Contact approach question

Y'All,
The 2004 Instrument Procedures Handbook (FAA-H-8261-1)
in Chapter Five covers very well the requirements for contact
approaches both to be authorized and flown on Page 5-41

I have faced such a situation going into Monterey, CA it was not a problem
after I requested a contact approach.

Gene Whitt

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

Y'All,
The 2004 Instrument Procedures Handbook (FAA-H-8261-1)
in Chapter Five covers very well the requirements for contact
approaches both to be authorized and flown on Page 5-41

I have faced such a situation going into Monterey, CA it was not a problem
after I requested a contact approach.


What situation did you face?

My source is 121.651.

Why would you use an airline regulation for a general aviation
discussion on a general aviation newsgroup?

In article .com,
wrote:

My source is 121.651.

Why would you use an airline regulation for a general aviation
discussion on a general aviation newsgroup?

Because I was confused. Make that 91.175.

"... when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each
person operating an aircraft ... shall use a standard instrument
approach procedure ..."

I suppose this is somewhat open to interpretation, but personally, I
wouldn't want to be standing in front of the NTSB board trying to make
the case that chopping power at 3000 feet over the airport and landing
is "using a standard instrument approach procedure."

rg

"Typical bureaucrat". That's Steve, driving a desk all day responding to
multitudes of newsgroups all on government time.

oneatcer

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll"
said:
wrote in message
Because the original post described a situation which required an
instrument letdown, namely landing under IFR.
He's got it backward. It was I that addressed an instrument letdown
being
necessary and Paul that addressed a visual letdown.

No, I was *asking* a question, not stating something was possible.

Makes you wonder if someone really read the question or if, instead, they
shot off their mouth to show how smart they are.

You
see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything between
you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities.

And that question was pretty plainly stated/asked.

But while
I got an answer about the contact approach thing, I never got an answer
about cancelling. Instead of an answer, all I get is people quoting
rules
without explaining how they are relevant to the question. Which is par
for the course around here, it seems.

Seems many people can't comprehend the meaning of "context" or "changing
context", McNicholls being a primary offender. His knowledge of the rules
is
superior, and he's normally be an outstanding resource, but he's lost when
the context changes and he can't read from a script. Typical bureaucrat.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:41:36 -0800, Ron Garret
wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

My source is 121.651.

Why would you use an airline regulation for a general aviation
discussion on a general aviation newsgroup?

Because I was confused. Make that 91.175.

"... when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each
person operating an aircraft ... shall use a standard instrument
approach procedure ..."

I suppose this is somewhat open to interpretation, but personally, I
wouldn't want to be standing in front of the NTSB board trying to make
the case that chopping power at 3000 feet over the airport and landing
is "using a standard instrument approach procedure."

rg


Probably true.

But the issue was with the other wording, i. e., "when an instrument
letdown...is necessary".

I think some folks were saying that if the airport was in sight, an
"instrument letdown" is not necessary, even if ATC cannot approve a
visual or contact approach.

Hm, sounds pretty dubious to me. The very fact that you need an IFR
clearance to land seems to me to be de facto evidence that an instrument
letdown is "necessary". But be that as it may, 91.173 says:


"No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR
unless that person has --

(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and

(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance."


and 91.123 says:

"When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may
deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an
emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and
collision avoidance system resolution advisory."


So if the tower clears you for the VOR-A approach you'd better fly the
VOR-A approach even if you can see the runway throughout the whole
procedure turn.

rg

MY Bad,
Mixed up two different flights and situations. One was SVFR from
the Spreckles Sugar plant and Monterey with 400' ceiling. whet we went in
SVFR

Other was Contact where we had to change runways to maintain
cloud clearance.

Gene

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...

Never would have thought of this, but it seems plausible enough, now
that you mention it.

Although there is a regulation that says that the pilot is required to
use a prescribed "instrument letdown" when cleared for an approach,
or something like that.

I wonder, would this be a violation of that?


No. That regulation begins with "Unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator", and FAR Part 1 defines "Administrator" as "the Federal
Aviation Administrator or any person to whom he has delegated his authority
in the matter concerned."

Where the regulations intend to give ATC authority to provide exceptions, it
states "unless otherwise authorized by ATC."

Where it states "unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator" delegation
has to be affirmed by some policy document or other formal agreement.

In the area of instrument approach procedures the Administrator has formally
delegated the authority to pilots to deviate from the requirements of a Part 95
SIAP:

1. Contact approaches provided the policy conditions and limitations set forth
are observed.

2. Visual approaches provided the policy conditions and limitations set forth
are observed.

3. Special instrument approach procedures, authorized for an operator by
operations specifications or a letter or agreement.

4. SAAAR Part 95 procedures, such as Category II and III, and soon-to-be SAAAR
RNP RNAV instrument approach procedures.

Of the foregoing, ATC has the ability to initiate only the visual approach.

I know; you know all of this but others may not.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
legal no-no.

should read "any 'short-cut' without either a contact, visual....


I'd say it should read "any short-cut without a revised clearance or a
cancellation is a legal no-no."

But, ATC is not authorized to issue an initial or revised clearance to
short-cut any required segment of an instrument approach procedure except for
radar vectors provided in accordance with 7110.65P, 5-9-1.

Newps wrote:

wrote:


Newps wrote:


This happens all the time here. East half of the airport, including the
ASOS, is 0/0. West half is clear and a million.. No contact approach
allowed. Better off to do an instrument approach and just break it off
as soon as you receive the clearance. Ask for the full approach if it
will take you near or over the airport and then just break off and land
if you can get an approach and landing clearance. Nothing says you have
to actually go out and do the approach.


Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
legal no-no.

Baloney. Once I'm in a position to fly visually to the airport/runway I
can do just that.


Balony back. You cannot unless you cancel, or obtain a clearance for a visual or
contact. Please cite the authority for deviating from the requirements of Part 95
to do what you say you can do.