contact approach

[Kream926]

all you cfi's out there, whats an easy way to explain a contact approach. i know of one diffrence between that and a visual app. is that a visual needs 1000 and 3 where as a contact is 1 clear of clouds. is that is?

 

[mayday1]

also, ATC cannot assign a contact approach.. it must be requested by the PIC. Visual approaches can be assigned by ATC when a pilot has either the runway in sight, or preceding traffic in sight.

 

[nosehair]

Another subtle difference is, while on a visual you must have the airport or preceding airplane in sight, on a contact, you have to "reasonably expect to continue to the airport in 1 mile vis and clear of clouds".

So, you can request a contact when you have known landmarks in sight and it looks like you can visually navigate to the airport.

Source: AIM para 5-5-11 for Visual and 5-5-3 for Contact.

 

[groundpointsix]

Can someone explain to me why we would want to do a contact approach? I had a student ask me the other day and I couldn't come up with a good reason. The only semi-reasonable answer I could come up with was if you had an approach with unusually high minimums. Even then it didn't seem like a good idea to me as the minimums are probably that high for a reason.

 

[User546]

Can someone explain to me why we would want to do a contact approach? I had a student ask me the other day and I couldn't come up with a good reason.

Cause there rarely is a good reason! Unless you are very familiar with the airport and surrounding area, it's highly unadvisable to do a contact approach with marginal weather!

Think of it as a trump card to get you in when nothing else is working!

 

[Lead Sled]

I guess that one way to explain the difference visual and contact approaches would be roughly the difference between VFR and Special VFR. Are they useful? At times they can be, I know that there have been some cases where they have allowed us to safely expidite our arrival.

You guys need to be careful about just how and when you tell the ATC folks that you have the field in sight. On more than one occasion I've been in conditions where we had the field in sight, but due to prevailing conditions, it was doubtful that we would have been able to keep it in sight. ATC often assumes that if you tell them that you've got the field or the traffic that you're following you'll be able to keep it (them) in sight. Don't tell them that unless you are comfortable and prepared for a visual approach clearance. Once, I was IMC, being vectored to the airport when approach asked me if I could see the airport. Like a dummy, I could see it through a break the clouds so I told him that. His response, "Cleared for a visual approach, radar services terminated, frequency change approved, advise cancellation on this frequency or via flight service. Talk to you guys later." Not a good thing! It may have been possible to get a contact approach to work out under those conditions, but no way would a visual have worked. It was my fault and I should have known better.

'Sled

 

[minitour]

How about at an uncontrolled field with no approved IAP? You've got 2 miles in snow so you can't take the visual, but you've got the field in sight?

-mini

 

[EatSleepFly]

You can't make a contact approach to an airport with no published IAP. Also, if I remember right, you can't do a contact approach to an airport that doesn't have weather reporting. I seem to remember trying it once...and then having to figure out later why the controller denied my request. Doh!

 

[minitour]

You can't make a contact approach to an airport with no published IAP. Also, if I remember right, you can't do a contact approach to an airport that doesn't have weather reporting. I seem to remember trying it once...and then having to figure out later why the controller denied my request. Doh!

Gotcha!

I try not to remember the Contact Approach thing...I figure if weather is that low, I'm either driving or going to my alternate's alternate alternate...whatever works out

ooh ooh...

How about if they have an IAP, but the station is out of service...like...an NDB approach, but the beacon is under mx...so obviously no approach...2sm...field in sight...?

 

[EatSleepFly]

Are you SURE it's not 3sm??? The AIM does say "reasonable assurance."

j/k...