A Contact Approach

flyingtexas

flyingtexas

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
20
Location
Dallas
Display Name
Display name:
flyingtexas
Reading more on approaches and the discussion in the book was about a Contact Approach. Says has to be pilot initiated, ATC will keep IFR traffic separation but pilot has to avoid obstructions.

What I can't figure out is, when would you want to ask for one, when is that to your advantage, under what conditions?

Thanks
 
flyingtexas said:
Reading more on approaches and the discussion in the book was about a Contact Approach. Says has to be pilot initiated, ATC will keep IFR traffic separation but pilot has to avoid obstructions.

What I can't figure out is, when would you want to ask for one, when is that to your advantage, under what conditions?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Wellsir, I used one a few months back my very self, and was tickled to have done so.

Wife and I flying to Pensacola, had been descended just under the fairly-low deck and was being vectored (along with about 15 Navy trainers) for the RNAV approach, runway 35. Motoring along at 2,000, and the vector's taking me *straight* at a wall of falling water, the opportunity to get beat up and fly around with my wife scared while I vector all around creation.

Over the bay, I had better than one mile visibility, and if I was allowed to commence it immediately, I knew I could navigate to the field by visual reference while maintaining visual contact with the ground.

So I said, "Niner two romeo can accept a Contact Approach," and PNS App said, instantly, "Niner two romeo cleared for the Contact Approach, contact Pensacola Tower on One One Niner Point Niner." Racked it around in a tight descending right turn, called tower, was instantly cleared to land. They were hair-triggered for it, I could do it, I was on the ground probably ten minutes earlier, they got rid of a target on the scope, all good for everyone.

That worked for me, certainly safer in the circumstances.
 
flyingtexas said:
Reading more on approaches and the discussion in the book was about a Contact Approach. Says has to be pilot initiated, ATC will keep IFR traffic separation but pilot has to avoid obstructions.

What I can't figure out is, when would you want to ask for one, when is that to your advantage, under what conditions?
Click to expand...

In my experience, most requests for a contact approach are made when the pilot spots the field but the reported weather is below VFR minimums.
 
Thank you Maybe Next Year, for sharing that with me. So what exactly IS a contact approach? Does that mean you have everything in sight so you can therefore scrap the rest of your IFR plan? You answered my question, but I think I have more questions as I read your response. Bear with me, I'm just now getting into my ground school. Thank you.
 
roncachamp said:
In my experience, most requests for a contact approach are made when the pilot spots the field but the reported weather is below VFR minimums.
Click to expand...

But if you are on an IFR plan how does VFR minimums play into it?
 
flyingtexas said:
But if you are on an IFR plan how does VFR minimums play into it?
Click to expand...

There has to be 3sm visibility for ATC to assign a visual approach. If it is less than 3sm, you will fly the published IAP or may request a contact approach if the airport the ground is in sight and you have 1sm flight visibility.
 
Last edited:
flyingtexas said:
Thank you Maybe Next Year, for sharing that with me. So what exactly IS a contact approach? Does that mean you have everything in sight so you can therefore scrap the rest of your IFR plan?
Click to expand...

You dont have to have the airport in sight, you just have to be able to navigate to the airport by visual means. So if you see the river below you and you know the airport is 5 miles up the river (but you can't see it in the 2sm murk), you can take the contact approach, follow the river and find your way to the airport.

It's a bit like a special VFR on an instrument flight plan.
 
I've come across two situations where a contact approach comes in handy. One (the most common for me) is when haze and/or scattered clouds make it impossible to see the airport from far enough out to get a visual approach clearance before you're so close you need a steep descent. Consider conditions like 3-5 mile vis in haze with the sun in your eyes. If the local MVA is 3000 AGL you might need to lose those 3000 ft in about 2 miles if you wait until you can report the airport in sight.

Another is when there's a ceiling over the airport at 1000-1500 AGL and that's below the local MVA. If the clouds are broken or there are big holes a few miles from the airport you can slip between them and eliminate the need to fly the extra 20nm required for an approach.

IMO a contact approach at night isn't such a good idea, at least not unless you are very familiar with the area. It's all too easy to run into something you can't see in the dark. It's also a lot more difficult to avoid the clouds when you can't see them.
 
flyingtexas said:
Thank you Maybe Next Year, for sharing that with me. So what exactly IS a contact approach? Does that mean you have everything in sight so you can therefore scrap the rest of your IFR plan? You answered my question, but I think I have more questions as I read your response. Bear with me, I'm just now getting into my ground school. Thank you.
Click to expand...

A contact approach is essentially the IFR equivalent of VFR scud running. From the P/CG:


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.​
​
​
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that there's no missed approach procedure on a contact approach. Once you start it, the only way to climb back up again if you can't or don't complete it is a new clearance from ATC, which in some (many? most?) cases may be impossible to obtain due to lack of radio and/or coverage down that low, leaving you in what has essentially become an emergency situation. I think I've used a contact approach about five times in 40 years of IFR flying, and in retrospect, probably three of them were really bad ideas.
 
Ron Levy said:
Keep in mind that there's no missed approach procedure on a contact approach. Once you start it, the only way to climb back up again if you can't or don't complete it is a new clearance from ATC, which in some (many? most?) cases may be impossible to obtain due to lack of radio and/or coverage down that low, leaving you in what has essentially become an emergency situation. I think I've used a contact approach about five times in 40 years of IFR flying, and in retrospect, probably three of them were really bad ideas.
Click to expand...

At night, landing on a rolling carrier deck, with the carrier surrounded by high terrain on all sides with bad guys shooting from perched position???

Do tell.
 
Then share with us how you escaped an NTSB report, 3 times no less!
 
Jaybird180 said:
Then share with us how you escaped an NTSB report, 3 times no less!
Click to expand...
It was early in my flying career when my luck bag was still much fuller than my experience bag, so I transferred some material from the luck bag to the experience bag. As I approach 10,000 hours, I fear there is little left in the luck bag, so I rely on luck far less now than I did back then lest I reach into that luck bag and find it empty.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
It was early in my flying career when my luck bag was still much fuller than my experience bag, so I transferred some material from the luck bag to the experience bag. As I approach 10,000 hours, I fear there is little left in the luck bag, so I rely on luck far less now than I did back then lest I reach into that luck bag and find it empty.
Click to expand...

I could get there (almost instantly)...only if I flew 416 consecutive days continuous
http://rnjennison.xanga.com/709208045/the-world-record-longest-flight-in-a-single-engine-airplane/
 
I would want more than just a 'reasonable assurance'. It seems to me that you lose all the vertical and lateral margins provided by the ifr system. You are probably not on a defined course and there are limits on altitude as in the iaps.
What is to stop a pilot from ducking down to 150agl, 5 miles from the field because they saw a landmark they recognized, maybe to avoid the pesky minimums of a siap?
Might be perfectly safe in some situations, but I am surprised it has not been abused to the point of cfits.
 
That's why it's pilot's request only. There is (practically) no out (see post #13).
 
Contact approach really is designed for pilots who are very well familiar with the area (perhaps it is their home airport) and can navigate easily to the airport using landmarks being fairly low above the ground.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I would want more than just a 'reasonable assurance'. It seems to me that you lose all the vertical and lateral margins provided by the ifr system. You are probably not on a defined course and there are limits on altitude as in the iaps.
What is to stop a pilot from ducking down to 150agl, 5 miles from the field because they saw a landmark they recognized, maybe to avoid the pesky minimums of a siap?
Might be perfectly safe in some situations, but I am surprised it has not been abused to the point of cfits.
Click to expand...

The same thing that stops a pilot from committing any other act of stupidity.
 
What?! There's already stuff about flying airplanes on the Interwebs?!

Why didn't someone tell me! Sheesh! ;)
 
So past discussions on topics means we should never raise the issues on a forum again? "It's been covered already, no more discussion, thread closed!"
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
So past discussions on topics means we should never raise the issues on a forum again? "It's been covered already, no more discussion, thread closed!"
Click to expand...

lesseeeee - I have nothing helpful to add (which has never stopped me before) but no, the thread's not closed. I assume the links were just "more reading here" hints.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
So past discussions on topics means we should never raise the issues on a forum again? "It's been covered already, no more discussion, thread closed!"
Click to expand...

You shouldn't jump to conclusions. I posted the links because I thought people would find them interesting, and because I didn't feel like repeating what I've written before.
 
The links were useful. I was more responding to the following post. Which, in retrospect - if it wasn't an attempt to stifle useful discussion then I retract my comment.
I have found lately a lot of forums try to kill new discussion by telling you to search archives etc.
 
Last edited:
If you don't stop it, I am gonna hijack your lawn mower. :D
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I would want more than just a 'reasonable assurance'. It seems to me that you lose all the vertical and lateral margins provided by the ifr system. You are probably not on a defined course and there are limits on altitude as in the iaps.
What is to stop a pilot from ducking down to 150agl, 5 miles from the field because they saw a landmark they recognized, maybe to avoid the pesky minimums of a siap?
Might be perfectly safe in some situations, but I am surprised it has not been abused to the point of cfits.
Click to expand...
It has been. I'd have to look for the report but about 15 years ago a C208 flying for a contract cargo carrier requested a contact approach to BMI. He didn't have contact, but he cranked his radar down and thought he had the 440KV towers that lead to the airport, on the screen.

He was no more that a residual scraping in the winter cornfield.

Spike's use of Contact approach was EXACTLY appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like he busted contact approach minimums (one mile and clear of clouds), and the result was similar to what happens when you bust minimums on other types of approaches.
 
I've posted this before and have used this several times in similar circumstances. I was IFR going into Rockford from the south. The approach was the LOC landing south to 19. As I went over the field, there was a wonderful opening and there the field was in all its splendor. If I continued, I would have been vectored several miles north into a line of storms. Folks were holding for that approach. I was able to pull the power back and do an effective over head approach right down without ever losing visual contact with a very long runway. Approach couldn't give me a visual, but immediately cleared the contact approach. A missed certainly would have been doable in this instance if needed since it was towered.

Best,

Dave
 
flyingtexas said:
But if you are on an IFR plan how does VFR minimums play into it?
Click to expand...

If you cancel IFR to early and don't have VFR weather minimums, you can get a violation for VFR flight in less than VMC conditions.

There are 3, ok 4, ways to end an IFR flight.
Fly an IAP to the airport and land.
IFR cleared for a visual approach, need VFR minima.
IFR cleared for a contact approach, need to see ground, or know ground and can navigate to the airport, less than VFR weather minima.
Cancel IFR, need VFR weather minima.
 
flyingtexas said:
Reading more on approaches and the discussion in the book was about a Contact Approach. Says has to be pilot initiated, ATC will keep IFR traffic separation but pilot has to avoid obstructions.

What I can't figure out is, when would you want to ask for one, when is that to your advantage, under what conditions?
Click to expand...

They're not well-explained in the FAA materials. What you need, sure... How, sure... Why, not at all. In fact, reading the FAA materials, it's kind of hard to distinguish a contact approach from a visual approach, IMO.

There are several reasons to ask for a contact approach - Spike pointed one out, flying into worse weather when there's a way to get on the ground visually even without VFR minimums. I've only had one occasion where a contact approach made sense - A reasonably high scattered-to-broken layer (2000 AGL, but less than the MVA in that area due to lack of radar coverage down low) with plenty of holes big enough to squeeze a plane through, in the flatlands with no obstructions, field not in sight but ground and a highway that went right past the airport in sight. The controller had asked me to call field in sight but I didn't have it.

I think if you get into a situation where you think "Gee, I oughtta be able to just do this, it'd be the safest easiest way to get to the field" and it doesn't fit the other methods, well, maybe you should be thinking about a contact approach. ;)
 
olasek said:
Contact approach really is designed for pilots who are very well familiar with the area (perhaps it is their home airport) and can navigate easily to the airport using landmarks being fairly low above the ground.
Click to expand...
This.:rolleyes: This is what a 'contact' approach is for...when you KNOW the lay of the land like the back of your hand.
 
nosehair said:
This.:rolleyes: This is what a 'contact' approach is for...when you KNOW the lay of the land like the back of your hand.
Click to expand...
I've also used a contact approach clearance to eliminate flying a PT when my altitude while headed towards the IAF popped me out of the cloud bases.
 
BillTIZ said:
If you cancel IFR to early and don't have VFR weather minimums, you can get a violation for VFR flight in less than VMC conditions.

There are 3, ok 4, ways to end an IFR flight.

IFR cleared for a visual approach, need VFR minima.

Cancel IFR, need VFR weather minima.
Click to expand...

Another subtle difference if you cancel (vs visual or contact) is that you need to adhere to the cloud clearance regs (typically 500 below the ceiling in class E). A visual approach lets you fly 10' below the clouds but the clouds have to be at least 1000 AGL.
 
gismo said:
Another subtle difference if you cancel (vs visual or contact) is that you need to adhere to the cloud clearance regs (typically 500 below the ceiling in class E). A visual approach lets you fly 10' below the clouds but the clouds have to be at least 1000 AGL.
Click to expand...

Only if they form a ceiling. A visual approach can be had with scattered clouds at 900', for example.
 
olasek said:
Contact approach really is designed for pilots who are very well familiar with the area (perhaps it is their home airport) and can navigate easily to the airport using landmarks being fairly low above the ground.
Click to expand...
Thank you for saying that. It cuts right through the legalistic mumbo jumbo and succintly answers the OP's question. It is EXACTLY as you said.

Too bad my IR CFI didn't include your insightful comment. About 3 yrs later I figured it out for myself after asking the same question as the OP.
 
olasek said:
Contact approach really is designed for pilots who are very well familiar with the area (perhaps it is their home airport) and can navigate easily to the airport using landmarks being fairly low above the ground.
Click to expand...

I think it's difficult to make a hard and fast rule that will always be valid. For example, another circumstance where a contact approach could be low risk is when the pilot has the airport in sight, but the visibility is less than the three miles required for a visual approach. One of my contact approaches was like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top