Contact Approach

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.