Contact Approach -- WX reporting

Jim Macklin wrote:



On a contact approach you do not follow anybody, you are the
only airplane and you navigate to the airport directly.

You got one out of three correct here and the navigation part depends on
the clouds.




A visual approach may be instigated by the controller if the
weather is good VFR.


Just VFR is all the controller needs.




At airports without official weather reporting,
the pilot can report to ATC that visibility is such and such
and he can maintain VMC and request a contact approach, the
pilot become the weather observer.

No, must have weather reporting on the ground. From the .65: 7-4-6


b. The reported ground visibility is at least 1 statute mile.

They make no exception for flight viz.

Dan wrote:
Since a contact approach requires the airport to have an IFR approach,
I fail to see the advantage of a contact approach. If visibility is at
1 mile, I think I would rather just fly the approach than pick around
for the airport in those conditions - too risky. Where is the
advantage? Following other traffic visually?

--Dan

The way I see it, its the IFR equivalent of Special VFR. So you can
sneak under a cloud layer and not wait 20 minutes to get the instrument
approach (which is clogged by traffic at a nearby airport).

There are always uses, and, yes, it can by risky. That's why pilots
have to request contact approaches (they can't be assigned by ATC
otherwise).

One advantage (without looking at the regs so beat me up) is if you are VFR
and want to make a low weather scud run into an airport where "special VFR"
is NOT available.

Just ask the tower for a "Contact approach" instead.


Karl
"Curator" worlds most hangar queeny Skywagon.


"Dan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Since a contact approach requires the airport to have an IFR approach,
I fail to see the advantage of a contact approach. If visibility is at
1 mile, I think I would rather just fly the approach than pick around
for the airport in those conditions - too risky. Where is the
advantage? Following other traffic visually?

--Dan


wrote:
Newps wrote:
So you're saying that the controllers are the weather observers there?
That would put it in a gray area. The book states that weather must be
available. If you received the clearance before the tower closed that
would be OK.

Yes the controllers are the weather observers. Why does that make it a
gray area?

I'm pretty sure the clearance came after the tower closed. I've also
noticed that the approach controllers occasionally loose track of time
and they don't always realize the tower has closed. Maybe that's what
happened. Or the controller wasn't fresh on contact approaches, since
I think its used relatively rarely around here. By the way, this is a
small satellite airport under Class B and C airspace, if that makes a
difference.

karl gruber wrote:

One advantage (without looking at the regs so beat me up) is if you are VFR
and want to make a low weather scud run into an airport where "special VFR"
is NOT available.

Just ask the tower for a "Contact approach" instead.


Hmmmmm.......... What do you mean by airports where SVFR is not
available? SVFR is generally not available at airports in Class B
airspace and some of the busier Class C airspace areas. But at those
airports you're unlikely to even get a popup IFR clearance. SVFR is
also not available at airports outside of a surface area, but neither
is a contact approach. Surface areas and contact approaches both
require weather observations.

Think about the minimums for a contact approach, SVFR, and VFR
operations at an airport in Class G airspace for a moment.

karl gruber wrote:

One advantage (without looking at the regs so beat me up) is if you are VFR
and want to make a low weather scud run into an airport where "special VFR"
is NOT available.

Just ask the tower for a "Contact approach" instead.

Well that could get involved. You'll have to request and get an IFR
clearance. You'll then have to climb to the MVA to make that clearance
effective. That may or may not allow you to finish your scud run. I
doubt if it will.

Dan wrote:

Since a contact approach requires the airport to have an IFR approach,
I fail to see the advantage of a contact approach. If visibility is at
1 mile, I think I would rather just fly the approach than pick around
for the airport in those conditions - too risky. Where is the
advantage? Following other traffic visually?


Suppose you're abeam the runway while being vectored for an IFR
approach when you sight the field. The current weather observation is
below VFR minimums so a visual approach is not available. Would a
contact approach present an advantage in that situation?

Good point... Most of the approaches I fly do not involve vectoring
close to the airport before going back out and coming in again, so I
did not think of this.

--Dan


Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Dan wrote:

Since a contact approach requires the airport to have an IFR approach,
I fail to see the advantage of a contact approach. If visibility is at
1 mile, I think I would rather just fly the approach than pick around
for the airport in those conditions - too risky. Where is the
advantage? Following other traffic visually?


Suppose you're abeam the runway while being vectored for an IFR
approach when you sight the field. The current weather observation is
below VFR minimums so a visual approach is not available. Would a
contact approach present an advantage in that situation?

Dan wrote:

Since a contact approach requires the airport to have an IFR approach,
I fail to see the advantage of a contact approach.

You're being vectored for the ILS and are on a long downwind. You see
the airport due to the fact that only the ASOS is in the clouds, or only
a portion of the airport is in the clouds, the portion with the ASOS.

Dan wrote:
Since a contact approach requires the airport to have an IFR approach,
I fail to see the advantage of a contact approach. If visibility is at
1 mile, I think I would rather just fly the approach than pick around
for the airport in those conditions - too risky. Where is the
advantage? Following other traffic visually?

--Dan


wrote:

Newps wrote:

So you're saying that the controllers are the weather observers there?
That would put it in a gray area. The book states that weather must be
available. If you received the clearance before the tower closed that
would be OK.

Yes the controllers are the weather observers. Why does that make it a
gray area?

I'm pretty sure the clearance came after the tower closed. I've also
noticed that the approach controllers occasionally loose track of time
and they don't always realize the tower has closed. Maybe that's what
happened. Or the controller wasn't fresh on contact approaches, since
I think its used relatively rarely around here. By the way, this is a
small satellite airport under Class B and C airspace, if that makes a
difference.


Thunderstorm over the FAF

wrote:
Newps wrote:

So you're saying that the controllers are the weather observers there?
That would put it in a gray area. The book states that weather must be
available. If you received the clearance before the tower closed that
would be OK.


Yes the controllers are the weather observers. Why does that make it a
gray area?

It's gray because of the weather reporting requirement. At some point
the last weather becomes too old. I'm not sure if that automatically
happens at the time the next sequence is supposed to come out.


Or the controller wasn't fresh on contact approaches, since
I think its used relatively rarely around here.

Depends on the weather that normally happens around there. I've been
here at BIL for 14 years. Until last Wednesday night I had given maybe
three contact approach clearances. Last Wednesday night/Thursday
morning on the mid, about 4:00 am I gave two to two aircraft in a row,
about 8 miles apart. Probably won't give another one before I retire.



By the way, this is a
small satellite airport under Class B and C airspace, if that makes a
difference.

Nope.