Contact Approach -- WX reporting

It was briefly mentioned in one of the longer threads that a contact
approach requires 1 sm reported ground visibility. It reminded me that
I had flown a contact approach some 8 months ago to an airport about 15
minutes after the tower had closed (there is no automated weather
available) and couldn't land because fog and low clouds had rolled in.

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.

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."

wrote:
It was briefly mentioned in one of the longer threads that a contact
approach requires 1 sm reported ground visibility. It reminded me that
I had flown a contact approach some 8 months ago to an airport about 15
minutes after the tower had closed (there is no automated weather
available) and couldn't land because fog and low clouds had rolled in.

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.

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.




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."

Flight viz is irrelavant. The determining factor is reported ground viz.

The pilot requests a contact approach and ATC can approve if
the most recent [weather is considered current for one hour]
was reported as 1 SM. A visual appraoch may be requested by
the pilot or initiated by ATC if visual requirements are
meet.

In any case the pilot may refuse the clearance. In
addition, if visibility drops below the required minimum,
the pilot is required to report and get/resume IFR
procedures.

AIM
5-4-22. Visual Approach

a. A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and
authorizes a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds
to the airport. The pilot must have either the airport or
the preceding identified aircraft in sight. This approach
must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate air
traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport
must have a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3
miles or greater. ATC may authorize this type approach when
it will be operationally beneficial. Visual approaches are
an IFR procedure conducted under IFR in visual
meteorological conditions. Cloud clearance requirements of
14 CFR Section 91.155 are not applicable, unless required by
operation specifications.

b. Operating to an Airport Without Weather Reporting
Service. ATC will advise the pilot when weather is not
available at the destination airport. ATC may initiate a
visual approach provided there is a reasonable assurance
that weather at the airport is a ceiling at or above 1,000
feet and visibility 3 miles or greater (e.g., area weather
reports, PIREPs, etc.).

c. Operating to an Airport With an Operating Control Tower.
Aircraft may be authorized to conduct a visual approach to
one runway while other aircraft are conducting IFR or VFR
approaches to another parallel, intersecting, or converging
runway. When operating to airports with parallel runways
separated by less than 2,500 feet, the succeeding aircraft
must report sighting the preceding aircraft unless standard
separation is being provided by ATC. When operating to
parallel runways separated by at least 2,500 feet but less
than 4,300 feet, controllers will clear/vector aircraft to
the final at an angle not greater than 30 degrees unless
radar, vertical, or visual separation is provided during the
turn-on. The purpose of the 30 degree intercept angle is to
reduce the potential for overshoots of the final and to
preclude side-by-side operations with one or both aircraft
in a belly-up configuration during the turn-on. Once the
aircraft are established within 30 degrees of final, or on
the final, these operations may be conducted simultaneously.
When the parallel runways are separated by 4,300 feet or
more, or intersecting/converging runways are in use, ATC may
authorize a visual approach after advising all aircraft
involved that other aircraft are conducting operations to
the other runway. This may be accomplished through use of
the ATIS.

d. Separation Responsibilities. If the pilot has the airport
in sight but cannot see the aircraft to be followed, ATC may
clear the aircraft for a visual approach; however, ATC
retains both separation and wake vortex separation
responsibility. When visually following a preceding
aircraft, acceptance of the visual approach clearance
constitutes acceptance of pilot responsibility for
maintaining a safe approach interval and adequate wake
turbulence separation.

e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no
missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any
reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be
issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the
tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to
remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as
possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft
is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as
soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from
other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these
circumstances.

f. Visual approaches reduce pilot/controller workload and
expedite traffic by shortening flight paths to the airport.
It is the pilot's responsibility to advise ATC as soon as
possible if a visual approach is not desired.

g. Authorization to conduct a visual approach is an IFR
authorization and does not alter IFR flight plan
cancellation responsibility.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Canceling IFR Flight Plan, Paragraph 5-1-14.

h. Radar service is automatically terminated, without
advising the pilot, when the aircraft is instructed to
change to advisory frequency.

5-4-23. Charted Visual Flight Procedure (CVFP)

a. CVFPs are charted visual approaches established for
environmental/noise considerations, and/or when necessary
for the safety and efficiency of air traffic operations. The
approach charts depict prominent landmarks, courses, and
recommended altitudes to specific runways. CVFPs are
designed to be used primarily for turbojet aircraft.

b. These procedures will be used only at airports with an
operating control tower.

c. Most approach charts will depict some NAVAID information
which is for supplemental navigational guidance only.

d. Unless indicating a Class B airspace floor, all depicted
altitudes are for noise abatement purposes and are
recommended only. Pilots are not prohibited from flying
other than recommended altitudes if operational requirements
dictate.

e. When landmarks used for navigation are not visible at
night, the approach will be annotated "PROCEDURE NOT
AUTHORIZED AT NIGHT."

f. CVFPs usually begin within 20 flying miles from the
airport.

g. Published weather minimums for CVFPs are based on minimum
vectoring altitudes rather than the recommended altitudes
depicted on charts.

h. CVFPs are not instrument approaches and do not have
missed approach segments.

i. ATC will not issue clearances for CVFPs when the weather
is less than the published minimum.

j. ATC will clear aircraft for a CVFP after the pilot
reports siting a charted landmark or a preceding aircraft.
If instructed to follow a preceding aircraft, pilots are
responsible for maintaining a safe approach interval and
wake turbulence separation.

k. Pilots should advise ATC if at any point they are unable
to continue an approach or lose sight of a preceding
aircraft. Missed approaches will be handled as a go-around.

5-4-24. Contact Approach

a. 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.

b. Controllers may authorize a contact approach provided:

1. The contact approach is specifically requested by the
pilot. ATC cannot initiate this approach.

EXAMPLE-
Request contact approach.

2. The reported ground visibility at the destination airport
is at least 1 statute mile.

3. The contact approach will be made to an airport having a
standard or special instrument approach procedure.

4. Approved separation is applied between aircraft so
cleared and between these aircraft and other IFR or special
VFR aircraft.

EXAMPLE-
Cleared contact approach (and, if required) at or below
(altitude) (routing) if not possible (alternative
procedures) and advise.

c. A contact approach is an approach procedure that may be
used by a pilot (with prior authorization from ATC) in lieu
of conducting a standard or special IAP to an airport. It is
not intended for use by a pilot on an IFR flight clearance
to operate to an airport not having a published and
functioning IAP. Nor is it intended for an aircraft to
conduct an instrument approach to one airport and then, when
"in the clear," discontinue that approach and proceed to
another airport. In the execution of a contact approach, the
pilot assumes the responsibility for obstruction clearance.
If radar service is being received, it will automatically
terminate when the pilot is instructed to change to advisory
frequency.







"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| wrote:
| It was briefly mentioned in one of the longer threads
that a contact
| approach requires 1 sm reported ground visibility. It
reminded me that
| I had flown a contact approach some 8 months ago to an
airport about 15
| minutes after the tower had closed (there is no
automated weather
| available) and couldn't land because fog and low clouds
had rolled in.
|
| 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.
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
| 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."
|
| Flight viz is irrelavant. The determining factor is
reported ground viz.

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.

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.

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?

It could shorten the time in the air. Some approaches require a ten
mile detour. In low vis, you could be vectored over the airport and
request a contact approach. Boom, you're down. Otherwise, it's out to
the IAF, be vectored around due to traffic... finally get down ten
minutes later just as fog rolls in.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

1 mile is the minimum, but if you had to fly to the fix,
possibly an NDB or VOR on or very near the airport and then
fly a procedure turn, you are adding 10-15 minutes to the
flight. A contact approach saves time and time is money for
a freight pilot's company. Company loose money, pilot loose
job.

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

A visual approach may be instigated by the controller if the
weather is good VFR. When the controller asks, "Cessna
123XB, do you have traffic in sight? or "Report the airport
insight" the next words you'll hear will probably be "Cessna
123XB cleared for the visual."

Pilots request a contact approach and a controller may
approve. ATC may issue a visual approach and pilots may
reject it.

In any case, the pilot doing a contact approach must
maintain a flight visibility of 1 sm while the controller
can't issue the clearance unless the visibility is reported
as 1 sm. 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. The advantage is that
the IFR clearance is still in the system and the pilot has
the "out." It keeps an active flight plan, which is nice er
than canceling IFR and then nobody will look for you.



"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.
|

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).

Jim Macklin wrote:

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.

Can you really do that? A pilot's guess of ground visibility from
aloft is good enough for the FAA?

The advantage is that
the IFR clearance is still in the system and the pilot has
the "out." It keeps an active flight plan, which is nice er
than canceling IFR and then nobody will look for you.

I wouldn't consider search-and-rescue an "out." The only thing I can
think of is that staying IFR keeps other IFR traffic out of your hair.
Is there another advantage?

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.