Contact Approach

"oneatcer" wrote in message
...

Also, I say it doesn't have to be an "absolutely certified weather
observer", if that
was the case there would be no such thing as a contact approach. That's
my take on it, any ideas from you pilots?


Well, you're wrong. It does have to be an "absolutely certified weather
observer".

"oneatcer" wrote in message
...
My book say PIREPs are acceptable for the fact that I have to disseminate
them. Controllers can make a ground vis report. AWOS/ASOS is ground vis.
METARs 45 minutes old will suffice due to the requirements of issuing a
new
METAR when the vis changes by a reportable value. And if my memory serves
me right, that is +/- 1/4 mile when it gets down around 1 mile.

It is interesting: A USA weather service observing manual:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ohx/dad/sfc/chapter9.pdf
only specify visibility crossing 3, 2, and 1 miles, plus the lowest
published limit.

In the Canadian rules, the requirement was crossing 3, 1.5, 1, and .5 miles.
Also, crossing 3/4 and 1/4 mile was a requirement when the airport has
precision approach equipment. (Not sure how that relates to published GPS
approaches... not an IFR guru.)

In either case, once the visibility falls below the lowest published minimum
(the airport is effectively closed), no special METAR need be issued until
the visibility rises back up above that minimum.

This means that mountain airports with relatively "high" minimums.... such
as The Dalles, Oregon.... once the METAR was issued showing visibility below
1.25 miles.... there need not be any special METARS issued, (even if it
goes to zero as I understand it)... until it gets back up above 1.25.

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

The question is really how literally that "reported ground visibility"
rule is used. Is a PIREP acceptable?


No. Ground visibility is determined by sighting objects a known distance
away. A PIREP is just a guess, and many pilots are very bad at guessing
distance.



Are conditions observed five miles
away by a certified human weather observer acceptable?


No.



Can any tower
controller at the field make an acceptable report?


If the controller is the accredited weather observer, then yes. Being
certified to make tower visibility observations is not sufficient.



Is the AWOS/ASOS observation "ground visibility"?


Yes.



Will a METAR report 45 minutes old suffice?


Yes, if it hasn't been superceded by a SPECI.

No, a contact approach requires a reported ground visibility of at least one
mile.

Reported by whom or what?

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

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

Can ATC clear an aircraft for a contact approach to an airport which has
no weather reporting?


No, a contact approach requires a reported ground visibility of at least
one
mile.

"oneatcer" wrote in message
...

Reported by whom or what?


Ground visibility is prevailing horizontal visibility near the earth's
surface as reported by the United States National Weather Service or an
accredited observer. The accredited observer can be a Federally commissioned
weather observing system.

No.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 23:34:48 -0600, "Stan Prevost"
wrote:

Can ATC clear an aircraft for a contact approach to an airport which has no
weather reporting?

Stan,
ATC cannot even send you to a known VFR airport that has no weather
reporting.
Some ten or more years ago a C-150 was trapped above an
extensive 1300 foot fog layer. They tried Concord, Oakland and
Travis AFB. The aircraft crashed near Travis.

During this time there was a VFR uncontrolled airport at 1800
feet with lighting within 30 miles.. ATC was not allowed to tell
the plane of the airport because it did not have weather reporting.
Item:
Bureaucratosis may wind up killing us all.
Gene Whitt

I have a feeling we don't have the whole story here.

I've never heard of any such restriction, especially under the
circumstances described.


On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:56:50 GMT, "Gene Whitt"
wrote:

Stan,
ATC cannot even send you to a known VFR airport that has no weather
reporting.
Some ten or more years ago a C-150 was trapped above an
extensive 1300 foot fog layer. They tried Concord, Oakland and
Travis AFB. The aircraft crashed near Travis.

During this time there was a VFR uncontrolled airport at 1800
feet with lighting within 30 miles.. ATC was not allowed to tell
the plane of the airport because it did not have weather reporting.
Item:
Bureaucratosis may wind up killing us all.
Gene Whitt

Gene Whitt wrote:

Stan,
ATC cannot even send you to a known VFR airport that has no weather
reporting.

We most certainly can, just not with a contact approach.


Some ten or more years ago a C-150 was trapped above an
extensive 1300 foot fog layer. They tried Concord, Oakland and
Travis AFB. The aircraft crashed near Travis.

During this time there was a VFR uncontrolled airport at 1800
feet with lighting within 30 miles.. ATC was not allowed to tell
the plane of the airport because it did not have weather reporting.
Item:
Bureaucratosis may wind up killing us all.

You have the story wrong.

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

ATC cannot even send you to a known VFR airport that has no weather
reporting.


Nonsense. There's no such restriction.



Some ten or more years ago a C-150 was trapped above an
extensive 1300 foot fog layer. They tried Concord, Oakland and
Travis AFB. The aircraft crashed near Travis.

During this time there was a VFR uncontrolled airport at 1800
feet with lighting within 30 miles.. ATC was not allowed to tell
the plane of the airport because it did not have weather reporting.


How could ATC know what the conditions were at this airport if it had no
weather reporting?