Contact approach question

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:18:41 -0800, wrote:

"When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may
deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an
emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and
collision avoidance system resolution advisory."

So if the tower clears you for the VOR-A approach you'd better fly the
VOR-A approach even if you can see the runway throughout the whole
procedure turn.

rg

Right. When on an IFR flight plan an instrument letdown (arcane language,
goes to show how old some of this stuff is) is necessary because that is the
clearance you have received from ATC. ATC can offer a visual and often does,
whether permitting, but that is their only tool to attempt to improve traffic
flow under VMC, and the pilot can decline, thus retaining the requirment to
fly the full approach.


Well, the contact approach is another tool, they just can't offer it.

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:14:22 -0800, wrote:



wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:48:17 -0800, Ron Garret
wrote:

Simple, but illegal. You can only descend below minimums once you have
the field in sight AND you're on the final approach segment (and, if you
really want to pick nits, have reached DH or MDA)

Actually, you need the runway environment in sight.

And I would find it interesting to know how one descends below the DA
or MDA without first reaching them.

One of the enforcement charges against the fired NWA crew that landed at the
USAF base in Rapid City, SD, when they were cleared for a VOR approach to the
civil airport was just that. And, the visibility was severe VMC.



Just what? No runway in sight?

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:08:12 -0800, wrote:



Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, said:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:45:57 -0700, Newps wrote:
wrote:
Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
^^^^^^^^^^^^
legal no-no.

Baloney. Once I'm in a position to fly visually to the airport/runway I
can do just that.

that's not what this says, I don't think:

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports.

Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when an instrument
letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person operating an
aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, shall use a
standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for the airport in
part 97 of this chapter.

I don't see anything there that prohibits you from cancelling IFR when you
have sufficient visibility and cloud clearance to operate under VFR.

You can cancel when the reported ground visibility and your observed flight
visibility permit. Then, none of 91.175 has any application from that point on.
(you can't cancel in Class A airspace but that has no application to 91.175 in any
case.)


You can cancel any time you are operating in VFR conditions. Ground
visibility may or may not have something to do with that.

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:11:42 GMT, "Gene Whitt"
wrote:

MY Bad,
Mixed up two different flights and situations. One was SVFR from
the Spreckles Sugar plant and Monterey with 400' ceiling. whet we went in
SVFR

Other was Contact where we had to change runways to maintain
cloud clearance.

Gene



SVFR with a 400' ceiling? Is that legal?

wrote in message
...

SVFR with a 400' ceiling? Is that legal?


By itself, yes. But extended flight under a solid 400' ceiling will likely
require a violation of FAR 91.119

In article , wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...

Never would have thought of this, but it seems plausible enough, now
that you mention it.

Although there is a regulation that says that the pilot is required to
use a prescribed "instrument letdown" when cleared for an approach,
or something like that.

I wonder, would this be a violation of that?


No. That regulation begins with "Unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator", and FAR Part 1 defines "Administrator" as "the Federal
Aviation Administrator or any person to whom he has delegated his authority
in the matter concerned."

Where the regulations intend to give ATC authority to provide exceptions, it
states "unless otherwise authorized by ATC."

Where it states "unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator" delegation
has to be affirmed by some policy document or other formal agreement.

In the area of instrument approach procedures the Administrator has formally
delegated the authority to pilots to deviate from the requirements of a Part
95
SIAP:

1. Contact approaches provided the policy conditions and limitations set
forth
are observed.

2. Visual approaches provided the policy conditions and limitations set forth
are observed.

3. Special instrument approach procedures, authorized for an operator by
operations specifications or a letter or agreement.

4. SAAAR Part 95 procedures, such as Category II and III, and soon-to-be
SAAAR
RNP RNAV instrument approach procedures.

Of the foregoing, ATC has the ability to initiate only the visual approach.

I know; you know all of this but others may not.

Yes, but don't forget the situation that started this thread: the tower
is fogged in and calling zero vis. They cannot issue a contact approach
even if one is requested. You cannot land VFR or SVFR. I don't have
time to look it up right now, but it seems highly dubious to me that
they could or would issue a visual approach clearance under such
circumstances.

rg

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

I'd say it should read "any short-cut without a revised clearance or a
cancellation is a legal no-no."


But, ATC is not authorized to issue an initial or revised clearance to
short-cut any required segment of an instrument approach procedure except
for
radar vectors provided in accordance with 7110.65P, 5-9-1.


If in VMC the pilot can cancel IFR and discontinue the SIAP. If conditions
permit a contact approach the pilot can request one, receive a revised
clearance, and discontinue the SIAP.

Read me previous messages: I said that contacts, visuals, and cancellations
were the only exceptions to a full approach (or 7110.65, 5-9-1 vectors to
final).

wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:14:22 -0800, wrote:



wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:48:17 -0800, Ron Garret
wrote:

Simple, but illegal. You can only descend below minimums once you have
the field in sight AND you're on the final approach segment (and, if you
really want to pick nits, have reached DH or MDA)

Actually, you need the runway environment in sight.

And I would find it interesting to know how one descends below the DA
or MDA without first reaching them.

One of the enforcement charges against the fired NWA crew that landed at the
USAF base in Rapid City, SD, when they were cleared for a VOR approach to the
civil airport was just that. And, the visibility was severe VMC.


Just what? No runway in sight?

I haven't seen the case, but that would be the "umbrella" charge, plus descending
before being a position to make a normal descent.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

True, provided you cancel, or receive a clearance for a contact or visual
approach. Otherwise you must fly the IAP regardless of how good the
weather
might be (VMC, not VFR).


A visual approach is not an option when an instrument letdown is necessary.

Depends on how you define "when necessary," Steve. The FAA postion is that
"when necessary" is when the pilot is on an IFR flight plan and has not
received a clearance for a visual or contact, regardless of weather
conditions. It's in the AIM that I cited to someone else here.

wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:08:12 -0800, wrote:



Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, said:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:45:57 -0700, Newps wrote:
wrote:
Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
^^^^^^^^^^^^
legal no-no.

Baloney. Once I'm in a position to fly visually to the airport/runway I
can do just that.

that's not what this says, I don't think:

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports.

Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when an instrument
letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person operating an
aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, shall use a
standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for the airport in
part 97 of this chapter.

I don't see anything there that prohibits you from cancelling IFR when you
have sufficient visibility and cloud clearance to operate under VFR.

You can cancel when the reported ground visibility and your observed flight
visibility permit. Then, none of 91.175 has any application from that point on.
(you can't cancel in Class A airspace but that has no application to 91.175 in any
case.)

You can cancel any time you are operating in VFR conditions. Ground
visibility may or may not have something to do with that.

If it's reported and you're going to land at that airport served by the IAP, then it's
pertinent. Otherwise, it's not.