Contact Approach -- WX reporting

karl gruber wrote:

No. You can just get one from tower, JUST lke special VFR.


So all towers can issue SVFR and contact approach clearances?

Jose wrote:

Right, they are just not allowed to land if the viz requirements
aren't met. Routinely disregarded.


Yes, but for 91, it's flight visibility. The pilot can evaluate that.

Exactly, routinely disregarded.

Jim Macklin wrote:

Once past the FAF, the pilot becomes the sole authority on
the landing since only the pilot can determine flight
visibility. An aircraft using an N number can be issued an
approach clearance right down to zero-zero. A Tango
November or airline call sign will prompt a denial or query
about the legal status of the flight.

No, it won't. If you want an approach clearance you will get one. The
legality is not ATC's problem.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote:

So did approach control screw up? I'm sure they had the last ATIS
report some 70 to 80 minutes old at the time of my request, and the
weather was good in that report.


If the tower had closed just fifteen minutes earlier approach may have
had a weather observation less than 30 minutes old.

Well, the tower doesn't issue a new ATIS (on the recording) just before
they leave, but I suppose they probably do make a weather report that
goes to FSS. I'm not sure if that ends up at the ARTCC or not. But
they are not there to issue a special observation after they leave,
which is when the fog rolled in.

So I'd guess that for this clearance to have been "proper" the weather
observers would have to still be there and ready to issue a special
regardless of how old the last scheduled observation was. But, from
the discussion so far, it appears that such a requirement is not
actually spelled out in the regs.



Interestingly, both the AIM and the 7110.65 say that a requirement for
ATC authorization of a contact approach is that "The reported ground
visibility is at least 1 statute mile."

But the AIM starts out by saying: "Pilots operating in accordance with
an IFR flight plan, provided they are clear of clouds and have at least
1 mile flight visibility and can reasonably expect to continue to the
destination airport in those conditions, may request ATC authorization
for a contact approach."


Well, a reported ground visibility of at leats one statute mile and a
flight visibility of at least one statute mile are not mutually
exclusive. While ground visibility can be determined quite accurately,
flight visibility is just a guess.

Yes, but I found it interesting that the AIM specifically says that a
pilot may request a contact approach (flight viz 1) in conditions
when the controller may not approve it (ground viz 1). I suppose
that wording is left over from the days when the controller had more
access to weather observations than the pilot?

Newps wrote:
A class C tower could easily do that. Call up about 6 miles out and if
there's no traffic I can issue you a clearance as the tower controllers
at class C's are approach controllers. However you still have to meet
the normal constraints of an IFR clearance.

That makes sense with a traditional Class C (dedicated approach
control). Is this still the case at facilities like SJC and BUR where
the ARTCC is located in another metropolitan area?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
oups.com...

karl gruber wrote:

No. You can just get one from tower, JUST lke special VFR.


So all towers can issue SVFR and contact approach clearances?



I believe all towers can issue SVFR, and I know for sure that PDX tower can
issue a contactapproach.

Karl
"Curator"

wrote:

Yes, but I found it interesting that the AIM specifically says that a
pilot may request a contact approach (flight viz 1) in conditions
when the controller may not approve it (ground viz 1). I suppose
that wording is left over from the days when the controller had more
access to weather observations than the pilot?

That could also be in there because these new Super AWOS machines do not
normally report the weather. We have an airport in our airspace with
one of these machines and I have no idea what the machine is reporting.
But even though I don't know what it is it is legal weather for the pilot.

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

karl gruber wrote:

I believe all towers can issue SVFR,


All towers cannot issue SVFR.



and I know for sure that PDX tower can
issue a contactapproach.


How can you tell if a tower is issuing a clearance for an IFR operation
or if it is relaying the clearance received from whatever facility has
responsibility and authority for IFR operations?

karl gruber wrote:

I believe all towers can issue SVFR,


All towers cannot issue SVFR.



and I know for sure that PDX tower can
issue a contactapproach.


How can you tell if a tower is issuing a clearance for an IFR operation
or if it is relaying the clearance received from whatever facility has
responsibility and authority for IFR operations?