Contact Approaches

[Eric]

How often are these flown?

What is the benefit to a contact approach? Is it just to keep from flying the full approach? Aren't you generally vectored to the final app. course anyway?

Does it allow more traffic into an area/reduce seperation?

Thanks
Eric

 

[Dan CFI/CFII]

Let's say I'm flying into my home airport. The only approaches are all to runway 22. But I'm coming in from the West of the field, and I can see the ground, but cannot see the airport. I could request a contact approach because I know for a fact where I am and how to get to the airport (I've been flying in and out of here for about seven years now).

Under the above circumstances, I could not get the visual, because I cannot see the airport, and to take the ILS or GPS 22 would mean going about ten miles beyond the airport, and then the ten back to the airport. So it would really just be a way for someone who is really familiar with an airport to get in easily...

Of course, I've never done one, because we don't get more than five days of instrument weather a year here, and we've got mountains and whatnot all around us, but that's what it is designed to be used for.

Dan

 

[A Squared]

What is the benefit of a contact approach?

It allows you to avoid flying an entire approach.


>>>>>Aren't you generally vectored to the final app. course anyway?

Uhhh, nope, not always. you're porobably only likely to get a contact approach at a place that doesn't have terminal radar services anyway. Good luck getting cleared for a contact approach from approach control when the Wx is below VFR and they're sequencing traffic for instrument approaches. If Wx is above VFR, then a visual approach makes more sense anyway.

Does it allow more traffic into an area/reduce seperation?

No, like I said, you're only likely to be flying one at a place that doesn't have terminal RADAR services. In such a place, ATC can only let one airplane in and out of the terminal area at a time anyway. A contact approach will get you on the ground faster than flying the full approach, so in that sense it could increase traffic capacity into an airport.

A word of caution about contact approaches: Use them very carefully. Use them only at an airport where you are very familliar with the terrain, landmarks and obstructions. Essentially, a contact approach is a clearence to scud-run from your present position to the airport with the Wx below VFR minimums. Be absolutely sure you know that you will be able to pick your way to the airport, avoiding all the obstacles, in the existing conditions.


The following is a rant that has been building for a while. It's a little off the topic, but it was triggered by the comment:

"Aren't you generally vectored to the final app. course anyway?"

My comments aren't directed at Eric, nessecarily.


Folks, *know* your non-radar procedures. That's the fundamental on which the system is built. Yes, many of you fly in an environment where you are almost always vectored for final .... that's great, it makes things a lot simpler. But know what to do when you're not getting vectors, know when you're non-radar, and know why you're doing it.

Here's what happened when a couple of guys found themselves in a non radar environment:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X07226&key=1


They died.


AOPA published an article on this accident in the last issue. It's obvious from the start that these guys didn't have a clue what to do without ATC telling them where to go. They wandered around aimlessly, they were confused about where they were, they couldn't read the approach plate and figure out the correct altitude, For god's sake, they went outbound on a procedure turn for 3 minutes, in a Lear, with the flaps up, with a tailwind, while descending almost 2000 feet (incorrectly) How far outside the protected area do you think they were when they finally turned back toward the airport? Never mind that they were already 1400 feet too low.

A few years ago, I was a passenger on an airplane (another Lear 35, coincidentally) on a black, rainy night going into a non radar airport in the middle of nowhere. Center told them "cleared for the approach, change to advisory approved" There was kind of an awkward pause, and the captain said to the FO, ummm, I guess we need to do a procedure turn, right? Then there was some discussion on how to do one ..... You can bet I was paying attention on that approach. They did fine once they got started, but the point is, when ATC tells you bye-bye, there shouldn't be any question in your mind what you're supposed to be doing next.

Don't get used to letting ATC fly the airplane for you. Know where you are. Know how to get to where you want to be without help. Know your non-radar procedures. The time to try to recall what your flight instructor told you about procedure turns is not right after ATC tells you to switch to advisory.

OK, I'm done ranting

 

[MetroSheriff]

ASquared,

Hardly a rant. Great peice of advice. VERY well said.

 

[jsoceanlord]

a contact approach sounds like it's a lot like a special vfr landing clearance.

 

[A Squared]

>>>> a contact approach sounds like it's a lot like a special vfr landing clearance.

from a practical standpoint, there's a lot of truth to that.

One important distinction is that an contact approach in an IFR procedure. You may fly a missed approach into clouds. You may not fly a missed approach frm a visual approach or a special VFR cllearence, you have to remain visual and get further clearence from ATC if things go badly on a visual

 

[Singlecoil]

Another time a contact approach can be handy is when the weather is VFR, but there is still scud around, i.e., low clouds in the vicinity of the airport. Technically, unless you are in class B airspace, you would need to maintain 1000 above, 500 below, and 2000 feet horizontal distance from any clouds. Request and get cleared for a contact approach and you are legal to operate clear of those clouds, just like you can in class B airspace.
I know the AIM says that those cloud requirements are not required, but a lot of carriers have ops specs that still require them.

 

[surplus1]

What you've been told about what a contact approach IS, is pretty close to accurate but I would still like to add something.

This is a dangerous and unnecessary manuever and should be avoided like the plague. Famous last words are "I know this airport like the palm of my hand ...... " then the tape runs out to the sound of crumbling metal.

Guys, if its VFR, fly and stay VFR. If its IMC, fly the published approach, whether it takes longer or not. Skud running will kill you sooner or later. A contact approach is legal skud running.

To the best of my knowledge, airlines do not approve contact approaches.

Fly Safe. The life you save will be your own.

 

[CitationCapt]

I recollect that most if not all Part 135 ops specs for jet operators do not authorize contact approaches.

 

[Jetsnake]

A contact approach is very simple,
if you see the airport in IFR(IMC) conditions
you can accept a visual. YOUR OK!

The trick to this one is simple, if your 135,
and your OP's spec's must be specific whether
your allowed to do it or not; and you have to
trained and signed off for it.

If not, and you accept a contact approach,
and you do one; and a FED is waiting for you
at the the ramp, your SCREWED. But chances
are, unless he's/she's watching for you, or for
something else your already being watched
for, chances are your O.K.; most FED's don't
even know what a contact approach is anyway.

It is not allowed in any 121 or 125 OP's spec's
period.

If your flying part 91, your OK, but do another
approach, it'll add to your flying skill's and will
keep you alive another day.

Always be safe...

Just remember, the FAA is there to prevent
an accident that has already happened...

Jetsnake

 

[surplus1]

Jetsnake,

I hope I am misunderstanding you and you are NOT implying that it's OK as long as you don't get caught? I just want to be sure I'm reading you correctly.

BTW, to all, you will never be "given" a contact approach by ATC. This is something you have to "request". My recommendation again is simple. DON'T.

I don't care whether it's in your 135 Ops Specs or you're Part 91 or the FAA doesn't exist.

The manuever is an unsafe procedure. DON'T. Whether you are legally dead or illegally dead makes no difference whatever. You're still dead.

While we're on the subject, another dangerous manuever is the "Circling Approach". Less dangerous to be sure, but still dangerous.

In jet equipment, most airlines do not allow this manuever in wheather that is less than 1000 and 3. They DO allow it in lower weather in propeller airplanes. Strange.

If you hit something in the process, trust me, it won't matter one bit whether your airplane is a jet or a prop job.

Please use extreme caution when making circling approaches in weather, particularly at night. It is virtually impossible to maintain visual contact with the airport environment during a circle in anything but a small airplane.

 

[Jetsnake]

You are correct, it is dangerous.

1000 and 3 if your 121 is still
ifi if your flying 121 as such in
a CRJ, that's why I say
if in doudt, go missed.

Jetsnake

 

[A Squared]

Jetsnake,

A couple of things:


>>>>>if you see the airport in IFR(IMC) conditions
you can accept a visual. YOUR OK!

That should be: "you can accept a contact approach". You need 1000 ft ceiling, and 3 miles vis to accept a visual. You probably knew that, but I just thought I'd clarify for thos who are a little unsure of the difference between visual and contact approaches.

>>>>It is not allowed in any 121 or 125 OP's spec's period.

No this is not correct, my carrier is authorized contact approaches. It's ops spec C076


For those who would characterize a contact approach as the last desperate act of a suicidal lunatic, a different viewpoint:

Used wisely, it can be a useful tool, especially in this day and age of automated weather observations. Frequently you as pilot are able to see in flight that the metrological conditions allow a safe visual approach, yet this is not reflected in the automated observations.

Example, a few weeks ago, I took a pleasure flight to an unattended airport with automated weather. The observed weather was clear below 12k and 3 miles visibility .... had been all day Hmmmm It was a nice day, and I could see the airport from 10 miles out or more. when I landed I walked over to the station and cleaned the cobwebs off the visibility sensors suddenly, the visibility jumped to "greater than 10 miles" .... now if i'd been flying there for work (and my airline does occasionaly go in there) and there had been just a few more cobwebs (say enough to make it 2 miles) we wouldn't have been able to accept a visual, but a contact approach would have done the trick .... or I suppose we could have flown the entire NDB approach in clear blue skies.

Another example, you can see the airport from 20 miles out at the MEA, but there's the remmnants of a lower layer hanging around the airport, just enough to make the reported ceiling 900 broken. These conditions exist, I've seen them. So, what do you do? fly an approach in VFR conditions, or get a contact approach? Me, I'll take the contact approach in a situation with good visibility. Dangerous? my opinion is not ... at the airport I'm thinking of, the highest obstruction anywhere withinn the 25 mile MSA circle, probaably for 50 miles, is 67 feet MSL ... that's right, MSL. There's nothing, no terrain, no trees, no structures. Under those circumstances, with 20 miles vis, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over descending to 800 feet and continuing inbound on a contact approach.

Perhaps where you fly, in your operations, your advice is good, I certainly wouldn't debate that, I don't fly there. But the whole world isn't exactly like where you fly. Don't make blanket generalizations without considering that.


regards

 

[Jetsnake]

You are also correct wise one,
But you must have flown into
ATL,LAX, SJC, SFO, and JFK
and have been given the visual
to follow traffic only to lose it in
the murky stuff below...

A FMS with a PFD and MFD is
very nice, it's rather hard with
rah data, meaning steam gauges.

Point taken my friend.

Jetsnake

 

[A Squared]

>>>>>But you must have flown into ATL,LAX, SJC, SFO, and JFK

Nope, avoid those places like the plauge ..... I don't trust air I can see.



>>>>>given the visual to follow traffic only to lose it in the murky stuff below...

Isn't that what you guys have TCAS for?


Regards

 

[Jetsnake]

Sorry, we don't have that in
F-16's...................................

Oooooop's, that's my weekend
job...

Jetsnake

 

[A Squared]

>>>>Oooooop's, that's my weekend job...

ahhh...must take the sting out of having to work weekends.....

 

[Jetsnake]

Hey Knob Lip's,

I've serverd my country for over 16 years.
4 of them being a grunt, so when I say
BITE ME, I mean good luck puss!!!

Waiting for the call!

Jetsnake

 

[TDTURBO]

While we're on the subject, another dangerous manuever is the "Circling Approach". Less dangerous to be sure, but still dangerous.

In jet equipment, most airlines do not allow this manuever in wheather that is less than 1000 and 3. They DO allow it in lower weather in propeller airplanes. Strange

Surplus1,

I remember the day after I received my instrument rating I flew from Chicago to the Bahamas, I was trying to make it to Ft. Peirce but I had a strong headwind. I called for an ammended clearence to Athens since everyplace within 400nm was below IFR mins. I shot the ILS and was told to circle. This on my first flight alone to an airport I had zero breifing time on in a place I had never been all the while being in solid IMC. It was right at minimums, give or take a few feet but what a way to brake in a new rating. I'll never forget the circling approach or Athens, great airport btw! No problem doing it since everything was fresh in my mind, I just had zero experience when I did it. Baptism by fire I guess.

 

[A Squared]

Uhhh, jetsnake,

not sure how to take your last post .... if that's a pi$$ed off reply, I wasn't yanking your chain, just being chatty.


take care

 

[Jetsnake]

It's alright, no offense taken


Jetsnake

 

[FlyinBrian]

I wouldn't throw the circling approach in with the contact approach as being nearly as dangerous. As long as you follow the rules, you do have obstacle clearance on a cicling approach. This is assuming that you remain within the required distance for your category of aircraft, and that you do not descend below the MDA before you are in a position to make a normal landing.

 

[Focus]

Contact Approach----NO WAY!!!!!!

Get Real People......Weather changes can often be very unpredictable as we all know. There are entirely too many variables involved with requesting a contact approach that we as pilots can not ascertain in the midst of maneuvering an aircraft even at approach speed. Why take the risk of miscalculating what your mind tells you is safe when your wrestling with mother nature. FLY THE Published Approach!!!! The time you save on a contact approach may very well be the last memory you have as a company man. Id rather save my a** than save the company gas. Just my .02 bits. FLY SAFE

 

[Eric]

Thanks

Thanks for everyone's input and insight. All good responses and I didn't expect so many, so soon.

A Squared, I'm with you. Know where you are and how to operate in a non-radar environment. Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I earned my instrument rating in Florida, and we were lucky if we could get a full approach near our home airport, hence the vectors to final comment.

Thanks again, Eric

 

[surplus1]

I wouldn't throw the circling approach in with the contact approach as being nearly as dangerous.

Please don't take this as personal. It isn't. However, from my point of view, this is a safety issue and not just a matter of opinion.

On what exactly do you base that statement? Is it the textbook or the circling approaches actually performed by you in the real world?

As long as you follow the rules, you do have obstacle clearance on a cicling approach. This is assuming that you remain within the required distance for your category of aircraft, and that you do not descend below the MDA before you are in a position to make a normal landing.

Everything that you said in that paragraph is "technically correct". No argument there. Given that, why do you think most airlines (I would go as far as to say all reputable airlines) flying jet aircraft (and many flying propeller aircraft) restrict this manuever to VFR minima, i.e., 1000 and 3? Do you suspect there's a reason? If so what do you think that reason might be?

Take a look at the real world conditions that would generate the need for a circle. What are they? Is it a textbook scenario that you practice in the sim? What is the weather really like on the dark night that you undertake this exercise "for real"?

Is it windy and gusting? Is the air stable and smooth as glass or is it turbulent and bumpy? Is the visibility really what they say it is, in all areas of the circle, or just where they measure it? Is the ceiling flat, smooth and even or is it ragged? Is it raining, perhaps heavily or are there snow showers in the area? Is it snowing steadily or raining steadily or is it squall-y like? Is this happening in the day or at night? If it's at night, what is the lighting on the surface in the circling area? Lot's of city lights, some rural lights, no lights? Do the published minima change with these changing conditions or do they stay the same? And speaking of "categories", just how did you determine what category your aircraft is in?

What will you be able to keep "in sight" during the circle? Will it be the runway on which you intend to land? Will it be the airport environment (all of the time)? Will it be nothing (some of the time)? What is the terrain in the vicinity of the airport? Do you really know where those towers are? How can you really tell if you're 3/4 of a mile, 1 mile or 1 1/2 miles from the airport?

Will you be flying the aircraft by visual references outside of the cockpit during the circle? Will you be flying by instrument reference? Will you be doing some of both at the same time?

Are you really up on on exactly what you'll do for a missed approach from every position during the circle?

This manuever is difficult enough under ideal conditions. In most real-world conditions that would require a circle, it is highly conducive to spatial disorientation. It is one thing to be doing a circle in a light airplane and an entirely different thing to be manuevering a heavy transport five or six hundred feet off the ground in marginal weather while trying to control it half by visual reference and half by instrument reference.

Sorry to disagree with you, but I maintain that this is a dangerous manuever and should be avoided if at all possible. I won't go as far as to say "never do it", but I will say think twice before you circle. When you absouletly have to, raise your own minimums as much as you can; brief the manuever thoroughly before you begin it; exercise extreme caution throughout and, don't hesitate to "miss" if the slightest thing differs from your plan.

I'm far from being perfect or always right. However, my opinions on this item don't come from any book. They come from many approaches, in many different aircraft, in many places, over a very long time and pucker factors high enough to warrant a post-flight inspection of certain garments.

I'm sure there are lots of successful circles that we never hear anything about. There are also lots of accident statistics about those that went awry. I can't begin to remember them all but here's a few. No too long ago, a Gulfstream in Aspen. Quite a while ago, an L-188 in Ardmore, OK, and two (2) Convairs in Bradford, PA. That's just scratching the surface.

Be careful. The life you save will be your own. It's not as bad as a contact apporach, but there is no question in my mind that this manuever is dangerous.

The final objective of every flight is a safe landing at the end, not a demonstration of aeronautical skill.

 

[172driver]

Ok, here's a situation in which you might use a contact approach. On downwind, 2SM vis, Level 6 over the marker, you can see the airport or will be able to see it if you get a little closer. Wouldn't do it in anything heavy or fast though...