Being from Texas, and flying mostly in the Midwest and South, I have never
asked for nor had any need for a contact approach. If I see the runway I
tell the controller, and he gives me a visual. In fact, I can't remember
ever hearing a contact approach requested around here.

Then, I whenever I fly into the Northeast and I hear contact approaches
being requested regularly. Why is the contact approach used so much in the
Northeast?

"Gene Whitt" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> 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.
>

So how did you conclude that "ATC cannot even send you to a known VFR
airport that has no weather reporting." from that episode?

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:53:59 GMT, "Russ MacDonald"
> wrote:

>Being from Texas, and flying mostly in the Midwest and South, I have never
>asked for nor had any need for a contact approach. If I see the runway I
>tell the controller, and he gives me a visual. In fact, I can't remember
>ever hearing a contact approach requested around here.
>
>Then, I whenever I fly into the Northeast and I hear contact approaches
>being requested regularly. Why is the contact approach used so much in the
>Northeast?
>


We're smarter than Texas pilots?

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:26:54 GMT, "Gene Whitt" >
wrote:

>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

Well, he probably was simply stating that sending them to Angwin
might have been considered a waste of time and fuel, since they had no
way of knowing whether they could get in there. This is different
from stating that ATC won't mention nearby airports simply because
they have no weather reports.

Furthermore, insinuating that ATC was at fault for an accident
involving marijuana and a pilot who did not have the skills to make a
descending spiral on instruments, is a bit harsh, in my opinion.

"Russ MacDonald" > wrote in message
news:H9WPd.18600$uc.8876@trnddc05...
>
> Being from Texas, and flying mostly in the Midwest and South, I have never
> asked for nor had any need for a contact approach. If I see the runway I
> tell the controller, and he gives me a visual.
>

That's not sufficient, a visual approach requires VFR conditions.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:53:59 GMT, "Russ MacDonald"
> wrote:

>Being from Texas, and flying mostly in the Midwest and South, I have never
>asked for nor had any need for a contact approach. If I see the runway I
>tell the controller, and he gives me a visual. In fact, I can't remember
>ever hearing a contact approach requested around here.
>
>Then, I whenever I fly into the Northeast and I hear contact approaches
>being requested regularly. Why is the contact approach used so much in the
>Northeast?
>

Probably because we don't meet the requirements for a visual approach
which, in addition to having the airport or preceding traffic in sight,
also require reported weather at the destination airport of at least
1000/3.


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Probably because we don't meet the requirements for a visual approach
> which, in addition to having the airport or preceding traffic in sight,
> also require reported weather at the destination airport of at least
> 1000/3.
>

That's not a prerequisite for a visual approach clearance. The controller
must ensure that weather conditions at the airport are VFR or that the pilot
has been informed that weather is not available for the destination airport.
1000/3 would be needed only at an airport in a surface area.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Probably because we don't meet the requirements for a visual approach
>> which, in addition to having the airport or preceding traffic in sight,
>> also require reported weather at the destination airport of at least
>> 1000/3.
>>
>
> That's not a prerequisite for a visual approach clearance. The controller
> must ensure that weather conditions at the airport are VFR or that the
> pilot has been informed that weather is not available for the destination
> airport. 1000/3 would be needed only at an airport in a surface area.
>

Where does the 1000 come from?

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:57:55 -0600, "Stan Prevost"
> wrote:

>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Probably because we don't meet the requirements for a visual approach
>>> which, in addition to having the airport or preceding traffic in sight,
>>> also require reported weather at the destination airport of at least
>>> 1000/3.
>>>
>>
>> That's not a prerequisite for a visual approach clearance. The controller
>> must ensure that weather conditions at the airport are VFR or that the
>> pilot has been informed that weather is not available for the destination
>> airport. 1000/3 would be needed only at an airport in a surface area.
>>
>
>Where does the 1000 come from?
>

Uh oh. Here we go...
>

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> Where does the 1000 come from?
>

From FAR 91.155(c).


§ 91.155 Basic VFR weather minimums.

(c) Except as provided in §91.157, no person may operate an aircraft beneath
the ceiling under VFR within the lateral boundaries of controlled airspace
designated to the surface for an airport when the ceiling is less than 1,000
feet.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:57:55 -0600, "Stan Prevost" >
wrote:

>Where does the 1000 come from?

P/CG

VISUAL APPROACH- An approach conducted on an instrument flight rules (IFR)
flight plan which authorizes the pilot to proceed visually and clear of
clouds to the airport. The pilot must, at all times, have either the
airport or the preceding aircraft in sight. This approach must be
authorized and under the control of the appropriate air traffic control
facility. Reported weather at the airport must be ceiling at or above 1,000
feet and visibility of 3 miles or greater.

AIM 5-4-21
5-4-21. Visual Approach

a. A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes
a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot
must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft in sight.
This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate air
traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must have a
ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater. ATC may
authorize this type approach when it will be operationally beneficial.
Visual approaches are an IFR procedure conducted under IFR in visual
meteorological conditions. Cloud clearance requirements of 14 CFR Section
91.155 are not applicable, unless required by operation specifications.

b. Operating to an Airport Without Weather Reporting Service. ATC will
advise the pilot when weather is not available at the destination airport.
ATC may initiate a visual approach provided there is a reasonable assurance
that weather at the airport is a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and
visibility 3 miles or greater (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs, etc.).


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

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:59:39 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>That's not a prerequisite for a visual approach clearance. The controller
>must ensure that weather conditions at the airport are VFR or that the pilot
>has been informed that weather is not available for the destination airport.
>1000/3 would be needed only at an airport in a surface area.

You are correct, except that in the absence of reported weather, there has
to be "reasonable assurance" that the weather at the destination airport is
VFR:

AIM 5-4-21

b. Operating to an Airport Without Weather Reporting Service. ATC will
advise the pilot when weather is not available at the destination airport.
ATC may initiate a visual approach provided there is a reasonable assurance
that weather at the airport is a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and
visibility 3 miles or greater (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs, etc.).


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

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:59:39 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>1000/3 would be needed only at an airport in a surface area.

It is interesting that the AIM does not restrict that requirement to any
particular class of airports. Where is it stated that the requirement is
needed only at "an airport in a surface area"?

=====================================
5-4-21

b. Operating to an Airport Without Weather Reporting Service. ATC will
advise the pilot when weather is not available at the destination airport.
ATC may initiate a visual approach provided there is a reasonable assurance
that weather at the airport is a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and
visibility 3 miles or greater (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs, etc.).
===================================


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is interesting that the AIM does not restrict that requirement to any
> particular class of airports. Where is it stated that the requirement is
> needed only at "an airport in a surface area"?
>

The requirement is for VFR conditions, only in a surface area are VFR
conditions 1000/3.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:57:55 -0600, "Stan Prevost" >
> wrote:
>
>>Where does the 1000 come from?
>
> P/CG
>
> VISUAL APPROACH- An approach conducted on an instrument flight rules (IFR)
> flight plan which authorizes the pilot to proceed visually and clear of
> clouds to the airport. The pilot must, at all times, have either the
> airport or the preceding aircraft in sight. This approach must be
> authorized and under the control of the appropriate air traffic control
> facility. Reported weather at the airport must be ceiling at or above
> 1,000
> feet and visibility of 3 miles or greater.
>
> AIM 5-4-21
> 5-4-21. Visual Approach
>
> a. A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes
> a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot
> must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft in
> sight.
> This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate air
> traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must have a
> ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater. ATC may
> authorize this type approach when it will be operationally beneficial.
> Visual approaches are an IFR procedure conducted under IFR in visual
> meteorological conditions. Cloud clearance requirements of 14 CFR Section
> 91.155 are not applicable, unless required by operation specifications.
>
> b. Operating to an Airport Without Weather Reporting Service. ATC will
> advise the pilot when weather is not available at the destination airport.
> ATC may initiate a visual approach provided there is a reasonable
> assurance
> that weather at the airport is a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and
> visibility 3 miles or greater (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs, etc.).
>
>


Yes, but ATC is bound by 7110.65, which in 7-4-3 says (without regard to
airspace class or surface areas)
b. Resolve potential conflicts with all other aircraft, advise an overtaking
aircraft of the distance to the preceding aircraft and speed difference, and
ensure that weather conditions at the airport are VFR or that the pilot has
been informed that weather is not available for the destination airport.
Upon pilot request, advise the pilot of the frequency to receive weather
information where AWOS/ASOS is available.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Where does the 1000 come from?
>>
>
> From FAR 91.155(c).
>
>
> § 91.155 Basic VFR weather minimums.
>
> (c) Except as provided in §91.157, no person may operate an aircraft
> beneath the ceiling under VFR within the lateral boundaries of controlled
> airspace designated to the surface for an airport when the ceiling is less
> than 1,000 feet.
>

That does not define VFR conditions and is not permissive about operating
below 1000 ft under VFR. One still has to obey airspace cloud clearance
rules.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> That does not define VFR conditions and is not permissive about operating
> below 1000 ft under VFR.

FAR 91.155 most certainly does define VFR conditions and we are not
discussing operating below 1000' AGL under VFR.


>
> One still has to obey airspace cloud clearance rules.
>

Only when one is operating VFR, we're discussing an IFR operation here.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> That does not define VFR conditions and is not permissive about operating
>> below 1000 ft under VFR.
>
> FAR 91.155 most certainly does define VFR conditions

91.155(a) defines VFR conditions for each class of airspace. 91.155(c),
which was the specific regulation you referenced, defines a prohibition
against VFR operations under certain conditions in any airspace.

> and we are not discussing operating below 1000' AGL under VFR.

The issue at hand is the requirement in the ATC manual for ATC to "ensure
that weather conditions at the airport are VFR " as a condition to issuing
a visual approach clearance. VFR conditions are defined in 91.155(a)
subject to an additional Class G permissive rule in 91.155(b) and
prohibitions against operations under certain conditions in (c) for all
airspace and (d) in B/C/D/E airspace.

>
>
>>
>> One still has to obey airspace cloud clearance rules.
>>
>
> Only when one is operating VFR, we're discussing an IFR operation here.
>

For VFR conditions to exist as required by 7110.65 7-4-3(b) in order to
clear an aircraft for the IFR operation under discussion, one must be able
to operate under VFR, including obeying cloud clearance rules. FAR
91.155(a) defines those conditions subject to additional restrictions in
91.155(c) and (d).

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> 91.155(a) defines VFR conditions for each class of airspace.
>

Correct.


>
> 91.155(c), which was the specific regulation you referenced, defines a
> prohibition
> against VFR operations under certain conditions in any airspace.
>

The question was, "Where does the 1000 come from?" The answer is FAR
91.155(c).


>
> The issue at hand is the requirement in the ATC manual for ATC to "ensure
> that weather conditions at the airport are VFR " as a condition to
> issuing
> a visual approach clearance. VFR conditions are defined in 91.155(a)
> subject to an additional Class G permissive rule in 91.155(b) and
> prohibitions against operations under certain conditions in (c) for all
> airspace and (d) in B/C/D/E airspace.
>

Correct.


>
> For VFR conditions to exist as required by 7110.65 7-4-3(b) in order to
> clear an aircraft for the IFR operation under discussion, one must be able
> to operate under VFR, including obeying cloud clearance rules.

That is not correct. The only IFR operation subject to VFR cloud clearance
requirements is VFR-on-top.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:52:29 -0600, "Stan Prevost" >
wrote:

>Yes, but ATC is bound by 7110.65, which in 7-4-3 says (without regard to
>airspace class or surface areas)
>b. Resolve potential conflicts with all other aircraft, advise an overtaking
>aircraft of the distance to the preceding aircraft and speed difference, and
>ensure that weather conditions at the airport are VFR or that the pilot has
>been informed that weather is not available for the destination airport.
>Upon pilot request, advise the pilot of the frequency to receive weather
>information where AWOS/ASOS is available.
>

And you are perhaps surprised that the pilot guidance and ATC guidance are
not the same? :-)


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

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:19:48 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>The requirement is for VFR conditions, only in a surface area are VFR
>conditions 1000/3.

Not according to the paragraph I quoted in the AIM.


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not according to the paragraph I quoted in the AIM.
>

Irrelevant. The prerequisites for a visual approach clearance are found in
FAAO 7110.65.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:19:48 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>The requirement is for VFR conditions, only in a surface area are VFR
>conditions 1000/3.

Your answer is not responsive to my question. As I quoted, the requirement
in the AIM is for 1000/3 -- NOT for VFR conditions.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:52:29 -0600, "Stan Prevost" >
> wrote:
>
>>Yes, but ATC is bound by 7110.65, which in 7-4-3 says (without regard to
>>airspace class or surface areas)
>>b. Resolve potential conflicts with all other aircraft, advise an
>>overtaking
>>aircraft of the distance to the preceding aircraft and speed difference,
>>and
>>ensure that weather conditions at the airport are VFR or that the pilot
>>has
>>been informed that weather is not available for the destination airport.
>>Upon pilot request, advise the pilot of the frequency to receive weather
>>information where AWOS/ASOS is available.
>>
>
> And you are perhaps surprised that the pilot guidance and ATC guidance are
> not the same? :-)
>
>

Not really. I'm certainly not surprised that guidance to pilots in the AIM
is not backed up by regulation. But I do think the FAA makes some attempt
to keep the AIM, P/CG, and ATC Manual consistent. There will be inevitable
timing differences, but I am somewhat surprised by a long-standing
difference.

I can accept that the FAA has defined in the nonregulatory AIM the
regulation for pilots to follow, as strange as that may sound. But I cannot
understand why Mr. McNicoll keeps saying 1000/3 is required for ATC, when
the ATC manual says VFR, and the only places I can find that 1000/3 exists
is in the Pilot manual (AIM) or in a nonapplicable provision of the FAR.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
>>
>> 91.155(c), which was the specific regulation you referenced, defines a
>> prohibition
>> against VFR operations under certain conditions in any airspace.
>>
>
> The question was, "Where does the 1000 come from?" The answer is FAR
> 91.155(c).
>

That is the answer you gave. Why is it the correct answer? 91.155(c) does
not define VFR conditions or permit any operation. It only prohibits
certain operations under certain conditions. How does it contribute toward
satisfying the rule ATC must follow to ensure that VFR conditions exist
before issuing a clearance for a visual approach?

>
>>
>> For VFR conditions to exist as required by 7110.65 7-4-3(b) in order to
>> clear an aircraft for the IFR operation under discussion, one must be
>> able
>> to operate under VFR, including obeying cloud clearance rules.
>
> That is not correct. The only IFR operation subject to VFR cloud
> clearance requirements is VFR-on-top.
>

That is not correct. On a contact approach, the pilot must remain clear of
clouds.

However, I did not say that the IFR operation is subject to VFR cloud
clearance rules. I said that for VFR conditions to exist, one must be able
to operate under VFR, including obeying cloud clearance rules. In other
words, VFR conditions are defined in 91.155(a). When the requirements of
91.155(a) are not met, VFR conditions do not exist and a visual approach
clearance may not be issued in accordance with the ATC manual.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your answer is not responsive to my question. As I quoted, the
> requirement
> in the AIM is for 1000/3 -- NOT for VFR conditions.
>

The requirements for the issuance of a visual approach clearance are not
found in the AIM, they are found in FAA Order 7110.65. The requirement in
FAA0 7110.65 is for VFR conditions -- NOT for 1000/3.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can accept that the FAA has defined in the nonregulatory AIM the
> regulation for pilots to follow, as strange as that may sound. But I
> cannot understand why Mr. McNicoll keeps saying 1000/3 is required for
> ATC, when the ATC manual says VFR, and the only places I can find that
> 1000/3 exists is in the Pilot manual (AIM) or in a nonapplicable provision
> of the FAR.
>

Mr. McNicoll never said1000/3 is required for ATC, he said VFR is required.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is the answer you gave. Why is it the correct answer?
>

Because that's where 1000' comes from.


>
>91.155(c) does
> not define VFR conditions or permit any operation. It only prohibits
> certain operations under certain conditions. How does it contribute
> toward
> satisfying the rule ATC must follow to ensure that VFR conditions exist
> before issuing a clearance for a visual approach?
>

The controller must ensure that weather conditions at the airport are VFR
prior to issuing a visual approach clearance. If you have a ceiling of less
than 1000' in a surface area you do not have VFR conditions and a visual
approach is not available.


>
> That is not correct. On a contact approach, the pilot must remain clear
> of
> clouds.
>

Yes, he must remain clear of clouds, which just happens to be the same as
VFR cloud clearance requirements in Class B airspace and Class G airspace
during the day. But VFR cloud clearance requirements are greater in Class
C, D, and E airspace, and yet the pilot must still remain only clear of
clouds on a contact approach. He does not have to follow VFR cloud
clearance requirements on a contact approach or a visual approach.


>
> However, I did not say that the IFR operation is subject to VFR cloud
> clearance rules. I said that for VFR conditions to exist, one must be
> able
> to operate under VFR, including obeying cloud clearance rules.
>

Yes, you said that. It's not true.


>
> In other
> words, VFR conditions are defined in 91.155(a). When the requirements of
> 91.155(a) are not met, VFR conditions do not exist and a visual approach
> clearance may not be issued in accordance with the ATC manual.
>

That's true, but that does not mean that pilots must adhere to VFR cloud
clearance requirements on a VFR approach. Whatever gave you the idea they
did? What purpose would that serve?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> Mr. McNicoll never said1000/3 is required for ATC, he said VFR is
> required.
>

He said: "1000/3 would be needed only at an airport in a surface area."

7110.65, paragraph 7-4-3 "Clearance for Visual Approach" says VFR
conditions are required for the clearance, with no reference surface areas.

Please explain why 1000/3 is sufficient in surface areas for ATC to issue
the clearance.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> He said: "1000/3 would be needed only at an airport in a surface area."
>
> 7110.65, paragraph 7-4-3 "Clearance for Visual Approach" says VFR
> conditions are required for the clearance, with no reference surface
> areas.
>
> Please explain why 1000/3 is sufficient in surface areas for ATC to issue
> the clearance.
>

Because that's what constitutes VFR minimums in a surface area. The
visibility must be at least 3 miles, less than that and you do not have VFR
conditions and a visual approach is not available. If there is a ceiling it
must be at least 1000 feet, lower than that and you do not have VFR
conditions and a visual approach is not available. This is pretty basic
stuff, are you a pilot?

I thought my question was simple.

I have never flown a contact approach in 30 years of professional flying.
I'm trying to learn why. Am I (and all my Texas buddies) missing some big
advantage?

All I am asking is what are the differences in the weather, or the terrain,
or whatever, in the northeast that cause lots of contact approaches instead
of visual approaches? Is it because the weather is not good enough for a
visual approach? It would seem that the weather and terrain are similar to
the Carolinas and Georgia where I have done a lot of flying, yet I never
have heard pilots there requesting contact approaches.

As far as the visual approaches I fly regularly, many are at fields that
don't have any weather reporting (so I know that the contact approach would
not be authorized there). ATC just drops me down to the minumum vectoring
altitude, and tells me to let them know when I have the field, and then they
clear me for the visual. There is no consideration as to whether or not the
field is IFR or VFR. I have flown hundreds, if not thousands of approaches,
like this. It is not uncommon on an attempted visual approach in bad
weather, to call ATC back and tell them I couldn't maintain contact with the
runway environment, and need an approach. This usually happens near the
Gulf due to quickly developing fog.

Maybe what I am asking is for some of you who regularly fly contact
approaches to describe the weather conditions that prompt you to request it.

"Russ MacDonald" > wrote in message news:YtfQd.31190$uc.1103@trnddc03...
>I thought my question was simple.
>
> I have never flown a contact approach in 30 years of professional flying.
> I'm trying to learn why. Am I (and all my Texas buddies) missing some big
> advantage?
>
> All I am asking is what are the differences in the weather, or the terrain,
> or whatever, in the northeast that cause lots of contact approaches instead
> of visual approaches? Is it because the weather is not good enough for a
> visual approach? It would seem that the weather and terrain are similar to
> the Carolinas and Georgia where I have done a lot of flying, yet I never
> have heard pilots there requesting contact approaches.
>
> As far as the visual approaches I fly regularly, many are at fields that
> don't have any weather reporting (so I know that the contact approach would
> not be authorized there). ATC just drops me down to the minumum vectoring
> altitude, and tells me to let them know when I have the field, and then they
> clear me for the visual. There is no consideration as to whether or not the
> field is IFR or VFR. I have flown hundreds, if not thousands of approaches,
> like this. It is not uncommon on an attempted visual approach in bad
> weather, to call ATC back and tell them I couldn't maintain contact with the
> runway environment, and need an approach. This usually happens near the
> Gulf due to quickly developing fog.
>
> Maybe what I am asking is for some of you who regularly fly contact
> approaches to describe the weather conditions that prompt you to request it.
>

I requested and received a Contact Approach on about my third flight after receiving my instrument rating! I
was being vectored "outbound" for the ILS at Temple. Clouds were scattered-to-broken at about 700 ft AGL, and
visibity was excellent. Once I saw that I could easily get under them and get back to the field, I got the
contact approach and it saved me about 10-15 miles of vectoring. Visual approach would not have worked because
of the cloud clearance. Well I guess you could say it would've "worked" but it wouldn't have been legal :)

I'm certainly no pro, and I don't "regularly" fly contact approaches, but, there you go...

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:09:12 GMT, "Russ MacDonald"
> wrote:

>All I am asking is what are the differences in the weather, or the terrain,
>or whatever, in the northeast that cause lots of contact approaches instead
>of visual approaches?

For me, it enables me to take short cuts in familiar areas where I do NOT
have the field (or preceding traffic) in sight.



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

"Russ MacDonald" > wrote in message
news:YtfQd.31190$uc.1103@trnddc03...
>
> I thought my question was simple.
>
> I have never flown a contact approach in 30 years of professional flying.
> I'm trying to learn why. Am I (and all my Texas buddies) missing some big
> advantage?
>

Not particularly. In my experience contact approaches are requested by
aircraft that happen to spot the field while being vectored for IAPs.


>
> All I am asking is what are the differences in the weather, or the
> terrain, or whatever, in the northeast that cause lots of contact
> approaches
> instead of visual approaches? Is it because the weather is not good
> enough for a
> visual approach? It would seem that the weather and terrain are similar
> to the Carolinas and Georgia where I have done a lot of flying, yet I
> never
> have heard pilots there requesting contact approaches.
>

A visual approach requires VFR conditions, a contact approach requires one
mile visibility.


>
> As far as the visual approaches I fly regularly, many are at fields that
> don't have any weather reporting (so I know that the contact approach
> would not be authorized there). ATC just drops me down to the minumum
> vectoring
> altitude, and tells me to let them know when I have the field, and then
> they clear me for the visual. There is no consideration as to whether or
> not
> the field is IFR or VFR. I have flown hundreds, if not thousands of
> approaches, like this. It is not uncommon on an attempted visual approach
> in bad
> weather, to call ATC back and tell them I couldn't maintain contact with
> the runway environment, and need an approach. This usually happens near
> the
> Gulf due to quickly developing fog.
>

There is supposed to be consideration as to whether or not the field is IFR
or VFR. The controller must ensure that weather conditions at the airport
are VFR or that the pilot has been informed that weather is not available
for the destination airport. If being vectored for the visual approach
there must be reasonable assurance (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs, etc.)
that descent and flight to the airport can be made visually.

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> I requested and received a Contact Approach on about my third flight after
> receiving my instrument rating! I was being vectored "outbound" for the
> ILS at
> Temple. Clouds were scattered-to-broken at about 700 ft AGL, and
> visibity was excellent. Once I saw that I could easily get under them and
> get back to the field, I got the contact approach and it saved me about
> 10-15
> miles of vectoring. Visual approach would not have worked because
> of the cloud clearance. Well I guess you could say it would've "worked"
> but it wouldn't have been legal :)
>

What is the legality? What's the required cloud clearance for a visual
approach?

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> For me, it enables me to take short cuts in familiar areas where I do NOT
> have the field (or preceding traffic) in sight.
>

You don't have to have the field in sight for a contact approach but you do
have to be separated from other IFR traffic. If you have preceding traffic
in sight visual separation can be used, but preceding traffic that you don't
have in sight will require denial of the contact approach.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:37:07 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:19:48 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:
>
>>The requirement is for VFR conditions, only in a surface area are VFR
>>conditions 1000/3.
>
>Your answer is not responsive to my question. As I quoted, the requirement
>in the AIM is for 1000/3 -- NOT for VFR conditions.
>Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)


I think this may simply be an illustration of why one has to be
careful in using the AIM.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:38:28 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:09:12 GMT, "Russ MacDonald"
> wrote:
>
>>All I am asking is what are the differences in the weather, or the terrain,
>>or whatever, in the northeast that cause lots of contact approaches instead
>>of visual approaches?
>
>For me, it enables me to take short cuts in familiar areas where I do NOT
>have the field (or preceding traffic) in sight.
>
>
>
>Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)


It's also often useful just to get lower before you have the field in
sight.

Although I find it more useful in unfamiliar areas than familiar
areas.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:57:28 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> For me, it enables me to take short cuts in familiar areas where I do NOT
>> have the field (or preceding traffic) in sight.
>>
>
>You don't have to have the field in sight for a contact approach but you do
>have to be separated from other IFR traffic. If you have preceding traffic
>in sight visual separation can be used, but preceding traffic that you don't
>have in sight will require denial of the contact approach.
>

How far away does this "preceding traffic" have to be in order to get
a contact approach?

As a matter of fact, it would be interesting to know what exactly are
the separation rules for contact approaches.

> There is supposed to be consideration as to whether or not the field is
> IFR
> or VFR. The controller must ensure that weather conditions at the airport
> are VFR or that the pilot has been informed that weather is not available
> for the destination airport. If being vectored for the visual approach
> there must be reasonable assurance (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs,
> etc.) that descent and flight to the airport can be made visually.

They descend me to MVA at my request, and once I call the field in sight,
they always clear me for the visual. If I don't see the field, I tell them,
and they climb me back up and clear me for an approach. They basically
leave the decision to me as to whether or not to go for the visual. They
don't seem to have any concern about whether the field has 1 mile visibility
or not (although, I don't think I could see the field if the visibility was
less than a mile).

After I read several posts discussing the contact approach, I began
wondering if requesting one might buy me anything. I just can't think of
any situation where I would be able to see something I recognized other than
the field, and still want to go for a non-instrument approach.

> I requested and received a Contact Approach on about my third flight after
> receiving my instrument rating! I
> was being vectored "outbound" for the ILS at Temple. Clouds were
> scattered-to-broken at about 700 ft AGL, and
> visibity was excellent. Once I saw that I could easily get under them and
> get back to the field, I got the
> contact approach and it saved me about 10-15 miles of vectoring. Visual
> approach would not have worked because
> of the cloud clearance. Well I guess you could say it would've "worked"
> but it wouldn't have been legal :)
>
> I'm certainly no pro, and I don't "regularly" fly contact approaches, but,
> there you go...
>
> Cheers,
> John Clonts
> Temple, Texas
> N7NZ
>
I bet the approach controllers were surprised when you requested the contact
approach. They probably don't hear that request more than once a year, and
then it's usually from pilots who normally fly in the Northeast.

I think the controllers were probably expecting you to fly an approach. In
my experience of flying into TPL, Gray Approach would have begun vectoring
you 30 or 40 miles out towards the segment of the expected approach to join
just prior to the FAF. Typically, vectoring does not cause any extra delay
into TPL.

I don't think I like the idea of dropping down below 700 foot clouds very
far from the field. I'm right at the speed limit in the BE350 and there are
lots of towers out there, especially northeast of TPL.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:33:59 GMT, "Russ MacDonald"
> wrote:

>After I read several posts discussing the contact approach, I began
>wondering if requesting one might buy me anything. I just can't think of
>any situation where I would be able to see something I recognized other than
>the field, and still want to go for a non-instrument approach.


Why do you feel the need to see something you recognize? You can
simply follow a VOR radial or a localizer course, or use your handheld
GPS or anything else that you feel will safely take you to the field.
As long as you maintain 1 mile visibility, you should be all set.

1 mile is a fur piece, when you stop to think about it.

> wrote in message
...
>
> How far away does this "preceding traffic" have to be in order to get
> a contact approach?
>
> As a matter of fact, it would be interesting to know what exactly are
> the separation rules for contact approaches.
>

There are no specific separation rules for contact approaches. A contact
approach is an IFR procedure and IFR aircraft must be provided some type of
approved separation. Some types of approved separation are just not
applicable, vertical for instance. You can't clear an aircraft for a
contact approach and deny it a descent. Radar separation will work if
there's sufficient distance between aircraft, but aircraft don't typically
request a contact approach until they're pretty close to the field.
Separation between aircraft on contact approaches is pretty much limited to
visual just by the nature of the operation.

> wrote in message
...
>
> Why do you feel the need to see something you recognize? You can
> simply follow a VOR radial or a localizer course, or use your handheld
> GPS or anything else that you feel will safely take you to the field.
> As long as you maintain 1 mile visibility, you should be all set.
>

If that's all you do you're not flying a contact approach, you're flying a
bootleg IAP. The "contact" in contact approach is ground contact, the
approach is flown by visual reference to the surface.

> If that's all you do you're not flying a contact approach, you're flying a
> bootleg IAP. The "contact" in contact approach is ground contact, the
> approach is flown by visual reference to the surface.
That's what I thought. You have to see something on the ground that you
recognize, and then use that to navigate to the field. I just don't see
where that would be too useful to me. I think I'd rather shoot the
approach.

Whee is is written that you need to recognize something on the ground?

The only requirement is maintaning 1 mile visibility. You are free to
navigate any way you wish.



"Russ MacDonald" > wrote in message
news:j1sQd.33451$uc.17335@trnddc04...
>
> > If that's all you do you're not flying a contact approach, you're flying
a
> > bootleg IAP. The "contact" in contact approach is ground contact, the
> > approach is flown by visual reference to the surface.
> That's what I thought. You have to see something on the ground that you
> recognize, and then use that to navigate to the field. I just don't see
> where that would be too useful to me. I think I'd rather shoot the
> approach.
>
>

" > wrote in message
...
>
> Whee is is written that you need to recognize something on the ground?
>

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

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.



>
> The only requirement is maintaning 1 mile visibility. You are free to
> navigate any way you wish.
>

Where is is written that you are free to navigate any way you wish?

I disagree tha this sugests you must "recognize" something on the surface.
"Visual reference to the surface" references a condition to be maintained.
It certainly doesn't mean that you cannot use other means to navigate to the
airport. It would be ridiculous to suggest this. It would mean that one
would have to be familiar with terrain in order to accept a contact
approach, or be screwing around with a sectional and picking out ground
characteristics while in limited visbility in order to navigate.

A rididulous notion to say the least.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Whee is is written that you need to recognize something on the ground?
> >
>
> From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> >
> > The only requirement is maintaning 1 mile visibility. You are free to
> > navigate any way you wish.
> >
>
> Where is is written that you are free to navigate any way you wish?
>
>

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:57:28 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> For me, it enables me to take short cuts in familiar areas where I do NOT
>> have the field (or preceding traffic) in sight.
>>
>
>You don't have to have the field in sight for a contact approach but you do
>have to be separated from other IFR traffic. If you have preceding traffic
>in sight visual separation can be used, but preceding traffic that you don't
>have in sight will require denial of the contact approach.
>

In most instances where I've used a contact approach, there has been no
preceding traffic (or other conflicting IFR traffic).


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

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:43:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Separation between aircraft on contact approaches is pretty much limited to
>visual just by the nature of the operation.


Really?

So separation can be less than a mile?

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:47:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>>
>> Why do you feel the need to see something you recognize? You can
>> simply follow a VOR radial or a localizer course, or use your handheld
>> GPS or anything else that you feel will safely take you to the field.
>> As long as you maintain 1 mile visibility, you should be all set.
>>
>
>If that's all you do you're not flying a contact approach, you're flying a
>bootleg IAP. The "contact" in contact approach is ground contact, the
>approach is flown by visual reference to the surface.
>

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

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

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:48:09 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Whee is is written that you need to recognize something on the ground?
>>
>
>From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:
>
>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.
>
>
>
>>
>> The only requirement is maintaning 1 mile visibility. You are free to
>> navigate any way you wish.
>>
>
>Where is is written that you are free to navigate any way you wish?

Where is it written that I am not?

I have had a class D airport (under a class C ring) in the clear in
bright sun, but a TS 3 miles out on the ILS caused the terminal METAR to
be ceiling something like 800 vis 2. Flying by the field no visual
approach allowed and I sure didn't want the ILS, so contact came to mind
and was promptly approved.

A few years later in the same area with the same conditions heard a
plane ask for the visual. Controller came back with " Cherokee 1234X
that was stepped on, were you requesting a contact approach?" Nobody was
stepped on, but 34X got the idea quickly and said "affirmative"

Russ MacDonald wrote:
>>There is supposed to be consideration as to whether or not the field is
>>IFR
>>or VFR. The controller must ensure that weather conditions at the airport
>>are VFR or that the pilot has been informed that weather is not available
>>for the destination airport. If being vectored for the visual approach
>>there must be reasonable assurance (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs,
>>etc.) that descent and flight to the airport can be made visually.
>
>
> They descend me to MVA at my request, and once I call the field in sight,
> they always clear me for the visual. If I don't see the field, I tell them,
> and they climb me back up and clear me for an approach. They basically
> leave the decision to me as to whether or not to go for the visual. They
> don't seem to have any concern about whether the field has 1 mile visibility
> or not (although, I don't think I could see the field if the visibility was
> less than a mile).
>
> After I read several posts discussing the contact approach, I began
> wondering if requesting one might buy me anything. I just can't think of
> any situation where I would be able to see something I recognized other than
> the field, and still want to go for a non-instrument approach.
>
>

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I requested and received a Contact Approach on about my third flight after
>> receiving my instrument rating! I was being vectored "outbound" for the ILS at
>> Temple. Clouds were scattered-to-broken at about 700 ft AGL, and
>> visibity was excellent. Once I saw that I could easily get under them and
>> get back to the field, I got the contact approach and it saved me about 10-15
>> miles of vectoring. Visual approach would not have worked because
>> of the cloud clearance. Well I guess you could say it would've "worked"
>> but it wouldn't have been legal :)
>>
>
> What is the legality? What's the required cloud clearance for a visual approach?

Hmm, yes, I see, let's say it was 700 bkn so a visual would not have "worked" because of the ceiling...
better?

Thanks!
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"Russ MacDonald" > wrote in message news:IlqQd.32477$uc.6337@trnddc04...
>> I requested and received a Contact Approach on about my third flight after receiving my instrument rating!
>> I
>> was being vectored "outbound" for the ILS at Temple. Clouds were scattered-to-broken at about 700 ft AGL,
>> and
>> visibity was excellent. Once I saw that I could easily get under them and get back to the field, I got the
>> contact approach and it saved me about 10-15 miles of vectoring. Visual approach would not have worked
>> because
>> of the cloud clearance. Well I guess you could say it would've "worked" but it wouldn't have been legal :)
>>
>> I'm certainly no pro, and I don't "regularly" fly contact approaches, but, there you go...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> John Clonts
>> Temple, Texas
>> N7NZ
>>
> I bet the approach controllers were surprised when you requested the contact approach. They probably don't
> hear that request more than once a year, and then it's usually from pilots who normally fly in the Northeast.
>
> I think the controllers were probably expecting you to fly an approach. In my experience of flying into TPL,
> Gray Approach would have begun vectoring you 30 or 40 miles out towards the segment of the expected approach
> to join just prior to the FAF. Typically, vectoring does not cause any extra delay into TPL.
>
> I don't think I like the idea of dropping down below 700 foot clouds very far from the field. I'm right at
> the speed limit in the BE350 and there are lots of towers out there, especially northeast of TPL.

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

Cheers!
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

> wrote in message
...
>
> Really?
>

Really.


>
> So separation can be less than a mile?
>

Yes.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>>
>> Please explain why 1000/3 is sufficient in surface areas for ATC to issue
>> the clearance.
>>
>
> Because that's what constitutes VFR minimums in a surface area. The
> visibility must be at least 3 miles, less than that and you do not have
> VFR conditions and a visual approach is not available. If there is a
> ceiling it must be at least 1000 feet, lower than that and you do not have
> VFR conditions and a visual approach is not available. This is pretty
> basic stuff, are you a pilot?
>

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

>> Being from Texas, and flying mostly in the Midwest and South, I have
>> never
>> asked for nor had any need for a contact approach. If I see the runway I
>> tell the controller, and he gives me a visual.
>>
>
> That's not sufficient, a visual approach requires VFR conditions.

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

Another angle; in class G you can fly IFR without a clearance (as long as
you have an instrument rating). We always cancel IFR as soon as we see the
field and can make it in clear of clouds.

Russ

> b. Operating to an Airport Without Weather Reporting Service. ATC will
> advise the pilot when weather is not available at the destination airport.
> ATC may initiate a visual approach provided there is a reasonable
> assurance
> that weather at the airport is a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and
> visibility 3 miles or greater (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs, etc.).
>

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.

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

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. Then, the fuel emergencies start and everything turns
into one big mess. They want us to get in visually if at all possible, and
they wouldn't dream of preventing a visual approach if we can see the runway
enough to get in. Sometimes they even vector us around the back side of the
field at MVA to see if we can get the runway in sight.

"Russ MacDonald" > wrote in message
news:8byRd.32494$wc.19438@trnddc07...
>
> Well, if it is an uncontrolled airport, the airspace is Class G from 700
> feet to the surface, and all you need is 1 mile and clear of clouds for
> VFR, right?
>

Not necessarily. Uncontrolled fields can have controlled airspace beginning
at the surface, at 700' or 1200' above the surface or even higher.


>
> Another angle; in class G you can fly IFR without a clearance (as long as
> you have an instrument rating).

In Class G airspace you can fly IFR without a clearance but you need
sufficient room to do so. In areas where the floor of Class E airspace is
1200' AGL or lower there's no room to do so.


>
> We always cancel IFR as soon as we see the field and can make it in clear
> of clouds.
>

Clear of clouds may not be good enough. Assuming you haven't been cleared
for an approach, the moment you cancel you're in controlled airspace without
an IFR clearance so VFR cloud clearance requirements will apply.

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

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

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

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

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

--
Regards,

Stan

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

"Russ MacDonald" > wrote in message news:Z%yRd.2624$QQ3.1407@trnddc02...
>
> "John Clonts" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> Actually, they were originally expecting me to fly a visual approach. They vectored me to the field from the
>> south, and called "TPL 3 'oclock 1 mile" but that broken cloud layer kept me from seeing the field almost
>> just below me. So he vectored me in the direction of a downwind "outbound" for ILS-15. But as I got a mile
>> or two north of the airport I the layer suddenly ended, and I could see the field and that I could easily
>> maintain it visually... Thus the request for the contact, because I didn't think it was VFR conditions at
>> the time...
>>
>
> OK, that makes sense. I just never thought of asking for a contact approach. Under the same circumstances,
> I would typically just cancel IFR and duck down under the clouds as long as the vis was good enough below.
> That would free up the airspace for another IFR and possibly prevent someone from having to hold.
>

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

"Russ MacDonald" > wrote in message
news:Z%yRd.2624$QQ3.1407@trnddc02...
>
> OK, that makes sense. I just never thought of asking for a contact
> approach. Under the same circumstances, I would typically just cancel IFR
> and duck down under the clouds as long as the vis was good enough below.
> That would free up the airspace for another IFR and possibly prevent
> someone from having to hold.

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

> wrote in message
...
>
> Unless you are talking a 300 foot fog layer, let's say.
>

Not then either.

> wrote in message
...
>
> Why not?
>

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

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

Yup.


>
> Why not?
>

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

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

" > wrote in message
...
>
> I disagree tha this sugests you must "recognize" something on the surface.
>

It doesn't suggest it, it states it.


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
> "Russ MacDonald" > wrote in
> news:8byRd.32494$wc.19438@trnddc07:
>
>> Well, if it is an uncontrolled airport, the airspace is Class G from
>> 700 feet to the surface, and all you need is 1 mile and clear of
>> clouds for VFR, right?
>
> Not necessarily. Many uncontrolled fields have a Class E surface area,
> where the Class E airspace goes all the way to the ground. You need
> 1000/3 there.

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

"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.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in
:

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

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

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

--
Regards,

Stan

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

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

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


>
>

Fer Pete's sake.

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

Die, Thread, Die.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suits me. :-)

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

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

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>>
>> It sounds to me like the FAA heard about a solution and they tried to
>> write rules to define it.
>>
>
> How so?
>

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

Russ

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

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

Works for me. :-)

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

"Careless and reckless" is frequently abused.


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

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

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

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

"Russ MacDonald" > wrote in message
news:s8KSd.47329$Dc.13687@trnddc06...
>
> If you shallow your climb slightly, by the time you reach E airspace, you
> are outside the 5 mile transition zone and the base of E is up to 1200
> feet AGL. That way it is quite possible to take off IFR from an
> uncontrolled field with a layer of ground fog and still have the required
> 1000 ft cloud clearance when reaching E airspace.
>

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