Contact Approach

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)

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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...



KHUA


Yeah, I'd say the restricted area is in close proximity. Adjacent to the
runway is certainly close proximity. But this is a military field and
according to my not-so-current information prior permission is required to
operate there. One would think if permission to operate there can be had
then permission to enter the restricted area could he had as well.


Prior permission is required to land, but not to make a low approach.
Civilian pilots not based there frequently fly the PAR approach under VFR.
We have a very active flying club there and none of our airplanes have
permission to enter the restricted areas when they are active. From what I
have observed, the only aircraft that can enter the active restricted areas
are those engaged in the activities going on in the areas.

In addition to the adjacent area to the west, there is another a mile or two
to the south.

Due to the nature of the activities in these restricted areas, it is not
unusual for them to be active during periods when an instrument approach is
necessary to get into the field. There are published hours, but in practice
they are not activated except when necessary.

Since there is no published miss for the PAR approach, I don't know if they
will allow it with active restricted areas or not. Need to ask them.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

Not being a mindreader, I cannot answer your question about "why"?


No need to. It was a rhetorical question.



Nor do I know when the AWOS was installed, or how that correlates with
"manual weather observations".


The AWOS-A would be redundant and thus a waste of money as the altimeter
setting is part of a manual weather observation.



As I previously wrote, when manual observations were being done, the
frequency with which they were disseminated was perhaps one every few
weeks. This was not very useful to me for routine operations.


A preponderance of evidence indicates certified weather observations were
never taken at EPM.

"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.

"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.

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)

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:13:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

A preponderance of evidence indicates certified weather observations were
never taken at EPM.

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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

Irrelevant.


How so? Given that SAWRS locations are designated in the A/FD it certainly
does appear relevant.