I realize this is
a hypothetical situation, but a hypothetical with no real world similarity
is not particularly useful. Do you know of any real-world small airstrips
that have weather reporting and an IAP with an IAF twenty miles away?



Yes.


How does a small airstrip generate enough traffic to justify a certified
weather station yet remain a small airstrip?



Yes.


Describe the IAP.



Sometimes. I'd even venture =usually=. But my hypothetical is aimed not
at what would be easier, but whether such a scenario would be legal,
because that helps illuminate exactly where (in the regs) the hangup is.


Your hypothetical has Susie telling the controller she's talking to a
certified observer and he says the ground visibility is one mile or more.
No competent controller will issue a contact approach clearance based on
that.

I see. But Fred must still be some distance away from the observation point
or he wouldn't have to go "down to wherever he can make certifiable weather
observations".

"Down" could be down one flight of stairs. Fred doesn't have to be any
appreciable distance from the observation point, in fact he could even
be =at= the observation point. He might have even made the observation
expecting Susie to request a contact approach.

This is a =hypothetical=, and it is =my= hypothetical, designed to help
me see what is the =specific= mandated part of a weather observation
that is missing, which would prohibit a contact approach. As such, it
is not designed to be a real world example, and "it wouldn't happen that
way", while probably true, does not serve the purpose of my question.

You get picky on nits, allow me to do the same. I might learn something
(besides never to try to teach a pig to sing).

It's probably still quicker to fly the IAP. ...

Irrelevant.

Fred still has to go to the
observation point, take the observation =and= get it into the system.

Is it true that, unless the observation is "in the system", it is not
sufficient, by regulation, to issue a contact approach? That's the
impression I'm getting.

If
Susie flys the approach while she's waiting she'll likely be on the ground
before that's done.

Also irrelevant.

IAF is twenty miles away? What kind of approach is this?

A long one.

I realize this is
a hypothetical situation, but a hypothetical with no real world similarity
is not particularly useful.

It is useful for pedagogical reasons, as explained above.

How does a small airstrip generate enough traffic to justify a certified
weather station yet remain a small airstrip?

Graft.

Describe the IAP.

No. It's irrelevant.

Your hypothetical has Susie telling the controller she's talking to a
certified observer and he says the ground visibility is one mile or more.
No competent controller will issue a contact approach clearance based on
that.

Ok, so an =in=competent controller does so, and the FAA hears of it and
wants to bust him. Do they get to cite a specific reg that he broke
(what does it say?), or do they instead rely on some equivalent of the
"careless or reckless" rule?

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.