Contact Approach

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.