Contact approach question

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:48:17 -0800, Ron Garret
wrote:

Simple, but illegal. You can only descend below minimums once you have
the field in sight AND you're on the final approach segment (and, if you
really want to pick nits, have reached DH or MDA)


Actually, you need the runway environment in sight.

And I would find it interesting to know how one descends below the DA
or MDA without first reaching them.

"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. 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. 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.

Paul, the pertinent regulation is 91.155 [Basic VFR weather minimums] (d):
"Except as provided in §91.157 [SVFR] of this part, no person may take off
or land an aircraft, or enter the traffic pattern of an airport, under VFR,
within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C,
Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport-(1) Unless ground
visibility at that airport is at least 3 statute miles; or (2) If ground
visibility is not reported at that airport, unless flight visibility during
landing or takeoff, or while operating in the traffic pattern is at least 3
statute miles."

We are addressing a situation in which the tower reports a ground visibility
of less than 3 sm. If you cancel IFR, then you are VFR. 91.155d1 says you
can't land VFR (except in Class G) with ground visibility of less than 3sm.
We are addressing an airport with a tower, so it is not Class G. Therefore,
if you cancel IFR, you cannot land.

--Gary

In a previous article, "Gary Drescher" said:
Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport-(1) Unless ground
visibility at that airport is at least 3 statute miles; or (2) If ground
visibility is not reported at that airport, unless flight visibility during
landing or takeoff, or while operating in the traffic pattern is at least 3
statute miles."

Ah, there's the missing piece of the puzzle. I thought that flight
visibility was all that mattered - I don't know why, but I'd forgotten
that ground visibility applied to part 91.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I'm sorry, your missile just caused a General Protection error.
Your General is no longer protected."
-- Nicholas Avernal, on Windows for Weapons

"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 Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:48:17 -0800, Ron Garret
wrote:

Simple, but illegal. You can only descend below minimums once you have
the field in sight AND you're on the final approach segment (and, if you
really want to pick nits, have reached DH or MDA)


Actually, you need the runway environment in sight.

I was using "field" as colloquial shorthand for "runway environment."
Yes, that is necessary, but it is not sufficient. And if you want to
dispute that would you please cite the relevant FAR? My source is
121.651.

And I would find it interesting to know how one descends below the DA
or MDA without first reaching them.

You'll have to take that up with the FAA. It seemed like an odd
requirement to me to, but that's what the regs say.

rg

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

We are addressing an airport with a tower, so it is not Class G.

Are you sure about that? When US airspace was reclassified a bit over ten
years ago there were a few airports with control towers but without Control
Zones. These airports did not get Class D airspace because they had no
controlled airspace at the surface. Those that I was personally familiar
with have had surface areas established since then and it became Class D
airspace.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

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.


And there are those that simply can't grasp what they read, like you for one
example.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

We are addressing an airport with a tower, so it is not Class G.

Are you sure about that? When US airspace was reclassified a bit over ten
years ago there were a few airports with control towers but without
Control Zones. These airports did not get Class D airspace because they
had no controlled airspace at the surface. Those that I was personally
familiar with have had surface areas established since then and it became
Class D airspace.


There is still one that I know of, KLCQ.

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

We are addressing an airport with a tower, so it is not Class G.

Are you sure about that? When US airspace was reclassified a bit over
ten years ago there were a few airports with control towers but without
Control Zones. These airports did not get Class D airspace because they
had no controlled airspace at the surface. Those that I was personally
familiar with have had surface areas established since then and it became
Class D airspace.

There is still one that I know of, KLCQ.

Interesting. I knew about towered airports in Class E, but I hadn't realized
there are towered Class G airports too.

So if you're on an instrument approach to KLCQ, and you have VMC in flight
between you and the airport, but the reported ground visibility is zero
because part of the airport is in fog (but the runway you're landing on is
clear), then is it legal to cancel IFR and land? Nothing in 91.155d applies
to an airport in Class G, even with a tower.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Interesting. I knew about towered airports in Class E, but I hadn't
realized there are towered Class G airports too.


A towered airport in a Class E surface area is a temporary situation.



So if you're on an instrument approach to KLCQ, and you have VMC in flight
between you and the airport, but the reported ground visibility is zero
because part of the airport is in fog (but the runway you're landing on is
clear), then is it legal to cancel IFR and land?


Yes, if you have at least one mile flight visibility and remain clear of
clouds, that would be legal. But why cancel IFR?



Nothing in 91.155d applies to an airport in Class G, even with a tower.


Of course not, FAR 91.155(d) pertains to operations in a surface area.