Contact Approach

"Russ MacDonald" wrote in message
news:kJJRd.38393$uc.8144@trnddc03...

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

Yes, there are many uncontrolled fields with Class E surface areas. An
uncontrolled field is one without an operating control tower, it has nothing
to do with airspace.

wrote in message
...

I'm flying a contact approach when I'm cleared for a contact approach,
regardless of what I use to navigate.


You're flying a contact approach when what you're doing has the properties
of a contact approach. Navigation by visual reference to the surface is a
property of a contact approach. If you're not flying by visual reference to
the surface then what you're doing does not have the properties of a contact
approach and thus you are not flying a contact approach.



Just because I must see the ground, doesn't mean I must use ground
references to navigate.


It doesn't say "must see the ground", it says "proceed to the destination
airport by visual reference to the surface". That actually DOES mean you
must use ground references to navigate. That shouldn't surprise anyone.
After all, contact flight is done by visual reference to the surface. If
you take contact flight out of the contact approach what kind of approach do
you have left?

wrote in message
...

Where is it written that I am not?


It's not. Now, where is it written that you are free to navigate any way
you wish? In other words, where is it written that you can fly a contact
approach without proceeding to the destination airport by visual reference
to the surface?

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

Yes, and I am trying to teach you this basic stuff, but you are very
resistant to instruction.


Well, that explains a lot! Here I thought I was trying to teach you and it
turns out you're teaching me! D'oh! Well, I'm always eager to learn.
Let's press on!



You have agreed in previous posts that 91.155(a) defines VFR conditions
and that 91.155(c) defines a restriction on VFR operations under certain
conditions. I'm glad that you understand that. Now let's see if we can
move you to the next level.


I'm aware of only one condition in FAR 91.155(c), a ceiling of less than
1,000 feet. What condition or conditions am I missing?



Just to have a clear common reference, I quote the P/CG, which applies to
both pilots and controllers: VFR CONDITIONS- Weather conditions equal to
or better than the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.

91.155(a) defines two things. One is a meteorological limit for VFR
operations, which is flight visibility. The second is an operational
restriction on pilots regarding how closely they may operate to clouds
under VFR. There is no other restriction in that paragraph regarding
clouds, such as ceiling, broken, overcast, scattered, etc.

If sufficient flight visibility exists for the airspace and other
conditions (day/night, altitude), then a pilot may conduct VFR operations
in those conditions as long as s/he is able to maintain the required cloud
clearance, unless further restricted, such as by 91.155(c). We then say
that VFR conditions exist, in accordance with the P/CG definition. If the
flight visibility falls below the required minimum value, then VFR
conditions do not exist. If the clouds where the operations are to be
conducted become such that a pilot is unable to maintain the required
cloud clearance, whether vertical or horizontal, then VFR conditions do
not exist because the conditions are such that they will not allow VFR
operations to be conducted in accordance with 91.155(a).

A ceiling higher than 1000 and reported visibility greater than 3 miles
does not assure VFR conditions at an airport. The cloud condition must be
such that VFR operations can be conducted in accordance with 91.155(a).
It is not uncommon under scud-type conditions for there to be scattered
clouds below the ceiling that will prevent being able to maintain the
required lateral clearance (and flight visibility). Under this condition,
VFR conditions do not exist.


Interesting. Just to clarify, you're saying that clouds covering 3 to 4
octas of the celestial dome can require flight within a surface area to be
done only by IFR or SVFR? Is that correct? And you say this is not
uncommon? Odd, I've been flying for thirty years and making weather
observations for twelve and it certainly seems uncommon to me.

Is there anyone out there still reading this thread that can concur with
Stan's position?



If there is a ceiling and it is less than 1000 ft, then 91.155(c)
prohibits VFR operations below that ceiling in a surface area designated
for an airport. Since flight under VFR cannot be conducted due to a
prohibition based on a meteorological condition, we can say that VFR
conditions do not exist below the ceiling. But if there is a ceiling
greater than 1000 ft and reported visibility is greater than 3 miles, that
does not mean that VFR conditions do exist below the ceiling.


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?



So regarding the requirement for ATC to ensure that VFR conditions exist
at the airport before issuing a clearance for a visual approach, we can
see that 1000/3 in a surface area is necessary but is not sufficient.

I hope this helps you to clarify your understanding.


Not completely. What are the minimum conditions required prior to issuing a
visual approach in a surface area?

"Russ MacDonald" wrote in message
news:CAyRd.2617$QQ3.2368@trnddc02...

If it's low ATC will ask if we think we can get in visually, and if we say
yes, they issue the visual approach. There is no weather reporting there,
and they have never once asked if the field had 1000/3.


1000/3 is not applicable to fields without weather reporting.



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


How so?



In actual practice it's not that complicated. There is no radar at most
of these uncontrolled fields, and there are lots of commercial operations,
and the last thing that ATC wants is for us to fly a full approach if
there is any way to avoid it. That just stacks up the holding patterns,
and it takes forever to unwind.


Multiple IFR arrivals to uncontrolled fields can also stack up the holding
pattern. If successive aircraft cannot see preceding aircraft visual
separation cannot be used and everyone has to wait for the preceding
aircraft to cancel IFR.

"Russ MacDonald" wrote in news:kJJRd.38393
$uc.8144@trnddc03:


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

An uncontrolled airport is one without a tower. It's not unusual for an
untowered airport to have a Class E surface area.

--
Regards,

Stan

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

wrote in message
...

Too ridiculous for words.

To follow your interpretation means that if I am ffying a contact
approach into an airport in the middle of the desert in the middle of
the night, with a VOR on the field, I msut abandon the approach
because I don't recognize a particular cactus.


I haven't provided any interpretation. I'm just saying it like it is.

I note that you still have not provided any support for your assertion.

wrote in message
...

I'll say it once more, and that's it.

Maintaining "visual reference to the surface" is different from
"navigating by visual reference to the surface"


Yes, but "proceeding to the destination airport by visual reference to the
surface" is the same as "navigating by visual reference to the surface".



Don't bother to respond, because the ****ing match is over.


You're not going to learn anything with that attitude. I'll take your
withdrawal to indicate you cannot support your assertion that a pilot can
simply follow a VOR radial or a localizer course, or use his handheld GPS or
anything else that he feels will safely take him to the field, just as long
as he maintains one mile visibility.

wrote in message
...

Bullsquat.


No, it really is:

CONTACT APPROACH- An approach wherein an aircraft on an IFR flight plan,
having an air traffic control authorization, operating clear of clouds with
at least 1 mile flight visibility and a reasonable expectation of continuing
to the destination airport in those conditions, may deviate from the
instrument approach procedure and proceed to the destination airport by
visual reference to the surface. This approach will only be authorized when
requested by the pilot and the reported ground visibility at the destination
airport is at least 1 statute mile.

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

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

Yes, and I am trying to teach you this basic stuff, but you are very
resistant to instruction.


Well, that explains a lot! Here I thought I was trying to teach you and
it turns out you're teaching me! D'oh! Well, I'm always eager to learn.
Let's press on!


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



You have agreed in previous posts that 91.155(a) defines VFR conditions
and that 91.155(c) defines a restriction on VFR operations under certain
conditions. I'm glad that you understand that. Now let's see if we can
move you to the next level.


I'm aware of only one condition in FAR 91.155(c), a ceiling of less than
1,000 feet. What condition or conditions am I missing?


That it be a surface area.

And you are assigning a meaning to the paragraph which is incorrect. You
seem to be saying that if the reported visibility is three miles are greater
and if there is not a reported ceiling of less than 1000 feet, then VFR
conditions exist. It does not say that at all. It says what it says, which
is that flight under VFR is prohibited in a surface area if there is a
ceiling of less than 1000 ft. And it does not say reported conditions, it
says conditions. It is a rule for pilots ("no person may operate an
aircraft....") and pilots may not operate under VFR in a surface area unless
they comply with both 91.155(a) and 91.155(c). 91.155(c) grants no
exception to 91.155(a), it only defines an additional restriction. Until
you understand and accept this, you will make no progress.

91.155(c) says nothing about visibility. That appears only in 91.155(a)
where it defines visibility requirements in terms of flight visibility. You
can't be selective about what provisions of 91.155(a) you want to apply.



Just to have a clear common reference, I quote the P/CG, which applies to
both pilots and controllers: VFR CONDITIONS- Weather conditions equal to
or better than the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.

91.155(a) defines two things. One is a meteorological limit for VFR
operations, which is flight visibility. The second is an operational
restriction on pilots regarding how closely they may operate to clouds
under VFR. There is no other restriction in that paragraph regarding
clouds, such as ceiling, broken, overcast, scattered, etc.

If sufficient flight visibility exists for the airspace and other
conditions (day/night, altitude), then a pilot may conduct VFR operations
in those conditions as long as s/he is able to maintain the required
cloud
clearance, unless further restricted, such as by 91.155(c). We then say
that VFR conditions exist, in accordance with the P/CG definition. If
the
flight visibility falls below the required minimum value, then VFR
conditions do not exist. If the clouds where the operations are to be
conducted become such that a pilot is unable to maintain the required
cloud clearance, whether vertical or horizontal, then VFR conditions do
not exist because the conditions are such that they will not allow VFR
operations to be conducted in accordance with 91.155(a).

A ceiling higher than 1000 and reported visibility greater than 3 miles
does not assure VFR conditions at an airport. The cloud condition must
be
such that VFR operations can be conducted in accordance with 91.155(a).
It is not uncommon under scud-type conditions for there to be scattered
clouds below the ceiling that will prevent being able to maintain the
required lateral clearance (and flight visibility). Under this
condition,
VFR conditions do not exist.


Interesting. Just to clarify, you're saying that clouds covering 3 to 4
octas of the celestial dome can require flight within a surface area to be
done only by IFR or SVFR? Is that correct? And you say this is not
uncommon? Odd, I've been flying for thirty years and making weather
observations for twelve and it certainly seems uncommon to me.


Just to clarify, what I said is in the text you quoted above, which reads in
part "If the flight
visibility falls below the required minimum value, then VFR conditions do
not exist. If the clouds where the operations are to be conducted become
such that a pilot is unable to maintain the required cloud clearance,
whether vertical or horizontal, then VFR conditions do not exist because the
conditions are such that they will not allow VFR operations to be conducted
in accordance with 91.155(a)." See, you are being resistant to instruction.
And you are suggesting that as a pilot you are willing to violate 91.155(a).


Is there anyone out there still reading this thread that can concur with
Stan's position?

My position is what I stated.




If there is a ceiling and it is less than 1000 ft, then 91.155(c)
prohibits VFR operations below that ceiling in a surface area designated
for an airport. Since flight under VFR cannot be conducted due to a
prohibition based on a meteorological condition, we can say that VFR
conditions do not exist below the ceiling. But if there is a ceiling
greater than 1000 ft and reported visibility is greater than 3 miles,
that
does not mean that VFR conditions do exist below the ceiling.


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.



So regarding the requirement for ATC to ensure that VFR conditions exist
at the airport before issuing a clearance for a visual approach, we can
see that 1000/3 in a surface area is necessary but is not sufficient.

I hope this helps you to clarify your understanding.


Not completely. What are the minimum conditions required prior to issuing
a visual approach in a surface area?


That VFR conditions exist.