Contact Approach

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:09:12 GMT, "Russ MacDonald"
wrote:

All I am asking is what are the differences in the weather, or the terrain,
or whatever, in the northeast that cause lots of contact approaches instead
of visual approaches?

For me, it enables me to take short cuts in familiar areas where I do NOT
have the field (or preceding traffic) in sight.



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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

For me, it enables me to take short cuts in familiar areas where I do NOT
have the field (or preceding traffic) in sight.


You don't have to have the field in sight for a contact approach but you do
have to be separated from other IFR traffic. If you have preceding traffic
in sight visual separation can be used, but preceding traffic that you don't
have in sight will require denial of the contact approach.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:57:28 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .

For me, it enables me to take short cuts in familiar areas where I do NOT
have the field (or preceding traffic) in sight.


You don't have to have the field in sight for a contact approach but you do
have to be separated from other IFR traffic. If you have preceding traffic
in sight visual separation can be used, but preceding traffic that you don't
have in sight will require denial of the contact approach.


How far away does this "preceding traffic" have to be in order to get
a contact approach?

As a matter of fact, it would be interesting to know what exactly are
the separation rules for contact approaches.

wrote in message
...

How far away does this "preceding traffic" have to be in order to get
a contact approach?

As a matter of fact, it would be interesting to know what exactly are
the separation rules for contact approaches.


There are no specific separation rules for contact approaches. A contact
approach is an IFR procedure and IFR aircraft must be provided some type of
approved separation. Some types of approved separation are just not
applicable, vertical for instance. You can't clear an aircraft for a
contact approach and deny it a descent. Radar separation will work if
there's sufficient distance between aircraft, but aircraft don't typically
request a contact approach until they're pretty close to the field.
Separation between aircraft on contact approaches is pretty much limited to
visual just by the nature of the operation.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:57:28 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .

For me, it enables me to take short cuts in familiar areas where I do NOT
have the field (or preceding traffic) in sight.


You don't have to have the field in sight for a contact approach but you do
have to be separated from other IFR traffic. If you have preceding traffic
in sight visual separation can be used, but preceding traffic that you don't
have in sight will require denial of the contact approach.


In most instances where I've used a contact approach, there has been no
preceding traffic (or other conflicting IFR traffic).


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

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:38:28 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:09:12 GMT, "Russ MacDonald"
wrote:

All I am asking is what are the differences in the weather, or the terrain,
or whatever, in the northeast that cause lots of contact approaches instead
of visual approaches?

For me, it enables me to take short cuts in familiar areas where I do NOT
have the field (or preceding traffic) in sight.



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


It's also often useful just to get lower before you have the field in
sight.

Although I find it more useful in unfamiliar areas than familiar
areas.

"Russ MacDonald" wrote in message
news:YtfQd.31190$uc.1103@trnddc03...

I thought my question was simple.

I have never flown a contact approach in 30 years of professional flying.
I'm trying to learn why. Am I (and all my Texas buddies) missing some big
advantage?


Not particularly. In my experience contact approaches are requested by
aircraft that happen to spot the field while being vectored for IAPs.



All I am asking is what are the differences in the weather, or the
terrain, or whatever, in the northeast that cause lots of contact
approaches
instead of visual approaches? Is it because the weather is not good
enough for a
visual approach? It would seem that the weather and terrain are similar
to the Carolinas and Georgia where I have done a lot of flying, yet I
never
have heard pilots there requesting contact approaches.


A visual approach requires VFR conditions, a contact approach requires one
mile visibility.



As far as the visual approaches I fly regularly, many are at fields that
don't have any weather reporting (so I know that the contact approach
would not be authorized there). ATC just drops me down to the minumum
vectoring
altitude, and tells me to let them know when I have the field, and then
they clear me for the visual. There is no consideration as to whether or
not
the field is IFR or VFR. I have flown hundreds, if not thousands of
approaches, like this. It is not uncommon on an attempted visual approach
in bad
weather, to call ATC back and tell them I couldn't maintain contact with
the runway environment, and need an approach. This usually happens near
the
Gulf due to quickly developing fog.


There is supposed to be consideration as to whether or not the field is IFR
or VFR. The controller must ensure that weather conditions at the airport
are VFR or that the pilot has been informed that weather is not available
for the destination airport. If being vectored for the visual approach
there must be reasonable assurance (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs, etc.)
that descent and flight to the airport can be made visually.

There is supposed to be consideration as to whether or not the field is
IFR
or VFR. The controller must ensure that weather conditions at the airport
are VFR or that the pilot has been informed that weather is not available
for the destination airport. If being vectored for the visual approach
there must be reasonable assurance (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs,
etc.) that descent and flight to the airport can be made visually.

They descend me to MVA at my request, and once I call the field in sight,
they always clear me for the visual. If I don't see the field, I tell them,
and they climb me back up and clear me for an approach. They basically
leave the decision to me as to whether or not to go for the visual. They
don't seem to have any concern about whether the field has 1 mile visibility
or not (although, I don't think I could see the field if the visibility was
less than a mile).

After I read several posts discussing the contact approach, I began
wondering if requesting one might buy me anything. I just can't think of
any situation where I would be able to see something I recognized other than
the field, and still want to go for a non-instrument approach.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:33:59 GMT, "Russ MacDonald"
wrote:

After I read several posts discussing the contact approach, I began
wondering if requesting one might buy me anything. I just can't think of
any situation where I would be able to see something I recognized other than
the field, and still want to go for a non-instrument approach.


Why do you feel the need to see something you recognize? You can
simply follow a VOR radial or a localizer course, or use your handheld
GPS or anything else that you feel will safely take you to the field.
As long as you maintain 1 mile visibility, you should be all set.

1 mile is a fur piece, when you stop to think about it.

wrote in message
...

Why do you feel the need to see something you recognize? You can
simply follow a VOR radial or a localizer course, or use your handheld
GPS or anything else that you feel will safely take you to the field.
As long as you maintain 1 mile visibility, you should be all set.


If that's all you do you're not flying a contact approach, you're flying a
bootleg IAP. The "contact" in contact approach is ground contact, the
approach is flown by visual reference to the surface.