Contact Approach

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

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


Not necessarily.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

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


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

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

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

Jose

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

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


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

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

Fred is a certified weather observer, but the station is officially
closed.

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

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

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

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


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

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



Jose wrote:





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

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


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

wrote in message
...

It was reported. The pilot was the conduit.

Where is it written that this is not allowed?


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

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

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

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

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


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

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

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


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



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


There is no substitute.



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


Nope.



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


What field is this?