Can ATC clear an aircraft for a contact approach to an airport which has no
weather reporting?

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> Can ATC clear an aircraft for a contact approach to an airport which has
> no weather reporting?
>

No, a contact approach requires a reported ground visibility of at least one
mile.

No.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 23:34:48 -0600, "Stan Prevost"
> wrote:

>Can ATC clear an aircraft for a contact approach to an airport which has no
>weather reporting?
>
>

"raphaël langumier" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes,
>
> Ground visibility should be at least 1 SM and the pilot have to request
> the contact approach.
>

No, the reported ground visibility MUST be at least 1 statute mile. The
pilot must request the contact approach and the airport must have a
functioning IAP as well.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>
> No, the reported ground visibility MUST be at least 1 statute mile. The
> pilot must request the contact approach and the airport must have a
> functioning IAP as well.
>

A local field with part-time tower (Class D airspace when tower is open) has
restricted areas in close proximity. When these areas are active, ATC will
not approve the SIAPs. There is no notation on the approach plate, nor any
NOTAM, that says the approaches are not allowed when the restricted areas
are active. There is no AWOS/ASOS reporting over the radio or telephone,
but recently the field began putting METARs into the system. I don't know
if the tower personnel are certified weather observers or not, so I don't
know if their observations qualify as "reported" visibility, nor do I know
if the METAR visibility report qualifies as "reported ground visibility". I
was hoping someone knew of some rule that allowed a substitute for an
official ground visibility report. There is certified weather observing at
a larger field five miles away, but I don't suppose that would do.

When the restricted areas are active, there is no way to get back into the
field in IMC other than a visual or contact approach. MVA is 2400 MSL,
about 1700 AGL. Well, there may be two. One is to fly the ILS into the
adjacent Class C airspace, then cancel and maneuver around the restricted
areas at 1000 AGL if cloud conditions permit, which would require 3 miles
visibility. The other possibility is that there is a PAR approach available
sometimes. I haven't asked if they will approve it when the restricted
areas are active. The problem, I think, is the missed approach. Circling
is not allowed east of the runway due to terrain, and for the two published
IAPs, the missed goes on the west side, which is where one of the restricted
areas is. Since there is no published missed for the PAR approach, or for a
visual or contact approach, I don't know what they will do. I have flown a
visual into the field when the ceiling was overcast at 2400 MSL, but it was
a stretch to say I had the field in sight. A contact approach would have
been better.

I think I just need to go talk to these people.

Stan Prevost wrote:
>
> I think I just need to go talk to these people.

That sounds right.

FWIW, I've encountered another place where nearby restricted airspace determines
whether or not you'll get an approach, W95, Ocracoke Island, NC.

Whichever approach you get, either the approach course or the missed approach
bumps up against R5306A. To compound the problem, the only approach facility is
Washington Center, and once you get down to approach altitudes, they have
neither radar nor comm coverage.

Nice to have the approaches published, but so far I've never been able to get
center to clear me for one of them.

No, a contact approach requires a reported ground visibility of at least one
mile.

Reported by whom or what?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Can ATC clear an aircraft for a contact approach to an airport which has
> > no weather reporting?
> >
>
> No, a contact approach requires a reported ground visibility of at least
one
> mile.
>
>

wrote:
> ASOS, AWOS, or a qualified weather observer, if I'm not mistaken.

I guess the next question is, "reported to whom?".

Let's say for example my FBO has a certified weather observer on staff. I
call up on unicom, ask for the weather, and am told it's 5000 broken and 2
miles. Does that count as "reported"? When I ask ATC for a contact
approach, they won't have that observation. Do I just tell the controller
that I've got a report from the FBO?

"raphaël langumier" > wrote in message
...
> Yes,
>
> Ground visibility should be at least 1 SM and the pilot have to request
> the contact approach.
> Raf
>

The AIM says that, to request the contact approach, the pilot must have one
mile *flight* visibility. For ATC to approve the request, the *reported*
*ground* visibility must be one mile.

The question is really how literally that "reported ground visibility" rule
is used. Is a PIREP acceptable? Are conditions observed five miles away by
a certified human weather observer acceptable? Can any tower controller at
the field make an acceptable report? Is the AWOS/ASOS observation "ground
visibility"? Will a METAR report 45 minutes old suffice? Or must it
absolutely be a certified weather observer on the field reporting current
conditions to whoever calls on the landline? Or what?

Stan

It must be an official source and available to ATC. Your buddy the line
boy at the FBO who passed a weather observers test 8 years ago does not
qualify.



wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, the reported weather has to be available to ATC
> in some fashion, but I'm not absolutely positive. One of our resident
> ATC guys will know, for sure.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:36:34 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>ASOS, AWOS, or a qualified weather observer, if I'm not mistaken.
>>
>>I guess the next question is, "reported to whom?".
>>
>>Let's say for example my FBO has a certified weather observer on staff. I
>>call up on unicom, ask for the weather, and am told it's 5000 broken and 2
>>miles. Does that count as "reported"? When I ask ATC for a contact
>>approach, they won't have that observation. Do I just tell the controller
>>that I've got a report from the FBO?
>
>

Not to be pessimistic, where in my FAA ATC bible does it say "official
source"?. Available to ATC may be just a phone call away. I passed a CBI
based ASOS test at an FCT and was qualified to disseminate weather if the
ASOS failed. The only qualifications I needed after the test was to send in
an observation every quarter to the NWS. So what makes me any more
qualified than a guy who actually went to school for the weather
certification. I only ask this question because it was asked of me by a
long time ATC instructor. Would a PIREP be good enough?

oneatcer

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> It must be an official source and available to ATC. Your buddy the line
> boy at the FBO who passed a weather observers test 8 years ago does not
> qualify.
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > If I'm not mistaken, the reported weather has to be available to ATC
> > in some fashion, but I'm not absolutely positive. One of our resident
> > ATC guys will know, for sure.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:36:34 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>ASOS, AWOS, or a qualified weather observer, if I'm not mistaken.
> >>
> >>I guess the next question is, "reported to whom?".
> >>
> >>Let's say for example my FBO has a certified weather observer on staff.
I
> >>call up on unicom, ask for the weather, and am told it's 5000 broken and
2
> >>miles. Does that count as "reported"? When I ask ATC for a contact
> >>approach, they won't have that observation. Do I just tell the
controller
> >>that I've got a report from the FBO?
> >
> >

Do I just tell the controller that I've got a report from the FBO?

Sure, why not? As a controller I have to disseminate PIREPs (which are
considered valid), why shouldn't I believe you that a pilot at an FBO
reported the weather as you said? The other requirement for clearing an
aircraft for a contact approach is that the airport has a published
instrument approach. If the airport I am working at is reporting 100/ 1/2
and your airport of intended landing has mins of 4000/3, do I clear you/or
not for the published approach when you give me a PIREP of CAVU? I'm not
trying to be antagonistic, but I'd like the true answer too.

oneatcer

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
> > ASOS, AWOS, or a qualified weather observer, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> I guess the next question is, "reported to whom?".
>
> Let's say for example my FBO has a certified weather observer on staff. I
> call up on unicom, ask for the weather, and am told it's 5000 broken and 2
> miles. Does that count as "reported"? When I ask ATC for a contact
> approach, they won't have that observation. Do I just tell the controller
> that I've got a report from the FBO?

My book say PIREPs are acceptable for the fact that I have to disseminate
them. Controllers can make a ground vis report. AWOS/ASOS is ground vis.
METARs 45 minutes old will suffice due to the requirements of issuing a new
METAR when the vis changes by a reportable value. And if my memory serves
me right, that is +/- 1/4 mile when it gets down around 1 mile. Also, I say
it doesn't have to be an "absolutely certified weather observer", if that
was the case there would be no such thing as a contact approach. That's
my take on it, any ideas from you pilots?

oneatcer

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> "raphaël langumier" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Yes,
> >
> > Ground visibility should be at least 1 SM and the pilot have to request
> > the contact approach.
> > Raf
> >
>
> The AIM says that, to request the contact approach, the pilot must have
one
> mile *flight* visibility. For ATC to approve the request, the *reported*
> *ground* visibility must be one mile.
>
> The question is really how literally that "reported ground visibility"
rule
> is used. Is a PIREP acceptable? Are conditions observed five miles away
by
> a certified human weather observer acceptable? Can any tower controller
at
> the field make an acceptable report? Is the AWOS/ASOS observation "ground
> visibility"? Will a METAR report 45 minutes old suffice? Or must it
> absolutely be a certified weather observer on the field reporting current
> conditions to whoever calls on the landline? Or what?
>
> Stan
>
>

"oneatcer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Reported by whom or what?
>

Ground visibility is prevailing horizontal visibility near the earth's
surface as reported by the United States National Weather Service or an
accredited observer. The accredited observer can be a Federally commissioned
weather observing system.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> I guess the next question is, "reported to whom?".
>

To ATC.


>
> Let's say for example my FBO has a certified weather observer on staff. I
> call up on unicom, ask for the weather, and am told it's 5000 broken and 2
> miles. Does that count as "reported"? When I ask ATC for a contact
> approach, they won't have that observation. Do I just tell the controller
> that I've got a report from the FBO?
>

If your FBO has a certified weather observer on staff ATC will have that
observation.

"oneatcer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not to be pessimistic, where in my FAA ATC bible does it say "official
> source"?
>

FAAO 7110.65, para 7-4-6.b. says, "The reported ground visibility is at
least 1 statute mile." The Pilot/Controller Glossary and FAR Part 1 both
define Ground Visibility as "Prevailing horizontal visibility near the
earth's surface as reported by the United States National Weather Service or
an accredited observer."


>
> Available to ATC may be just a phone call away. I passed a CBI
> based ASOS test at an FCT and was qualified to disseminate weather if the
> ASOS failed. The only qualifications I needed after the test was to send
> in an observation every quarter to the NWS. So what makes me any more
> qualified than a guy who actually went to school for the weather
> certification.
>

Nothing.


>
> I only ask this question because it was asked of me by a
> long time ATC instructor. Would a PIREP be good enough?
>

No.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> The question is really how literally that "reported ground visibility"
> rule is used. Is a PIREP acceptable?
>

No. Ground visibility is determined by sighting objects a known distance
away. A PIREP is just a guess, and many pilots are very bad at guessing
distance.


>
> Are conditions observed five miles
> away by a certified human weather observer acceptable?
>

No.


>
> Can any tower
> controller at the field make an acceptable report?
>

If the controller is the accredited weather observer, then yes. Being
certified to make tower visibility observations is not sufficient.


>
> Is the AWOS/ASOS observation "ground visibility"?
>

Yes.


>
> Will a METAR report 45 minutes old suffice?
>

Yes, if it hasn't been superceded by a SPECI.

"oneatcer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Also, I say it doesn't have to be an "absolutely certified weather
> observer", if that
> was the case there would be no such thing as a contact approach. That's
> my take on it, any ideas from you pilots?
>

Well, you're wrong. It does have to be an "absolutely certified weather
observer".

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> Let's say for example my FBO has a certified weather observer on
> staff. I call up on unicom, ask for the weather, and am told it's
> 5000 broken and 2 miles. Does that count as "reported"? When I ask
> ATC for a contact approach, they won't have that observation. Do I
> just tell the controller that I've got a report from the FBO?

You just tell him that you have the weather. I do this all the time,
flying approaches to slimeholes in the backwaters of south Louisiana,
using weather from company observers, under Part 135. They're certified,
and do make supplemental observations to the NWS, but mostly they just do
observations for us when needed. It's the same as any other weather
report, and the same as if you get it from a tower. The ATC specialist
doesn't care where the weather came from, or how you got it. All he
cares about is that you can get on the ground and out of his airspace.
Tell him you have the Podunk weather, want to fly the approach, and he'll
give you a clearance.

--
Regards,

Stan

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

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:09:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>If your FBO has a certified weather observer on staff ATC will have that
>observation.

Steve,

What's your take on this situation?

There was an accredited weather observer on the ground at KEPM. KEPM
rarely in the past would report weather to Bangor Radio, but did not on
this particular day.

I contacted this observer on 122.8 and obtained the visibility from him. I
then relayed this information to ATC and told them it was from an
accredited observer.

I was then cleared for a contact approach.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
nk.net:
>> I guess the next question is, "reported to whom?".
>>
>
> To ATC.

No, to the pilot. ATC doesn't necessarily get weather reports, because
they're not the National Weather Service. We have weather observers in
lots of places, and their reports don't necessarily get into the system,
especially if we call up and ask for the weather at odd times.
> If your FBO has a certified weather observer on staff ATC will have
> that observation.

Not necessarily, and in some cases, not even likely. Weather is not
reported to ATC, it's reported to the NWS, if anyone. ATC isn't at the
front of the line. In fact, my home base has weather reporting via ASOS
and much of the time ATC is far behind on the weather. They don't even
know when it goes from VMC to IMC and vice versa unless we tell them.

--
Regards,

Stan

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

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steve,
>
> What's your take on this situation?
>
> There was an accredited weather observer on the ground at KEPM. KEPM
> rarely in the past would report weather to Bangor Radio, but did not on
> this particular day.
>
> I contacted this observer on 122.8 and obtained the visibility from him.
> I
> then relayed this information to ATC and told them it was from an
> accredited observer.
>
> I was then cleared for a contact approach.
>

My take is there's no point in making an observation and not reporting it.
If an observation is made but not reported then the requirement for reported
ground visibility has not been satisfied.

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
>
> You just tell him that you have the weather. I do this all the time,
> flying approaches to slimeholes in the backwaters of south Louisiana,
> using weather from company observers, under Part 135. They're certified,
> and do make supplemental observations to the NWS, but mostly they just do
> observations for us when needed. It's the same as any other weather
> report, and the same as if you get it from a tower. The ATC specialist
> doesn't care where the weather came from, or how you got it. All he
> cares about is that you can get on the ground and out of his airspace.
> Tell him you have the Podunk weather, want to fly the approach, and he'll
> give you a clearance.
>

That's not good enough for a contact approach. The reported ground
visibility must be at least one mile for the controller to issue a clearance
for a contact approach. There's no minimum visibility required to issue
clearance for an IAP.

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, to the pilot.
>

No, to ATC. Really.


>
> ATC doesn't necessarily get weather reports, because
> they're not the National Weather Service. We have weather observers in
> lots of places, and their reports don't necessarily get into the system,
> especially if we call up and ask for the weather at odd times.
>

The subject is contact approaches. Where ATC does not get weather reports
contact approaches are not available.


>
> Not necessarily, and in some cases, not even likely. Weather is not
> reported to ATC, it's reported to the NWS, if anyone. ATC isn't at the
> front of the line. In fact, my home base has weather reporting via ASOS
> and much of the time ATC is far behind on the weather. They don't even
> know when it goes from VMC to IMC and vice versa unless we tell them.
>

That is unlikely.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
nk.net:

> The subject is contact approaches. Where ATC does not get weather
> reports contact approaches are not available.

That may well be. I'm prohibited from requesting or flying contact
approaches, so I've never done it, nor studied the requirements that
closely.


>> Not necessarily, and in some cases, not even likely. Weather is not
>> reported to ATC, it's reported to the NWS, if anyone. ATC isn't at
>> the front of the line. In fact, my home base has weather reporting
>> via ASOS and much of the time ATC is far behind on the weather. They
>> don't even know when it goes from VMC to IMC and vice versa unless we
>> tell them.
>>
>
> That is unlikely.

No, that's the everyday reality.

--
Regards,

Stan

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

Yes,

Ground visibility should be at least 1 SM and the pilot have to request
the contact approach.
Raf

"Steven P. McNicoll" > a écrit dans le message de
news: t...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Can ATC clear an aircraft for a contact approach to an airport which
has
> > no weather reporting?
> >
>
> No, a contact approach requires a reported ground visibility of at least
one
> mile.
>
>

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
>
> That may well be.
>

It's a certainty.


>
> No, that's the everyday reality.
>

You do not appear to be in a position to know the everyday reality.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:48:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>My take is there's no point in making an observation and not reporting it.
>If an observation is made but not reported then the requirement for reported
>ground visibility has not been satisfied.
>


It was reported. The pilot was the conduit.

Where is it written that this is not allowed?

Well, somewhere along the line ATC has to get the reported weather in
order to issue the clearance.


On 11 Feb 2005 04:41:54 GMT, Stan Gosnell > wrote:

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
nk.net:
>>> I guess the next question is, "reported to whom?".
>>>
>>
>> To ATC.
>
>No, to the pilot. ATC doesn't necessarily get weather reports, because
>they're not the National Weather Service. We have weather observers in
>lots of places, and their reports don't necessarily get into the system,
>especially if we call up and ask for the weather at odd times.
>> If your FBO has a certified weather observer on staff ATC will have
>> that observation.
>
>Not necessarily, and in some cases, not even likely. Weather is not
>reported to ATC, it's reported to the NWS, if anyone. ATC isn't at the
>front of the line. In fact, my home base has weather reporting via ASOS
>and much of the time ATC is far behind on the weather. They don't even
>know when it goes from VMC to IMC and vice versa unless we tell them.

Thiw may be true of SIAP's, since ATC often doesn't know or care about
what the weather is when they clear you for an approach.

We are discussing contact approaches, however. It's a different
animal.


On 11 Feb 2005 04:36:52 GMT, Stan Gosnell > wrote:

>You just tell him that you have the weather. I do this all the time,
>flying approaches to slimeholes in the backwaters of south Louisiana,
>using weather from company observers, under Part 135. They're certified,
>and do make supplemental observations to the NWS, but mostly they just do
>observations for us when needed. It's the same as any other weather
>report, and the same as if you get it from a tower. The ATC specialist
>doesn't care where the weather came from, or how you got it. All he
>cares about is that you can get on the ground and out of his airspace.
>Tell him you have the Podunk weather, want to fly the approach, and he'll
>give you a clearance.
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>Stan

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
> FAAO 7110.65, para 7-4-6.b. says, "The reported ground visibility is at
> least 1 statute mile." The Pilot/Controller Glossary and FAR Part 1 both
> define Ground Visibility as "Prevailing horizontal visibility near the
> earth's surface as reported by the United States National Weather Service or
> an accredited observer."

So, what's the definition of "reported"? Why does the accredited observer
on the ground telling me on the radio "measured visibility is 2 miles" not
count as a report? And if ATC needs to know it, why is my telling the
controller that I got the weather from an accredited observer on the ground
not good enough?

I can certainly see the need for the observer to be accredited (they have
training in how visibility is determined), and I can see the need for the
observer to be on the ground (what I see from up here in the air may not be
what's going on down there on the ground), but I don't see why the pilot
may not be part of the communications chain.

I have received ATC communication via pilot relays when out of radio
contact, and served as a relay for other aircraft when they had the same
problem. Why is it OK for me to relay "ATC wants you to switch to 129.05",
but not "my observer reports 2 mile visibility"?

I'd agree.

And I'll bet if the truth is known, it comes down to a local facility
option.

NY Tracon - probably not - too stiff, too formal, too suspicious, too
careful. Gotta come through "official" channels.

Parkersburg, W. Va, on the other hand - why not? They all know and
trust each other, and nobody lies to anybody down there. Hell, most
of them are cousins.



On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:36:16 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article . net>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>>
>> FAAO 7110.65, para 7-4-6.b. says, "The reported ground visibility is at
>> least 1 statute mile." The Pilot/Controller Glossary and FAR Part 1 both
>> define Ground Visibility as "Prevailing horizontal visibility near the
>> earth's surface as reported by the United States National Weather Service or
>> an accredited observer."
>
>So, what's the definition of "reported"? Why does the accredited observer
>on the ground telling me on the radio "measured visibility is 2 miles" not
>count as a report? And if ATC needs to know it, why is my telling the
>controller that I got the weather from an accredited observer on the ground
>not good enough?
>
>I can certainly see the need for the observer to be accredited (they have
>training in how visibility is determined), and I can see the need for the
>observer to be on the ground (what I see from up here in the air may not be
>what's going on down there on the ground), but I don't see why the pilot
>may not be part of the communications chain.
>
>I have received ATC communication via pilot relays when out of radio
>contact, and served as a relay for other aircraft when they had the same
>problem. Why is it OK for me to relay "ATC wants you to switch to 129.05",
>but not "my observer reports 2 mile visibility"?

Roy Smith wrote:

> So, what's the definition of "reported"?

Reported by a certified machine like ASOS or a certified weather
observer that has been placed there by official sources.


Why does the accredited observer
> on the ground telling me on the radio "measured visibility is 2 miles" not
> count as a report?

He has no way of officially knowing that without all the infrastructure
in place, such as visibility charts.


>
> I have received ATC communication via pilot relays when out of radio
> contact, and served as a relay for other aircraft when they had the same
> problem. Why is it OK for me to relay "ATC wants you to switch to 129.05",
> but not "my observer reports 2 mile visibility"?

Because that's the way the rules are currently written.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:48:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>If an observation is made but not reported then the requirement for reported
>ground visibility has not been satisfied.

I guess what you mean is that if the observation is made but not reported
to someone other than me (as the pilot), then the requirement is not
satisfied.

Is there documentation supporting the concept that the report has to be
made to some government facility directly, and not relayed to ATC via the
pilot?

Thanks.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

> I guess what you mean is that if the observation is made but not reported
> to someone other than me (as the pilot), then the requirement is not
> satisfied.
>
> Is there documentation supporting the concept that the report has to be
> made to some government facility directly, and not relayed to ATC via the
> pilot?

My take on it is that the =reason= the requirement is not satisfied is
that the observation is not "official" unless it meets certain
requirments, among them being made by a suitably qualified
("certificated?") observer.

So to re-pose the question - if the observation is in fact made by an
officialy certified observer, is it sufficient =then= that the pilot
relays it to ATC, or does the report have to go through some official
channels to be usable for a contact approach clearance? I'm not (of
course) asking what pilots and controllers would actually =do= under the
circumstances, but rather, what the FAA would throw at the pilot or
controller should there be an accident (and it could be proven that the
observation was correct, made by a certfied observer, but not delivered
to ATC except via the pilot).

Jose

If a weather report is shouted in a forest, and there is nobody around
to hear it, is it really a weather report?


On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:09:59 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:48:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:
>
>>If an observation is made but not reported then the requirement for reported
>>ground visibility has not been satisfied.
>
>I guess what you mean is that if the observation is made but not reported
>to someone other than me (as the pilot), then the requirement is not
>satisfied.

Or, to put it another way, if a weather report is shouted in a forest,
and there is nobody around to hear it, is it really a weather report?


>
>Is there documentation supporting the concept that the report has to be
>made to some government facility directly, and not relayed to ATC via the
>pilot?
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Jose wrote:


>
> So to re-pose the question - if the observation is in fact made by an
> officialy certified observer, is it sufficient =then= that the pilot
> relays it to ATC, or does the report have to go through some official
> channels to be usable for a contact approach clearance? I'm not (of
> course) asking what pilots and controllers would actually =do= under the
> circumstances, but rather, what the FAA would throw at the pilot or
> controller should there be an accident (and it could be proven that the
> observation was correct, made by a certfied observer, but not delivered
> to ATC except via the pilot).



Is there any official weather that is not available at all to ATC?

>
> Is there any official weather that is not available at all to ATC?

I don't know, but in the following hypothetical case (that you could I
suppose argue would never happen) I can see it.

Fred is a certified weather observer, but the station is officially
closed. Fred is also Susan's husband, and Susan is flying back from
Kalahachee and getting ready to land at the small airstrip near their
home. So Fred goes down to wherever he can make certifiable weather
observations, looks out the window, and makes a certifiable (but not
certified) observation, which he relays to Susan on the ham radio. (As
it turns out they are both licensed amateur radio operators, so the
transmission is perfectly legal). Susan forwards this observation to
ATC and asks for a contact approach. Donna at ATC says fine and clears
Susan for the contact approach.

Something Goes Wrong.

In the subsequent investigation, the FAA throws the book at Fred, Susan,
and Donna, claiming that the contact approach should not have been
requested or granted, the observation wasn't "official", wasn't
available to ATC, and all that rot.

What sticks?

Does it matter that the weather at the time was in fact CAVU?

Jose

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> >
> > Is there any official weather that is not available at all to ATC?
>
> I don't know, but in the following hypothetical case (that you could I
> suppose argue would never happen) I can see it.
>
> Fred is a certified weather observer, but the station is officially
> closed. Fred is also Susan's husband, and Susan is flying back from
> Kalahachee and getting ready to land at the small airstrip near their
> home. So Fred goes down to wherever he can make certifiable weather
> observations, looks out the window, and makes a certifiable (but not
> certified) observation, which he relays to Susan on the ham radio. (As
> it turns out they are both licensed amateur radio operators, so the
> transmission is perfectly legal). Susan forwards this observation to
> ATC and asks for a contact approach. Donna at ATC says fine and clears
> Susan for the contact approach.
>
> Something Goes Wrong.
>
> In the subsequent investigation, the FAA throws the book at Fred, Susan,
> and Donna, claiming that the contact approach should not have been
> requested or granted, the observation wasn't "official", wasn't
> available to ATC, and all that rot.
>
> What sticks?

I think that would depend a lot on what the "something" is that went
wrong. If Susan ran out of fuel I doubt that the weather would even
come into play.

>
> Does it matter that the weather at the time was in fact CAVU?
>

Probably. The devil is always in the details.

But it certainly is an interesting scenario.

rg

Jose wrote:

>>
>> Is there any official weather that is not available at all to ATC?
>
>
> I don't know, but in the following hypothetical case (that you could I
> suppose argue would never happen) I can see it.
>
> Fred is a certified weather observer, but the station is officially
> closed.

Then right there it's not official weather.


Fred is also Susan's husband, and Susan is flying back from
> Kalahachee and getting ready to land at the small airstrip near their
> home. So Fred goes down to wherever he can make certifiable weather
> observations, looks out the window, and makes a certifiable (but not
> certified) observation, which he relays to Susan on the ham radio. (As
> it turns out they are both licensed amateur radio operators, so the
> transmission is perfectly legal). Susan forwards this observation to
> ATC and asks for a contact approach. Donna at ATC says fine and clears
> Susan for the contact approach.

Wouldn't ever happen.

>
> Does it matter that the weather at the time was in fact CAVU?

If it was CAVU we wouldn't be having this discussion on a contact
approach as the pilot would have gotten a visual approach.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:36:07 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>If it was CAVU we wouldn't be having this discussion on a contact
>approach as the pilot would have gotten a visual approach.


Not necessarily.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> If it was CAVU we wouldn't be having this discussion on a contact approach
> as the pilot would have gotten a visual approach.
>

Being CAVU does not preclude a contact approach. A contact approach is not
a possibility in this scenario because there's no report of ground
visibility.

> A contact approach is not
> a possibility in this scenario because there's no report of ground
> visibility.

Sure there is. Fred reported it to Susan when he "observed" the
weather, unofficially but equally competently.

Jose

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Sure there is. Fred reported it to Susan when he "observed" the weather,
> unofficially but equally competently.
>

Nope. Ground Visibility is defined as "Prevailing horizontal visibility
near the earth's surface as reported by the United States National Weather
Service or an accredited observer." Fred is not an accredited weather
observer.

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Fred is a certified weather observer, but the station is officially
> closed.

Then Fred is not certified to take weather observations at that station.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:58:22 GMT, Jose > wrote:

>My take on it is that the =reason= the requirement is not satisfied is
>that the observation is not "official" unless it meets certain
>requirments, among them being made by a suitably qualified
>("certificated?") observer.

In my initial post to Steve concerning this, I *did* mention that the
observation was made by an official weather observer.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:09:44 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Jose wrote:
>
>

>
>
>Is there any official weather that is not available at all to ATC?

Uh, the altimeter setting at KEPM ... Only available on an ADF receiver
tuned to 260.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

> wrote in message
...
>
> It was reported. The pilot was the conduit.
>
> Where is it written that this is not allowed?
>

In Federal Meteorological Handbook No.1. Surface aviation observations are
required to be disseminated.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> So, what's the definition of "reported"? Why does the accredited observer
> on the ground telling me on the radio "measured visibility is 2 miles" not
> count as a report? And if ATC needs to know it, why is my telling the
> controller that I got the weather from an accredited observer on the
> ground not good enough?
>
> I can certainly see the need for the observer to be accredited (they have
> training in how visibility is determined), and I can see the need for the
> observer to be on the ground (what I see from up here in the air may not
> be
> what's going on down there on the ground), but I don't see why the pilot
> may not be part of the communications chain.
>
> I have received ATC communication via pilot relays when out of radio
> contact, and served as a relay for other aircraft when they had the same
> problem. Why is it OK for me to relay "ATC wants you to switch to
> 129.05", but not "my observer reports 2 mile visibility"?
>

You created an impossible situation in your example. If your FBO has a
certified weather observer on staff it's because he's at a certified weather
observing station. If it is a certified weather observing station then the
certified weather observations taken by the certified weather observers on
your FBO's staff are available to ATC and thus there is no need for you to
relay the observation to the controller. If it's not a certified weather
observing station then at best your FBO has a former certified weather
observer on his staff.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> A local field with part-time tower (Class D airspace when tower is open)
> has restricted areas in close proximity. When these areas are active, ATC
> will not approve the SIAPs. There is no notation on the approach plate,
> nor any NOTAM, that says the approaches are not allowed when the
> restricted areas are active. There is no AWOS/ASOS reporting over the
> radio or telephone, but recently the field began putting METARs into the
> system. I don't know if the tower personnel are certified weather
> observers or not, so I don't know if their observations qualify as
> "reported" visibility, nor do I know if the METAR visibility report
> qualifies as "reported ground visibility".
>

If these observations didn't qualify as "reported" visibility they wouldn't
be in the system.


>
> I was hoping someone knew of
> some rule that allowed a substitute for an official ground visibility
> report.
>

There is no substitute.


>
> There is certified weather observing at a larger field five miles
> away, but I don't suppose that would do.
>

Nope.


>
> When the restricted areas are active, there is no way to get back into the
> field in IMC other than a visual or contact approach. MVA is 2400 MSL,
> about 1700 AGL. Well, there may be two. One is to fly the ILS into the
> adjacent Class C airspace, then cancel and maneuver around the restricted
> areas at 1000 AGL if cloud conditions permit, which would require 3 miles
> visibility. The other possibility is that there is a PAR approach
> available sometimes. I haven't asked if they will approve it when the
> restricted areas are active. The problem, I think, is the missed
> approach. Circling is not allowed east of the runway due to terrain, and
> for the two published IAPs, the missed goes on the west side, which is
> where one of the restricted areas is. Since there is no published missed
> for the PAR approach, or for a visual or contact approach, I don't know
> what they will do. I have flown a visual into the field when the ceiling
> was overcast at 2400 MSL, but it was a stretch to say I had the field in
> sight. A contact approach would have been better.
>

What field is this?

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1108059477.955309@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
> That sounds right.
>
> FWIW, I've encountered another place where nearby restricted airspace
> determines whether or not you'll get an approach, W95, Ocracoke Island,
> NC.
>
> Whichever approach you get, either the approach course or the missed
> approach bumps up against R5306A. To compound the problem, the only
> approach facility is Washington Center, and once you get down to approach
> altitudes, they have neither radar nor comm coverage.
>
> Nice to have the approaches published, but so far I've never been able to
> get center to clear me for one of them.
>

According to the plates these approaches are handled by Cherry Point
Approach Control. The sectional says to contact Cherry Point Approach for
clearance through the restricted area. Have you ever tried that?

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> I guess what you mean is that if the observation is made but not reported
> to someone other than me (as the pilot), then the requirement is not
> satisfied.
>
> Is there documentation supporting the concept that the report has to be
> made to some government facility directly, and not relayed to ATC via the
> pilot?
>

Federal Meteorological Handbook No.1 requires surface aviation observations
to be disseminated.

In a previous message you said there was an accredited weather observer on
the ground at KEPM. I've looked through a few old A/FDs and the only
weather reporting capability I can find at Eastport at any time is AWOS-A.
When were surface aviation observations taken at Eastport?

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> In my initial post to Steve concerning this, I *did* mention that the
> observation was made by an official weather observer.
>

Official weather observers take observations at official weather observing
stations. I'm an official weather observer, I take official weather
observations at KGRB. But I can't take them at WI78, where I keep my
airplane. That would require, for just the visibility observation alone, a
certified map provided by the NWS showing distance and direction to
specified visibility markers from the observation point. Was your
accredited weather observer on
the ground at KEPM using such a map when he determined the visibility?

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:10:29 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> In my initial post to Steve concerning this, I *did* mention that the
>> observation was made by an official weather observer.
>>
>
>Official weather observers take observations at official weather observing
>stations. I'm an official weather observer, I take official weather
>observations at KGRB. But I can't take them at WI78, where I keep my
>airplane. That would require, for just the visibility observation alone, a
>certified map provided by the NWS showing distance and direction to
>specified visibility markers from the observation point.

>Was your
>accredited weather observer on
>the ground at KEPM using such a map when he determined the visibility?
>

Yes he was. There are actually two maps, depending on whether the
observation is taken from the (so-called) terminal building, or from the
intersection of the taxiway and runway.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:02:23 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Federal Meteorological Handbook No.1 requires surface aviation observations
>to be disseminated.
>
>In a previous message you said there was an accredited weather observer on
>the ground at KEPM. I've looked through a few old A/FDs and the only
>weather reporting capability I can find at Eastport at any time is AWOS-A.
>When were surface aviation observations taken at Eastport?

They were taken intermittently over probably a ten year period ending about
a year ago. The official observer (actually I think there may even have
been two of them) was also a Part 135 operator. Bob no longer flies, for a
number of reasons, and no longer makes any observations. He did not report
(or make) these observations frequently. As a matter of fact, since I've
been at KEPM (about five years), I'd be surprised if he reported as many as
ten per year. He did tell me once that he had to make the observations
with some minimum frequency in order to maintain his accreditation, but I
don't recall what that frequency was.

He was definitely accredited, and when he reported an observation, it could
be accessed via the usual channels (FSS, DUATS, ATC, etc.).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes he was. There are actually two maps, depending on whether the
> observation is taken from the (so-called) terminal building, or from the
> intersection of the taxiway and runway.
>

Why and when did they cease taking observations?

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> They were taken intermittently over probably a ten year period ending
> about
> a year ago. The official observer (actually I think there may even have
> been two of them) was also a Part 135 operator. Bob no longer flies, for
> a
> number of reasons, and no longer makes any observations. He did not
> report
> (or make) these observations frequently. As a matter of fact, since I've
> been at KEPM (about five years), I'd be surprised if he reported as many
> as
> ten per year. He did tell me once that he had to make the observations
> with some minimum frequency in order to maintain his accreditation, but I
> don't recall what that frequency was.
>
> He was definitely accredited, and when he reported an observation, it
> could
> be accessed via the usual channels (FSS, DUATS, ATC, etc.).
>

Observers are required to adhere to an observation schedule, perhaps that's
why he lost his accreditation.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message ...
....
> A local field with part-time tower (Class D airspace when tower is open) has restricted areas in close
> proximity. When these areas are active, ATC will not approve the SIAPs. There is no notation on the
> approach plate, nor any NOTAM, that says the approaches are not allowed when the restricted areas are active.
> There is no AWOS/ASOS reporting over the radio or telephone, but recently the field began putting METARs into
> the system. I don't know if the tower personnel are certified weather observers or not, so I don't know if
> their observations qualify as "reported" visibility, nor do I know if the METAR visibility report qualifies
> as "reported ground visibility". I was hoping someone knew of some rule that allowed a substitute for an
> official ground visibility report. There is certified weather observing at a larger field five miles away,
> but I don't suppose that would do.
>
> When the restricted areas are active, there is no way to get back into the field in IMC other than a visual
> or contact approach. MVA is 2400 MSL, about 1700 AGL. Well, there may be two. One is to fly the ILS into
> the adjacent Class C airspace, then cancel and maneuver around the restricted areas at 1000 AGL if cloud
> conditions permit, which would require 3 miles visibility. The other possibility is that there is a PAR
> approach available sometimes. I haven't asked if they will approve it when the restricted areas are active.
> The problem, I think, is the missed approach. Circling is not allowed east of the runway due to terrain, and
> for the two published IAPs, the missed goes on the west side, which is where one of the restricted areas is.
> Since there is no published missed for the PAR approach, or for a visual or contact approach, I don't know
> what they will do. I have flown a visual into the field when the ceiling was overcast at 2400 MSL, but it
> was a stretch to say I had the field in sight. A contact approach would have been better.
>
> I think I just need to go talk to these people.
>
>

What airport is that?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:28:12 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Why and when did they cease taking observations?

About a year ago; because he was no longer in the flying business for
personal reasons.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:36:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Observers are required to adhere to an observation schedule, perhaps that's
>why he lost his accreditation.
>

He informed me on several occasions that he was doing a bit more than the
minimum required.

After he got out of the business, I have no idea if he "lost" his
accreditation for not reporting, or if he officially retired or gave it up,
or whatever the proper term is.

I'm not sure why you bring this up since his cessation of reporting and his
accreditation, took place well after the time to which I was referring in
my previous post.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> If these observations didn't qualify as "reported" visibility they
> wouldn't be in the system.
>

Does it matter how old the report is?

>
> What field is this?

KHUA

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> What airport is that?
>

KHUA

> Fred is not an accredited weather
> observer.

Yes he is. He just happened not to be officially on duty at the time,
but he made the same kind of weather observation he would have, as a
favor to Susan.

Jose

>> Fred is a certified weather observer, but the station is officially
>> closed.
>
> Then Fred is not certified to take weather observations at that station.

> If your FBO has a
> certified weather observer on staff it's because he's at a certified weather
> observing station.

Ok, I should have read on a bit more before posting. I take it that a
certified weather observer loses his certification every time the
station closes (say for the evening), and regains it whenever the
station opens in the morning. So if Fred goes there when the station is
closed, and does =exactly= the same thing he would have when it was open
(except for the reporting path), then the observation is not official.

Is this ultimately what it rests on?

Jose

Stan,
ATC cannot even send you to a known VFR airport that has no weather
reporting.
Some ten or more years ago a C-150 was trapped above an
extensive 1300 foot fog layer. They tried Concord, Oakland and
Travis AFB. The aircraft crashed near Travis.

During this time there was a VFR uncontrolled airport at 1800
feet with lighting within 30 miles.. ATC was not allowed to tell
the plane of the airport because it did not have weather reporting.
Item:
Bureaucratosis may wind up killing us all.
Gene Whitt

I have a feeling we don't have the whole story here.

I've never heard of any such restriction, especially under the
circumstances described.


On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:56:50 GMT, "Gene Whitt" >
wrote:

>Stan,
>ATC cannot even send you to a known VFR airport that has no weather
>reporting.
> Some ten or more years ago a C-150 was trapped above an
>extensive 1300 foot fog layer. They tried Concord, Oakland and
>Travis AFB. The aircraft crashed near Travis.
>
>During this time there was a VFR uncontrolled airport at 1800
>feet with lighting within 30 miles.. ATC was not allowed to tell
>the plane of the airport because it did not have weather reporting.
>Item:
>Bureaucratosis may wind up killing us all.
>Gene Whitt
>

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>
> Yes he was. There are actually two maps, depending on whether the
> observation is taken from the (so-called) terminal building, or from the
> intersection of the taxiway and runway.

There are four maps per station. A short range(0-3 miles) and long
range (0-x). X depends on your terrain. When I worked at GFK the
horizon was at 10 miles so that's as far as the chart went. Here at BIL
the farthest mountains are 100 miles away so thats how far the chart
goes out. There are two charts for daytime and two charts for nighttime

Gene Whitt wrote:

> Stan,
> ATC cannot even send you to a known VFR airport that has no weather
> reporting.

We most certainly can, just not with a contact approach.


> Some ten or more years ago a C-150 was trapped above an
> extensive 1300 foot fog layer. They tried Concord, Oakland and
> Travis AFB. The aircraft crashed near Travis.
>
> During this time there was a VFR uncontrolled airport at 1800
> feet with lighting within 30 miles.. ATC was not allowed to tell
> the plane of the airport because it did not have weather reporting.
> Item:
> Bureaucratosis may wind up killing us all.

You have the story wrong.

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Yes he is. He just happened not to be officially on duty at the time, but
> he made the same kind of weather observation he would have, as a favor to
> Susan.
>

No he isn't. Review the scenario. There are no accredited weather
observers at this location because it is not a certified station.

> No he isn't. Review the scenario.

It's my scenario. I'm talking about my hypothetical, which I'll
reproduce below:

> I don't know, but in the following hypothetical case (that you could I suppose argue would never happen) I can see it.
>
> Fred is a certified weather observer, but the station is officially closed. Fred is also Susan's husband, and Susan is flying back from Kalahachee and getting ready to land at the small airstrip near their home. So Fred goes down to wherever he can make certifiable weather observations, looks out the window, and makes a certifiable (but not certified) observation, which he relays to Susan on the ham radio. (As it turns out they are both licensed amateur radio operators, so the transmission is perfectly legal). Susan forwards this observation to ATC and asks for a contact approach. Donna at ATC says fine and clears Susan for the contact approach.
>
> Something Goes Wrong.
>
> In the subsequent investigation, the FAA throws the book at Fred, Susan, and Donna, claiming that the contact approach should not have been requested or granted, the observation wasn't "official", wasn't available to ATC, and all that rot.
>
> What sticks?
>
> Does it matter that the weather at the time was in fact CAVU?

....to which I later clarified that Fred reported the ground visibility.

Now granted I stated that Fred was a =certified= weather observer, not
that he was an =accredited= weather observer. I expected my meaning was
clear, but just to be explicit, in the =new= scenario where Fred is not
only certified but also accredited, I ask the same question.

What sticks?

Jose

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:45:22 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes he was. There are actually two maps, depending on whether the
>> observation is taken from the (so-called) terminal building, or from the
>> intersection of the taxiway and runway.
>
>There are four maps per station. A short range(0-3 miles) and long
>range (0-x). X depends on your terrain. When I worked at GFK the
>horizon was at 10 miles so that's as far as the chart went. Here at BIL
>the farthest mountains are 100 miles away so thats how far the chart
>goes out. There are two charts for daytime and two charts for nighttime

I'll have to look more closely. I've only seen the two maps, and what I
noted was that they had two different observing points.

There are no landmarks visibile more than a few miles away from the ground,
and there's only one lighted obstruction (not counting runway lights) that
would be visible at night.

I'd guess that if there were a tower at EPM, visibility distances would be
greater, but from the ground, I don't think there's anything to be seen
more than three or four miles distant.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Some of the places I've been certified at only had 2 maps total; one
short range and the other long. Any of the visibility checkpoints that
were also qualified for nighttime were annotated that way on those charts.

JPH

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes he was. There are actually two maps, depending on whether the
>> observation is taken from the (so-called) terminal building, or from the
>> intersection of the taxiway and runway.
>
>
> There are four maps per station. A short range(0-3 miles) and long
> range (0-x). X depends on your terrain. When I worked at GFK the
> horizon was at 10 miles so that's as far as the chart went. Here at BIL
> the farthest mountains are 100 miles away so thats how far the chart
> goes out. There are two charts for daytime and two charts for nighttime

CFeyeeye,
Here's the rest of the story. The C-150 departed Concord, CA about eleven
p.m. and flew to the Sacramento area only to find that all the airports in
the valley were covered with fog. This was about
15 years ago. At that time Travis also had a GCA approach but most likely
the specialists required were not on duty.

They returned to Concord and were unable to land. They were sent to Oakland
but were unable to land there, as well. They went back
to Travis.

On that same evening a Navy A-7 had attempted to shoot the ILS
there and in the process succeeded in taking out the approach light
system.

The pilot in command decided to try making a spiral down to the airport. and
lost control in the process.

The victims, according to autopsy had been recently smoking weed.

A few weeks after the accident I had occasion to call Travis, and
popped the question to the specialist as to why they had not sent
the aircraft to Angwin nearby at 1800 feet. The response was that
Angwin had no reported weather. Slince that time I have made it a
point to make night landings at Angwin as a part of my training program.
Gene Whitt

"Gene Whitt" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> ATC cannot even send you to a known VFR airport that has no weather
> reporting.
>

Nonsense. There's no such restriction.


>
> Some ten or more years ago a C-150 was trapped above an
> extensive 1300 foot fog layer. They tried Concord, Oakland and
> Travis AFB. The aircraft crashed near Travis.
>
> During this time there was a VFR uncontrolled airport at 1800
> feet with lighting within 30 miles.. ATC was not allowed to tell
> the plane of the airport because it did not have weather reporting.
>

How could ATC know what the conditions were at this airport if it had no
weather reporting?

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>>> Fred is a certified weather observer, but the station is officially
>>> closed.
>>
>> Then Fred is not certified to take weather observations at that station.
>
>> If your FBO has a certified weather observer on staff it's because he's
>> at a certified weather observing station.
>
> Ok, I should have read on a bit more before posting. I take it that a
> certified weather observer loses his certification every time the station
> closes (say for the evening), and regains it whenever the station opens in
> the morning. So if Fred goes there when the station is closed, and does
> =exactly= the same thing he would have when it was open (except for the
> reporting path), then the observation is not official.
>
> Is this ultimately what it rests on?
>

An "official weather observation" is not only made by a "certified weather
observer", but it makes it onto "official telecommunications channels"
(which include a drop to ATC), and it is recorded in "official databases"
(whether paper or electronic). Part of all that is specifically so that the
details of record can be examined in case of an air accident.

So Fred's after-hours personal report is official only if it makes it
through all those steps.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> It was reported. The pilot was the conduit.
>>
>> Where is it written that this is not allowed?
>>
>
> In Federal Meteorological Handbook No.1. Surface aviation observations
> are required to be disseminated.
>

....recorded, disseminated, and recorded in an archive... where, in the case
of an accident, it can be locked to ensure no-alterations, and be retrieved
for investigation.

In the pilot-as-conduit scenario, is there anything to prevent the original
"observer" from saying "I didn't say that", or "I didn't exactly mean that"?

> wrote in message
...
> If a weather report is shouted in a forest, and there is nobody around
> to hear it, is it really a weather report?
>
>


Nope, unless it was chiselled into official bark, which was known to be
thereafter unchangeable, and which could be peeled off and shown to the
investigators months later.

> In the pilot-as-conduit scenario, is there anything to prevent the original
> "observer" from saying "I didn't say that", or "I didn't exactly mean that"?

ATC tapes? I won't argue with what the rules =are= (now that I know
them) but the question applies a higher standard to records of weather
that the pilot can actually see when he gets there, than it does to IFR
clearances which can be relayed to a pilot from some other airplane in
the system.

OK, ATC tapes are definately not available in my ham radio relay
scenario. However, I wonder if all ATC clearances are recorded -
specifically those that are relayed via other aircraft, perhaps on a
unicom frequency. Suppose there is an accident due to an aircraft
cleared for an ordinary approach after the airspace had been
(supposedly) vacated by the cancellation of an IFR flight plan which was
relayed from the ground via another aircraft? Only half the
conversation would be on tape (the ground half isn't received directly
by ATC, hence the need for the relay).

How is that covered in the regs?

Jose

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:47:07 -0500, "Icebound"
> wrote:

>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> It was reported. The pilot was the conduit.
>>>
>>> Where is it written that this is not allowed?
>>>
>>
>> In Federal Meteorological Handbook No.1. Surface aviation observations
>> are required to be disseminated.
>>
>
>...recorded, disseminated, and recorded in an archive... where, in the case
>of an accident, it can be locked to ensure no-alterations, and be retrieved
>for investigation.
>
>In the pilot-as-conduit scenario, is there anything to prevent the original
>"observer" from saying "I didn't say that", or "I didn't exactly mean that"?
>
>
Thanks for the lucid and logical explanation.

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> In the pilot-as-conduit scenario, is there anything to prevent the
>> original "observer" from saying "I didn't say that", or "I didn't exactly
>> mean that"?
>
> ATC tapes? I won't argue with what the rules =are= (now that I know them)
> but the question applies a higher standard to records of weather that the
> pilot can actually see when he gets there, than it does to IFR clearances
> which can be relayed to a pilot from some other airplane in the system.
>
> OK, ATC tapes are definately not available in my ham radio relay scenario.
> However, I wonder if all ATC clearances are recorded - specifically those
> that are relayed via other aircraft, perhaps on a unicom frequency.
> Suppose there is an accident due to an aircraft cleared for an ordinary
> approach after the airspace had been (supposedly) vacated by the
> cancellation of an IFR flight plan which was relayed from the ground via
> another aircraft? Only half the conversation would be on tape (the ground
> half isn't received directly by ATC, hence the need for the relay).
>
> How is that covered in the regs?
>


I am not sure of all the regs, and I defer to Steve and newps and others on
that, but I point out very good reasons why ad-hoc weather observations are
not likely to be accepted for certain scenarios requiring "official"
observations.

The "official" observation is observed according to written rules, recorded,
signed, disseminated in a very particular and predictable fashion, archived,
retrieved. An observation not following those steps may easily get lost or
altered post-fact.

"oneatcer" > wrote in message
...
> My book say PIREPs are acceptable for the fact that I have to disseminate
> them. Controllers can make a ground vis report. AWOS/ASOS is ground vis.
> METARs 45 minutes old will suffice due to the requirements of issuing a
> new
> METAR when the vis changes by a reportable value. And if my memory serves
> me right, that is +/- 1/4 mile when it gets down around 1 mile.

It is interesting: A USA weather service observing manual:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ohx/dad/sfc/chapter9.pdf
only specify visibility crossing 3, 2, and 1 miles, plus the lowest
published limit.

In the Canadian rules, the requirement was crossing 3, 1.5, 1, and .5 miles.
Also, crossing 3/4 and 1/4 mile was a requirement when the airport has
precision approach equipment. (Not sure how that relates to published GPS
approaches... not an IFR guru.)

In either case, once the visibility falls below the lowest published minimum
(the airport is effectively closed), no special METAR need be issued until
the visibility rises back up above that minimum.

This means that mountain airports with relatively "high" minimums.... such
as The Dalles, Oregon.... once the METAR was issued showing visibility below
1.25 miles.... there need not be any special METARS issued, (even if it
goes to zero as I understand it)... until it gets back up above 1.25.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>Why and when did they cease taking observations?
>>
>
> About a year ago; because he was no longer in the flying business for
> personal reasons.
>

That is unlikely. A/FDs from 1997 and 2001 show nothing more than AWOS-A
under Weather Data Sources for EPM. It should show LAWRS if surface weather
observations are being taken.

What you've described here for EPM simply does not fit NWS requirements for
weather observations. It's not even close. It's not just observers that
require NWS certification, stations require it as well. The instruments and
procedures used in taking observations must meet NWS standards, a program of
maintenance and calibration is required. There is quality control,
observations taken must meet the requirements established, observations are
required to be taken at scheduled times and records must be maintained and
archived. Your buddy at EPM certainly wasn't adhering to any schedule.

I phoned the local NWS office and asked if he could find out if a specific
location had ever had weather reporting, he checked a couple of sources for
EPM and found nothing. I relayed to him what you described of EPM and he
concurred that it was very unlikely such an operation could maintain NWS
certification. I think your guy's a faker.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Uh, the altimeter setting at KEPM ... Only available on an ADF receiver
> tuned to 260.
>

EPM has had an AWOS-A for some time now. Why would one be installed at a
field where manual weather observations are being taken? The observers
would still have to determine visibility, cloud cover, temperature,
dewpoint, and wind.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> He informed me on several occasions that he was doing a bit more than the
> minimum required.
>

The minimum required for any one observer is not the same as a station's
observation schedule.


>
> After he got out of the business, I have no idea if he "lost" his
> accreditation for not reporting, or if he officially retired or gave it
> up, or whatever the proper term is.
>
> I'm not sure why you bring this up since his cessation of reporting and
> his accreditation, took place well after the time to which I was referring
> in
> my previous post.
>

I don't think he ever lost his accreditation because I don't think he ever
had it, at least not at EPM.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> Does it matter how old the report is?
>

Old reports don't remain available in the system. If a current hourly
observation is not entered to replace the previous hourly observation at the
specified time a request for that site's weather observation will show only
the time of the scheduled observation and an "M" to indicate it is missing.


>
> KHUA
>

Yeah, I'd say the restricted area is in close proximity. Adjacent to the
runway is certainly close proximity. But this is a military field and
according to my not-so-current information prior permission is required to
operate there. One would think if permission to operate there can be had
then permission to enter the restricted area could he had as well.

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Ok, I should have read on a bit more before posting. I take it that a
> certified weather observer loses his certification every time the station
> closes (say for the evening), and regains it whenever the station opens in
> the morning. So if Fred goes there when the station is closed, and does
> =exactly= the same thing he would have when it was open (except for the
> reporting path), then the observation is not official.
>

I see. "The station is officially closed" means part-time weather station
in your scenario, not former weather station as I took it. Let's take
another look at your scenario:

"Fred is a certified weather observer, but the station is officially
closed. Fred is also Susan's husband, and Susan is flying back from
Kalahachee and getting ready to land at the small airstrip near their
home. So Fred goes down to wherever he can make certifiable weather
observations, looks out the window, and makes a certifiable (but not
certified) observation, which he relays to Susan on the ham radio. (As
it turns out they are both licensed amateur radio operators, so the
transmission is perfectly legal). Susan forwards this observation to
ATC and asks for a contact approach. Donna at ATC says fine and clears
Susan for the contact approach."

So Donna wants to get in to this small airstrip near their home. The
weather doesn't permit a visual so she calls hubby/observer Fred and asks
him to take the needed observation for a contact approach because Fred's
station is closed. It sounds like Fred's station is somewhere other than
this small airstrip near their home, so his report is of no value here
anyway. But even if it was, wouldn't it be quicker and easier for Susan to
just fly the instrument approach?

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> No he isn't. Review the scenario.
>
> It's my scenario. I'm talking about my hypothetical, which I'll reproduce
> below:
>
>> I don't know, but in the following hypothetical case (that you could I
>> suppose argue would never happen) I can see it.
>>
>> Fred is a certified weather observer, but the station is officially
>> closed. Fred is also Susan's husband, and Susan is flying back from
>> Kalahachee and getting ready to land at the small airstrip near their
>> home. So Fred goes down to wherever he can make certifiable weather
>> observations, looks out the window, and makes a certifiable (but not
>> certified) observation, which he relays to Susan on the ham radio. (As
>> it turns out they are both licensed amateur radio operators, so the
>> transmission is perfectly legal). Susan forwards this observation to ATC
>> and asks for a contact approach. Donna at ATC says fine and clears Susan
>> for the contact approach.
>>
>> Something Goes Wrong.
>>
>> In the subsequent investigation, the FAA throws the book at Fred, Susan,
>> and Donna, claiming that the contact approach should not have been
>> requested or granted, the observation wasn't "official", wasn't available
>> to ATC, and all that rot.
>>
>> What sticks?
>>
>> Does it matter that the weather at the time was in fact CAVU?
>
> ...to which I later clarified that Fred reported the ground visibility.
>
> Now granted I stated that Fred was a =certified= weather observer, not
> that he was an =accredited= weather observer. I expected my meaning was
> clear, but just to be explicit, in the =new= scenario where Fred is not
> only certified but also accredited, I ask the same question.
>
> What sticks?
>

Is he accredited to take weather observations at the small airstrip near his
home where Susan wishes to land? Is there a standard or special instrument
approach procedure published and functioning for the small airstrip near his
home where Susan wishes to land? If so, wouldn't it be simpler and easier
for Susan to just fly the IAP?

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> There are four maps per station. A short range(0-3 miles) and long range
> (0-x). X depends on your terrain. When I worked at GFK the horizon was
> at 10 miles so that's as far as the chart went. Here at BIL the farthest
> mountains are 100 miles away so thats how far the chart goes out. There
> are two charts for daytime and two charts for nighttime
>

There is no fixed number of visibility maps per station. The number
provided is whatever is deemed necessary and daytime and nighttime
visibility markers can be on the same map.

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> ATC tapes? I won't argue with what the rules =are= (now that I know them)
> but the question applies a higher standard to records of weather that the
> pilot can actually see when he gets there, than it does to IFR clearances
> which can be relayed to a pilot from some other airplane in the system.
>

ATC tapes would record the pilot's statement of what the "weather observer"
told him, they would not identify the observer or what he actually reported.


>
> OK, ATC tapes are definately not available in my ham radio relay scenario.
> However, I wonder if all ATC clearances are recorded - specifically those
> that are relayed via other aircraft, perhaps on a unicom frequency.
> Suppose there is an accident due to an aircraft cleared for an ordinary
> approach after the airspace had been (supposedly) vacated by the
> cancellation of an IFR flight plan which was relayed from the ground via
> another aircraft? Only half the conversation would be on tape (the ground
> half isn't received directly by ATC, hence the need for the relay).
>

In cases like this the aircraft providing the relay tends to be the aircraft
waiting for the approach. If he trusts the previous pilot there's no reason
for the controller not to.


>
> How is that covered in the regs?
>

FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 4. IFR

Section 2. Clearances

4-2-4. CLEARANCE RELAY

Relay clearances verbatim.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Communications Failure, Para 10-4-4.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:43:21 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>EPM has had an AWOS-A for some time now. Why would one be installed at a
>field where manual weather observations are being taken? The observers
>would still have to determine visibility, cloud cover, temperature,
>dewpoint, and wind.

Not being a mindreader, I cannot answer your question about "why"?

Nor do I know when the AWOS was installed, or how that correlates with
"manual weather observations".

However, as one who frequently flies SIAP's into KEPM, I find it quite
useful to have a current altimeter setting, so as to take advantage of the
lower minimums compared with using an altimeter setting from KBHB.

As I previously wrote, when manual observations were being done, the
frequency with which they were disseminated was perhaps one every few
weeks. This was not very useful to me for routine operations.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:37:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>Why and when did they cease taking observations?
>>>
>>
>> About a year ago; because he was no longer in the flying business for
>> personal reasons.
>>
>
>That is unlikely. A/FDs from 1997 and 2001 show nothing more than AWOS-A
>under Weather Data Sources for EPM. It should show LAWRS if surface weather
>observations are being taken.
>
>What you've described here for EPM simply does not fit NWS requirements for
>weather observations. It's not even close. It's not just observers that
>require NWS certification, stations require it as well. The instruments and
>procedures used in taking observations must meet NWS standards, a program of
>maintenance and calibration is required. There is quality control,
>observations taken must meet the requirements established, observations are
>required to be taken at scheduled times and records must be maintained and
>archived. Your buddy at EPM certainly wasn't adhering to any schedule.
>
>I phoned the local NWS office and asked if he could find out if a specific
>location had ever had weather reporting, he checked a couple of sources for
>EPM and found nothing. I relayed to him what you described of EPM and he
>concurred that it was very unlikely such an operation could maintain NWS
>certification. I think your guy's a faker.
>

KEPM is an SAWRS and has been so designated since 1994.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

> So Donna wants to get in to this small airstrip near their home. The
> weather doesn't permit a visual so she calls hubby/observer Fred and asks
> him to take the needed observation for a contact approach because Fred's
> station is closed. It sounds like Fred's station is somewhere other than
> this small airstrip near their home, so his report is of no value here

Fred's station is in fact at the airport in question, and Fred is there
waiting to pick Susan up after she lands.

> But even if it was, wouldn't it be quicker and easier for Susan to
> just fly the instrument approach?

If Susan had to call Fred at the house, and Fred had to drive over to
the airport, yes, it probably would be quicker and easier to just fly
the IAP. But if Fred is already there, and they are already in
communication ("Hi honey, are the kids in bed yet?") and the IAF is
twenty miles in the other direction, and Susan is in and out of the
clouds over familiar terrain, a quick call on the radio could save half
an hour. Especially if the approach minima are very high at this
airport (for any number of reasons).

> Is he accredited to take weather observations at the small airstrip near his
> home where Susan wishes to land?

Yes.

> Is there a standard or special instrument
> approach procedure published and functioning for the small airstrip near his
> home where Susan wishes to land?

Yes.

> If so, wouldn't it be simpler and easier
> for Susan to just fly the IAP?

Sometimes. I'd even venture =usually=. But my hypothetical is aimed
not at what would be easier, but whether such a scenario would be legal,
because that helps illuminate exactly where (in the regs) the hangup is.

Once located, it's a separate question as to whether it should (always)
be that way, but at least we'd be asking the right question. (not that
it would actually do any good!)

For example, in an earlier post you stated that the observation had to
be made when the official station was open, and recorded and
dissemenated according to certain criteria, for it to "count" towards a
contact approach. This would provide a paper trail in case of accident.
However no such paper trail exists for relayed messages of equal
criticality (such as clearances). Far be it from me to expect
consistancy from the FAA, but I at least want to know whether it is =me=
that is wrong, or the =FAA= that is inconsistant.

I have similar pathological cases for "comensation or hire" which appear
to be unintended consequences of the fair share rule.

Jose

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
>>
>> KHUA
>>
>
> Yeah, I'd say the restricted area is in close proximity. Adjacent to the
> runway is certainly close proximity. But this is a military field and
> according to my not-so-current information prior permission is required to
> operate there. One would think if permission to operate there can be had
> then permission to enter the restricted area could he had as well.
>

Prior permission is required to land, but not to make a low approach.
Civilian pilots not based there frequently fly the PAR approach under VFR.
We have a very active flying club there and none of our airplanes have
permission to enter the restricted areas when they are active. From what I
have observed, the only aircraft that can enter the active restricted areas
are those engaged in the activities going on in the areas.

In addition to the adjacent area to the west, there is another a mile or two
to the south.

Due to the nature of the activities in these restricted areas, it is not
unusual for them to be active during periods when an instrument approach is
necessary to get into the field. There are published hours, but in practice
they are not activated except when necessary.

Since there is no published miss for the PAR approach, I don't know if they
will allow it with active restricted areas or not. Need to ask them.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not being a mindreader, I cannot answer your question about "why"?
>

No need to. It was a rhetorical question.


>
> Nor do I know when the AWOS was installed, or how that correlates with
> "manual weather observations".
>

The AWOS-A would be redundant and thus a waste of money as the altimeter
setting is part of a manual weather observation.


>
> As I previously wrote, when manual observations were being done, the
> frequency with which they were disseminated was perhaps one every few
> weeks. This was not very useful to me for routine operations.
>

A preponderance of evidence indicates certified weather observations were
never taken at EPM.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> KEPM is an SAWRS and has been so designated since 1994.
>

It was not so designated in the A/FD during that period. I spoke with an
NWS troop and he could find no record of a certified weather station at EPM
at any time. I relayed your description of the operation and he found it
very unlikely that such an operation would ever be certified and definitely
could not retain certification.

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Fred's station is in fact at the airport in question, and Fred is there
> waiting to pick Susan up after she lands.
>

I see. But Fred must still be some distance away from the observation point
or he wouldn't have to go "down to wherever he can make certifiable weather
observations".


>
> If Susan had to call Fred at the house, and Fred had to drive over to the
> airport, yes, it probably would be quicker and easier to just fly the IAP.
>

It's probably still quicker to fly the IAP. Fred still has to go to the
observation point, take the observation and get it into the system. If
Susie flys the approach while she's waiting she'll likely be on the ground
before that's done.


>
> But if Fred is already there, and they are already in communication ("Hi
> honey, are the kids in bed yet?") and the IAF is twenty miles in the other
> direction, and Susan is in and out of the clouds over familiar terrain, a
> quick call on the radio could save half an hour. Especially if the
> approach minima are very high at this airport (for any number of reasons).
>

Fred is at the field but not at the observation point and communications
with Susie accomplishes nothing with regard to the weather observation. The
IAF is twenty miles away? What kind of approach is this? I realize this is
a hypothetical situation, but a hypothetical with no real world similarity
is not particularly useful. Do you know of any real-world small airstrips
that have weather reporting and an IAP with an IAF twenty miles away?


>
> Yes.
>

How does a small airstrip generate enough traffic to justify a certified
weather station yet remain a small airstrip?


>
> Yes.
>

Describe the IAP.


>
> Sometimes. I'd even venture =usually=. But my hypothetical is aimed not
> at what would be easier, but whether such a scenario would be legal,
> because that helps illuminate exactly where (in the regs) the hangup is.
>

Your hypothetical has Susie telling the controller she's talking to a
certified observer and he says the ground visibility is one mile or more.
No competent controller will issue a contact approach clearance based on
that.

> I see. But Fred must still be some distance away from the observation point
> or he wouldn't have to go "down to wherever he can make certifiable weather
> observations".

"Down" could be down one flight of stairs. Fred doesn't have to be any
appreciable distance from the observation point, in fact he could even
be =at= the observation point. He might have even made the observation
expecting Susie to request a contact approach.

This is a =hypothetical=, and it is =my= hypothetical, designed to help
me see what is the =specific= mandated part of a weather observation
that is missing, which would prohibit a contact approach. As such, it
is not designed to be a real world example, and "it wouldn't happen that
way", while probably true, does not serve the purpose of my question.

You get picky on nits, allow me to do the same. I might learn something
(besides never to try to teach a pig to sing).

> It's probably still quicker to fly the IAP. ...

Irrelevant.

> Fred still has to go to the
> observation point, take the observation =and= get it into the system.

Is it true that, unless the observation is "in the system", it is not
sufficient, by regulation, to issue a contact approach? That's the
impression I'm getting.

> If
> Susie flys the approach while she's waiting she'll likely be on the ground
> before that's done.

Also irrelevant.

> IAF is twenty miles away? What kind of approach is this?

A long one.

> I realize this is
> a hypothetical situation, but a hypothetical with no real world similarity
> is not particularly useful.

It is useful for pedagogical reasons, as explained above.

> How does a small airstrip generate enough traffic to justify a certified
> weather station yet remain a small airstrip?

Graft.

> Describe the IAP.

No. It's irrelevant.

> Your hypothetical has Susie telling the controller she's talking to a
> certified observer and he says the ground visibility is one mile or more.
> No competent controller will issue a contact approach clearance based on
> that.

Ok, so an =in=competent controller does so, and the FAA hears of it and
wants to bust him. Do they get to cite a specific reg that he broke
(what does it say?), or do they instead rely on some equivalent of the
"careless or reckless" rule?

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

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:20:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>It was not so designated in the A/FD during that period.

Irrelevant.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:13:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>A preponderance of evidence indicates certified weather observations were
>never taken at EPM.

Incorrect.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Irrelevant.
>

How so? Given that SAWRS locations are designated in the A/FD it certainly
does appear relevant.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Incorrect.
>

How is it incorrect? There is no indication that certified weather
observations were taken at EPM anywhere one would expect such an indication
to be found.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 21:58:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Incorrect.
>>
>
>How is it incorrect? There is no indication that certified weather
>observations were taken at EPM anywhere one would expect such an indication
>to be found.
>

Yes, there is. Finding it I will as an exercise for you.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 21:55:37 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>
>How so?

Because it is listed elsewhere.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, there is. Finding it I will as an exercise for you.
>

I've already completed that exercise.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because it is listed elsewhere.
>

Where? Why would being listed elsewhere make the A/FD irrelevant?

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:15:58 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Yes, there is. Finding it I will as an exercise for you.
>>
>
>I've already completed that exercise.
>

Well then, all I can say is that the design of your exercise was obviously
inadequate.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:19:33 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Because it is listed elsewhere.
>>
>
>Where? Why would being listed elsewhere make the A/FD irrelevant?
>

Because you are relying on the A/FD as if it were the only relevant source
of truth.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well then, all I can say is that the design of your exercise was obviously
> inadequate.
>

Why?

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because you are relying on the A/FD as if it were the only relevant source
> of truth.
>

You don't consider the NWS to be a relevant source of truth? Why did you
ignore my other question?

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:16:29 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Well then, all I can say is that the design of your exercise was obviously
>> inadequate.
>>
>
>Why?
>

This is pointless. You obviously don't get it.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:22:49 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Because you are relying on the A/FD as if it were the only relevant source
>> of truth.
>>
>
>You don't consider the NWS to be a relevant source of truth? Why did you
>ignore my other question?
>
>
>

That is not what I said.

And I am ignoring your other question because it is pointless, as is this
conversation.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is pointless. You obviously don't get it.
>

No, Ron. It is you that does not get it.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is not what I said.
>
> And I am ignoring your other question because it is pointless, as is this
> conversation.
>

You're ignoring it because you cannot answer it.

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> Surface aviation observations are required to be disseminated.

I hate to re-open this long dead thread, but...

Take a look at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0502/00548I2.PDF. It has a note,
"When Control Tower closed, except for operators with approved weather
reporting service, procedure not authorized". So, what makes an "approved
weather reporting service"? If all observations are disseminated, why
would only some operators have the ability to fly an approach based on
these observations?

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> I hate to re-open this long dead thread, but...
>
> Take a look at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0502/00548I2.PDF. It has a note,
> "When Control Tower closed, except for operators with approved weather
> reporting service, procedure not authorized". So, what makes an "approved
> weather reporting service"? If all observations are disseminated, why
> would only some operators have the ability to fly an approach based on
> these observations?
>

This is a different situation. There is no weather minimum the controller
has to ensure is met prior to issuing a clearance for this approach.