Contact Approach

"Stan Prevost" wrote in
:

We all can continue to learn a few things, if willing. And I have
learned a few things from you.

I think that what neither of you has learned so far is that you are talking
past each other, about different things. For a controller to issue a
clearance, all that is required is reported weather of 1000/3. The pilot
cannot necessarily legally comply with that clearance, however. There is a
distinct difference between the requirements for the controller and for the
pilot.

No for the sake of sufficent bandwidth for the rest of usenet, please let
this dead horse lie in peace.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...

I think that what neither of you has learned so far is that you are
talking
past each other, about different things. For a controller to issue a
clearance, all that is required is reported weather of 1000/3. The pilot
cannot necessarily legally comply with that clearance, however. There is
a
distinct difference between the requirements for the controller and for
the
pilot.


Why might the pilot not necessarily be able to legally comply with that
clearance? What are the requirements for the pilot?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:





Fer Pete's sake.

Whip, whip. No this dead horse won't die yet...

Die, Thread, Die.

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...
I think that what neither of you has learned so far is that you are
talking
past each other, about different things. For a controller to issue a
clearance, all that is required is reported weather of 1000/3.

That's where this discussion began. The controller is required to determine
that VFR conditions exist before issuing the clearance, and 1000/3 does not
insure that.

The pilot
cannot necessarily legally comply with that clearance, however.

The pilot operating under IFR can. Another pilot desiring to operate VFR in
the same volume of airspace may not be able to.

There is a
distinct difference between the requirements for the controller and for
the
pilot.

The way 7110.65 is written, it requires the same for the controller as
applies to pilots, regarding whether VFR conditions exist. I don't think it
should be written that way, because it is virtually impossible for a
controller to ensure compliance, but nonetheless that is how it is written.


No for the sake of sufficent bandwidth for the rest of usenet, please let
this dead horse lie in peace.

Suits me. :-)

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

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

Then how does a controller ensure that weather conditions at the airport
are VFR prior to issuing a clearance for a visual approach in a surface
area?


I don't know if there is any way, and have never suggested that I do. The
first step for a controller is to learn what the rule actually says, which
I am trying to help you with, and accept its actual meaning, not confusing
that with what may be done in practice. The next step for a controller is
to see if s/he can figure out a way to determine how to correctly comply
with the actual meaning of the rule. If no such way can be determined,
then that controller must decide whether to not issue a visual approach
clearance under conditions which cannot be determined to be in compliance
with the Order or to adopt practices which are not in strict accordance
with the Order. I believe the latter is what is commonly (or universally)
done in practice by ATC, but it ought to be done with proper
understanding.

Yes, ATC asks me to call the field in sight and asks if I have good enough
conditions for the visual. If I say yes, then they issue the visual.

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


It sounds to me like the FAA heard about a solution and they tried to
write rules to define it.


How so?


They tried to understand how professional pilots make visual approaches, and
then tried to put it down on paper. All they did was make it too
complicated for any mortal to understand. It doesn't change the way we fly
the visual approach.

Russ

"Russ MacDonald" wrote in message
news:0edSd.45799$Dc.22683@trnddc06...


Yes, ATC asks me to call the field in sight and asks if I have good enough
conditions for the visual. If I say yes, then they issue the visual.


Works for me. :-)

wrote in message
...

It's interesting that the FAA can write a regulation, and when one
follows the ;letter of the regulation, acting, by FAA's own
admission, "legally", it is considered "careless and reckless".


"Careless and reckless" is frequently abused.



Sounds a bit like the FAA is a bit "careless and reckless" in its rule
writing,


The brief suggests the pilot busted another regulation for which he wasn't
charged at all, FAR 91.155(a). Witnesses testified that the visibility was
1/4 to 1 mile and the ceiling was 100-200 feet. The pilot says he took off
under IFR but was in VFR conditions well before he entered controlled
airspace at 700 AGL. But clear of clouds was sufficient only if he remained
in Class G airspace, when he entered Class E airspace at 700 AGL he had to
be 1000 feet above them.

If you shallow your climb slightly, by the time you reach E airspace, you
are outside the 5 mile transition zone and the base of E is up to 1200 feet
AGL. That way it is quite possible to take off IFR from an uncontrolled
field with a layer of ground fog and still have the required 1000 ft cloud
clearance when reaching E airspace.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

The brief suggests the pilot busted another regulation for which he wasn't
charged at all, FAR 91.155(a). Witnesses testified that the visibility
was 1/4 to 1 mile and the ceiling was 100-200 feet. The pilot says he
took off under IFR but was in VFR conditions well before he entered
controlled airspace at 700 AGL. But clear of clouds was sufficient only
if he remained in Class G airspace, when he entered Class E airspace at
700 AGL he had to be 1000 feet above them.

"Russ MacDonald" wrote in message
news:s8KSd.47329$Dc.13687@trnddc06...

If you shallow your climb slightly, by the time you reach E airspace, you
are outside the 5 mile transition zone and the base of E is up to 1200
feet AGL. That way it is quite possible to take off IFR from an
uncontrolled field with a layer of ground fog and still have the required
1000 ft cloud clearance when reaching E airspace.


You'd have to shallow your climb considerably, as the base of Class E
airspace is at 700 AGL for considerably more than five miles. But it's a
moot point, as he stated that he entered Class E airspace at 700 AGL.