Contact Approach

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...

Actually, they were originally expecting me to fly a visual approach.
They vectored me to the field from the south, and called "TPL 3 'oclock 1
mile" but that broken cloud layer kept me from seeing the field almost
just below me. So he vectored me in the direction of a downwind
"outbound" for ILS-15. But as I got a mile or two north of the airport I
the layer suddenly ended, and I could see the field and that I could
easily maintain it visually... Thus the request for the contact, because I
didn't think it was VFR conditions at the time...


OK, that makes sense. I just never thought of asking for a contact
approach. Under the same circumstances, I would typically just cancel IFR
and duck down under the clouds as long as the vis was good enough below.
That would free up the airspace for another IFR and possibly prevent someone
from having to hold.

"Russ MacDonald" wrote in
news:8byRd.32494$wc.19438@trnddc07:

Well, if it is an uncontrolled airport, the airspace is Class G from
700 feet to the surface, and all you need is 1 mile and clear of
clouds for VFR, right?

Not necessarily. Many uncontrolled fields have a Class E surface area,
where the Class E airspace goes all the way to the ground. You need
1000/3 there.

--
Regards,

Stan

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

"Russ MacDonald" wrote in message news:Z%yRd.2624$QQ3.1407@trnddc02...

"John Clonts" wrote in message ...

Actually, they were originally expecting me to fly a visual approach. They vectored me to the field from the
south, and called "TPL 3 'oclock 1 mile" but that broken cloud layer kept me from seeing the field almost
just below me. So he vectored me in the direction of a downwind "outbound" for ILS-15. But as I got a mile
or two north of the airport I the layer suddenly ended, and I could see the field and that I could easily
maintain it visually... Thus the request for the contact, because I didn't think it was VFR conditions at
the time...


OK, that makes sense. I just never thought of asking for a contact approach. Under the same circumstances,
I would typically just cancel IFR and duck down under the clouds as long as the vis was good enough below.
That would free up the airspace for another IFR and possibly prevent someone from having to hold.


But Temple is Class E to the surface....

"Russ MacDonald" wrote in message
news:Z%yRd.2624$QQ3.1407@trnddc02...

OK, that makes sense. I just never thought of asking for a contact
approach. Under the same circumstances, I would typically just cancel IFR
and duck down under the clouds as long as the vis was good enough below.
That would free up the airspace for another IFR and possibly prevent
someone from having to hold.

He said he didn't think it was VFR conditions at the time. How can you
cancel under the same circumstances?

wrote in message
...

Unless you are talking a 300 foot fog layer, let's say.


Not then either.

wrote in message
...

Why not?


Because it can't be done without running afoul of the FARs.

wrote in message
...

Are you saying I cannot launch without a clearance into a 300 ft fog
layer from an airport in Class G, and then proceed VFR once on top?


Yup.



Why not?


Because that has been deemed to be a violation of FAR 91.13(a).

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF

" wrote in message
...

I disagree tha this sugests you must "recognize" something on the surface.


It doesn't suggest it, it states it.



"Visual reference to the surface" references a condition to be maintained.


No, it specifies how the procedure is flown, "proceed to the destination
airport by visual reference to the surface" is pretty clear. That's what
contact flying is.



It certainly doesn't mean that you cannot use other means to navigate to
the airport.


Of course not, you're free to use other means of navigation to supplement
the primary means at any time. It's like using GPS for supplementary
information on an ILS approach. But the supplementary means cannot be used
in lieu of the primary means and on a contact approach the primary means of
navigation is by visual reference to the surface.



It would be ridiculous to suggest this. It would mean that one
would have to be familiar with terrain in order to accept a contact
approach, or be screwing around with a sectional and picking out ground
characteristics while in limited visbility in order to navigate.

A rididulous notion to say the least.


Actually, it's your notion that you can simply follow a VOR radial or a
localizer course, or use your handheld GPS or anything else that you feel
will safely take you to the field once cleared for a contact approach, just
as long as you maintain 1 mile visibility, you should be all set. That's an
absurd notion, when you stop to think about it.

I noticed you didn't answer my question, where is it written that you are
free to navigate any way you wish on a contact approach?

I have another question. Where and why might you be using a localizer
course to take you to the field once cleared for a contact approach?
Localizer courses tend to be final approach courses and aligned with a
runway. Why choose a contact approach over the charted IAP?

Because that has been deemed to be a violation of FAR 91.13(a).
http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF

Ah yes, the "careless or reckless" clause, which makes anything that is
otherwise legal into a violation at the Fed's discretion. This seems
(on the surface) to be a case of a well considered decision that was
(perhaps) incorrect. To me, "careless" implies a decision that was not
well considered, or even considered at all. Not every operational error
is (or should be counted as) "careless". I'll leave aside the question
of whether this in fact =was= an operational error, or just a
disagreement between a pilot and the feds as to what consititued an
unsafe practice under the circumstances (allowing for the fact that the
only truly safe flying practice is to stay on the ground).

I would say that departing uncleared into the clouds immediately after
an IFR departure guarantees that one will be in the proximity of at
least one aircraft, and it's not clear to me that he made sure that the
other aircraft was no longer in the area when he departed.

I wonder if, using this as a precedent, =any= uncleared IFR in
uncontrolled airspace could be considered careless or reckless.
Actually, I'm not sure I'd disagree with that assessment, but if that's
what they'd like to enforce, then it should be written into the regs.
Not to do so makes it a guessing game of how things might be seen to the
bureaucrats, rather than a considered decision of flight safety under
the circumstances. In my opinion, 91.13 should be reserved for
eggregious cases, of which this doesn't appear to be one.

Nonetheless, now that a decision has been rendered, in this particular
case, it is against the law to do so again, even though when student
pilots study the FARs, they do not delve into case history, and so the
law can come up and bite them anyway.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...
"Russ MacDonald" wrote in
news:8byRd.32494$wc.19438@trnddc07:

Well, if it is an uncontrolled airport, the airspace is Class G from
700 feet to the surface, and all you need is 1 mile and clear of
clouds for VFR, right?

Not necessarily. Many uncontrolled fields have a Class E surface area,
where the Class E airspace goes all the way to the ground. You need
1000/3 there.

An UNCONTROLLED field with E airspace to the ground?? Uncontrolled is G
airspace!