Contact approach question

wrote in message ...

Read me previous messages: I said that contacts, visuals, and
cancellations
were the only exceptions to a full approach (or 7110.65, 5-9-1 vectors to
final).


So the point of your previous message was solely to agree with mine?

wrote in message ...

Depends on how you define "when necessary," Steve.


I use the standard dictionary definitions.

Steven,
Once I have established 'intent to land' I have never had a problem
even at 200'

My home field Concord CA gets plenty of avection fog every summer and the
LDA has a 380' minimum as lowest IFR altitude
I get in SVFR about twice a summer when IFR can't.
Gene Whitt

By itself, yes. But extended flight under a solid 400' ceiling will
likely require a violation of FAR 91.119

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

Read me previous messages: I said that contacts, visuals, and
cancellations
were the only exceptions to a full approach (or 7110.65, 5-9-1 vectors to
final).


So the point of your previous message was solely to agree with mine?

Could be, or could not be. You have developed to an art form the obtuse.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

Depends on how you define "when necessary," Steve.


I use the standard dictionary definitions.

Good for you. Nonetheless, you don't set policy for the FAA. Those who do
have kept the context going quite nicely by placing in the AIM the FAA
definition of "when necessary."

It sounds like you have little regard for those folks in DC who write ATC
policy. That doesn't seem real healthy for a working controller.

wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:11:04 -0800, wrote:

You can cancel any time you are operating in VFR conditions. Ground
visibility may or may not have something to do with that.

If it's reported and you're going to land at that airport served by the IAP, then it's
pertinent. Otherwise, it's not.


Like I said...

Yes, that is what you said. But, it was quite Steve-like, in that the practical aspect of
the thread was landing at the airport that has the pertinant SIAP; and that means there is
reported ground visibility.

wrote in message ...

Could be, or could not be. You have developed to an art form the obtuse.


If you don't know what your point is you can hardly expect anyone else to
see it.

wrote in message ...

Good for you. Nonetheless, you don't set policy for the FAA.


Who does?



Those who do have kept the context going quite nicely by placing in the
AIM the FAA
definition of "when necessary."


Where does the FAA define "when necessary"? The AIM is not regulatory.



It sounds like you have little regard for those folks in DC who write ATC
policy. That doesn't seem real healthy for a working controller.


No doubt it seems that way to those without a good knowledge of ATC.

"Gene Whitt" wrote in message
nk.net...

Once I have established 'intent to land' I have never had a problem
even at 200'


I establish "intent to land" with every takeoff.



My home field Concord CA gets plenty of avection fog every summer and the
LDA has a 380' minimum as lowest IFR altitude
I get in SVFR about twice a summer when IFR can't.


If you can do that without overflying a congested area or operating closer
than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure, fine. If you
can't do that then you're in violation of FAR 91.119. The exception is
"when necessary for takeoff or landing", not "when necessary to remain clear
of clouds".

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

Could be, or could not be. You have developed to an art form the obtuse.


If you don't know what your point is you can hardly expect anyone else to
see it.

Right, Steve.