Contact approach question

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:53:32 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

We were talking about cancelling the IFR clearance and proceeding VFR when
you piped up with this "you've got to fly the instrument procedure"
business. He's not flying a "home-made procedure", he's proceeding VFR.


That's not what I recall.

The original post started thusly:

"On the most recent Pilots Audio Update, the narrator was talking
about atime when fog covered half the airport, but he could see the
runway he wasgoing to land on, but because the control tower was on
the foggy half ofthe airport, they wouldn't approve a visual approach.
He was beingvectored all around, and thought it ironic that he never
lost sight of therunway. Could he had gotten a contact approach if
he'd asked for it?"

In other words, the field is IFR.

Newps then suggested that one could get an instrument approach and
then cut it short and land under IFR..).

I don't see where anyone suggested he land VFR. He can't.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:55:41 +0000 (UTC),
(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. But you can't land at an airport that's reporting IFR
conditions.

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

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


Nope. But if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
necessary.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

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


Nope. But if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
necessary.

Paul stated "canceling when you have sufficient visibility..." which
indicates a change in status/condition/visibility (at the point visibility
becomes adequate). Your reply infers that there was adequate visibility
prior to that.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Paul stated "canceling when you have sufficient visibility..." which
indicates a change in status/condition/visibility (at the point visibility
becomes adequate).


Paul wasn't following the thread very closely. The message he responded to
stated "when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary". As I
said, if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
necessary.



Your reply infers that there was adequate visibility prior to that.


No, you're inferring.

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Paul stated "canceling when you have sufficient visibility..." which
indicates a change in status/condition/visibility (at the point visibility
becomes adequate).
Paul wasn't following the thread very closely. The message he responded to
stated "when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary". As I
said, if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
necessary.

That was precisely the point I was trying to make, since somebody else
brought up the "when an instrument letdown ... is necessary" as a reason
why one *couldn't* cancel IFR once you were on an approach.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
If netcat is compiled with -DGAPING_SECURITY_HOLE, the -e argument
specifies a program to exec after making or receiving a successful
connection. -- netcat README file

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

That was precisely the point I was trying to make, since somebody else
brought up the "when an instrument letdown ... is necessary" as a reason
why one *couldn't* cancel IFR once you were on an approach.


Well, you failed.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Paul stated "canceling when you have sufficient visibility..." which
indicates a change in status/condition/visibility (at the point
visibility
becomes adequate).


Paul wasn't following the thread very closely. The message he responded
to
stated "when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary". As I
said, if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
necessary.

Let's see: The message he responded to stated "when an instrument letdown to
a civil airport is necessary". Are you saying the gist of the thread was
the opposite of this?

Your reply infers that there was adequate visibility prior to that.


No, you're inferring.

I'm trying to figure out why he's addressing an instrument letdown being
necessary and your addressing visual letdown.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll"
said:
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Paul stated "canceling when you have sufficient visibility..." which
indicates a change in status/condition/visibility (at the point
visibility
becomes adequate).
Paul wasn't following the thread very closely. The message he responded
to
stated "when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary". As
I
said, if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
necessary.

That was precisely the point I was trying to make, since somebody else
brought up the "when an instrument letdown ... is necessary" as a reason
why one *couldn't* cancel IFR once you were on an approach.

Seems obvious to me. Why is McNicoll changing the context 180 degrees?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

That was precisely the point I was trying to make, since somebody else
brought up the "when an instrument letdown ... is necessary" as a reason
why one *couldn't* cancel IFR once you were on an approach.


Well, you failed.

The only failure was your change in context.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO