Contact approach question

wrote in message
...

Not to issue the clearance, it isn't.


Correct.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

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.


Actually, something does say that; FAR 91.123(a).

In article ,
wrote:
On 17 Jan 2005 17:07:57 -0500, (Roy Smith) wrote:

Bob Gardner wrote:
Sure. The onus is on the pilot to navigate to the runway using terrain
features, etc. I don't think that a request for a contact approach would
ever be denied.

There are certainly reasons for a contact approach to be denied
(conflict with other traffic, for example). I think what you're
trying to say is that ATC won't try to second-guess that you have the
required visibility if you make the approach.


Conflict with what other traffic?

ATC doesn't need to second guess anything. The required visibility is
reported visibility, not flight visibility.

Yeah, I should have looked that up before I posted. Sorry.

wrote in message
...

Where is the "otherwise authorized"?


In the regulation you referred to.



Newps suggested that the pilot accept an approach clearance, and then
simply break it off and land without executing it, if I understand him
correctly.


Newps is wrong.



An intriguing idea, to be sure, but presumably the approach controller
only authorized the procedure which he cleared the pilot to execute,
and which the pilot then circumvented.

Seems like a possible violation to me.


It is, see my response to Newps.

wrote:

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....

wrote in message
...

What the hell are you saying here?

. I suggested that it would be a violation, and you replied with
this:

"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." "


A contact approach is not a violation of the regulation [FAR 91.175(a)]
requiring a standard instrument approach procedure because that regulation
begins with the proviso "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", such as ATC in this case.

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."

On 1/17/05 3:06 PM, in article , "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.


This doesn't seem like a prudent thing to do. If 1/2 of the airport is
obscured, how would you know that the rest wouldn't fog up in less time than
it took to land? IMHO, it would be best to fly the published approach and be
ready to go missed.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

This doesn't seem like a prudent thing to do. If 1/2 of the airport is
obscured, how would you know that the rest wouldn't fog up in less time
than
it took to land? IMHO, it would be best to fly the published approach and
be
ready to go missed.

I tend to agree, although there may be a situation where you're vectored
directly overhead the airport but the procedure may take you several miles
out and back...just in time for the airport to fog over completely.

wrote:
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?




The approach gets you into conditions to land visually. Nowhere does it
say you have to fly any part of the actual approach. Obviously you'll
need to make sure ATC knows what you're doing.