Contact Approaches

AggieMike88

AggieMike88

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
20,804
Location
Denton, TX
Display Name
Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
Working through the IFR written material, there are several questions about "Contact Approaches"

I don't see these mentioned very much. How often are they actually used? Could someone elaborate beyond the textbooks of how they happen?

(PS... 980+ questions to learn.... oy veh! But slowly Casey Jonesing it)
 
Contact approaches are used by the military a lot. At least they were when I was doing ATC back in the 80's.

The big advantage of a contact approach vs. a visual approach is that the field does not need to be VFR to use it. You only need 1 mile of reported visibility.

I would occasionally request one if I was passing over or near a field for an approach. If I happened to see the field through the clouds, haze, fog, whatever, and the reported vis was at least a mile, I would request a contact approach, and head into the pattern as soon as I was cleared. No need for procedure turns.
 
They are valuable to get into places like Portland PDX, that has no special VFR. At least, a few decades ago it worked great to get a "contact" approach.
 
I use them all the time at my home airport when coming from a direction other than the direction of the one approach the airport has. It saves time and fuel being able to do what I call IFR scud running.

Another time I will use it is when on approach if I break out over the field but I am too high to make the runway. If I do not wish to fly the missed, I can call the missed and request contact approach to circle.

The airport must have WX reporting for ATC to authorize it.
You should be familiar with the airport to request it in my opinion.
You should not use it at night in my opinion.
ATC cannot suggest it.
 
All I remember about contact approach vs visual is that YOU have to request the contact approach (my instructor said "You can put contacts in your eyes so only you can put in a contact approach) coincidentally I got the question about contact approach on my written.
 
Saw very few contact approaches when I did ATC. In fact in 8yrs I remember only 2 request it. Both were quite interesting though.

I was getting ready to take position once when a C-12 was inbound for the PAR. The pilot had a VIP and didn't want to get vectored all the way out to the east for 23 when they could do a visual for 14 and save some time. The pilot requested a visual and the approach controller denied it due to weather. He then requested the "other approach." The controller asked which one and the pilot came back requesting SVFR. "So you want to cancel IFR?" "No, no the other approach." At this point we were both laughing. He then came back and said "oh yeah, we want a contact approach." "PAT123 cleared contact approach to Marine Beaufort at or below 1,500, contact tower 119.05 good day."

Second time I actually issue it for an F-18. He was doing a PAR when the controller couldn't get the handoff because the antenna was in the wrong place. He shot through final and I informed him I'd have to box him out for another one. He immediately came back and requested a contact. I had the weather so I cleared him. Actually gave him a restriction to a certain runway which isn't the intent of a contact but whatever. He actually got a go around from the tower, ended up declaring emergency fuel. Tower sent around the GCAs on 4 mile final and they ended up declaring emergency fuel. Complete fiasco because I was trying to help a pilot's request.

a contact really only works at airports that aren't all that busy and the pilot is trying to save time. It's hard to ensure separation with other IFRs when a contact is maneuvering as necessary to reach the destination. A lot of times you might have the 1 mile vis necessary for a contact but you won't have the ceiling to allow them to below the clouds. Really it works for pilots on hazy, smoky, misty days and they are intimately familiar in how to get to the airport.
 
Last edited:
AggieMike88 said:
I don't see these mentioned very much. How often are they actually used?
Click to expand...
Pretty rare. I've done maybe two dozen in 42 years of instrument flying.
Could someone elaborate beyond the textbooks of how they happen?
Click to expand...
For the written test, it's pretty simple:

  • Airport must have a published instrument approach
  • Airport must have at least one mile ground visibility
  • Pilot must request it (ATC can't suggest it)
  • Pilot must be clear of clouds, have one mile flight visibility, and have reasonable expectation of staying that way
  • Pilot must not re-enter clouds without a revised clearance to do so (i.e., there is no missed approach procedure included)
 
Probably because a mile of visibility is way too short of a time period in a jet.
 
EdFred said:
Probably because a mile of visibility is way too short of a time period in a jet.
Click to expand...
If you're speaking of why we didn't do them in tactical jets, yes, a mile vis is too little to be bobbling around that close to the ground visually. However, pretty much all my contact approaches in civilian planes have been made with a lot more than one mile visibility, and I learned a long time ago not to be doing them any more when the vis is that low even in a 100-knot airplane and never at night. But that's experience, not the regs.
 
I would never do a contact approach myself. Just seems needlessly risky to save a few minutes when you can just do the approach. But I can imagine situations where saving a few minutes could be useful. (Extremely full bladder or an impending bad case of the squirts? :lol:)

So if you were to request one and start the scud running and then realize "damn, maybe this wasn't a great idea I think I'm lost and I almost hit that tower back there", I assume you can still go missed? ATC probably wouldn't be terribly impressed.
 
Ron Levy said:
Pretty rare. I've done maybe two dozen in 42 years of instrument flying.

For the written test, it's pretty simple:

  • Airport must have a published instrument approach
  • Airport must have at least one mile ground visibility
  • Pilot must request it (ATC can't suggest it)
  • Pilot must be clear of clouds, have one mile flight visibility, and have reasonable expectation of staying that way
  • Pilot must not re-enter clouds without a revised clearance to do so (i.e., there is no missed approach procedure included)
Click to expand...

:) Thanks Ron :) Written stuff I got figured out.. It was the real life application I was asking about which you and others have answered.

There were several items in the material that made sense as presented, but had me thinking it wasn't in current or frequent use.

Fun part of this studying is seeing the questions about the IAP's where one question or two use the very old plate and the next set of questions use the Dec2013 version. One of these really tricks you up asking about Fly-By and Fly-Over waypoints. The older chart has a waypoint as a Fly Over, the newer one is a Fly-By. Gotta pay attention! :rolleyes:
 
Insane said:
I would never do a contact approach myself. Just seems needlessly risky to save a few minutes when you can just do the approach. But I can imagine situations where saving a few minutes could be useful. (Extremely full bladder or an impending bad case of the squirts? :lol:)

So if you were to request one and start the scud running and then realize "damn, maybe this wasn't a great idea I think I'm lost and I almost hit that tower back there", I assume you can still go missed? ATC probably wouldn't be terribly impressed.
Click to expand...

2500' ceiling, unrestricted visibility, but you can't see the airport due to terrain. You're already at MVA and are scraping in and out the bottom of the clouds. The only approach into the airport requires you to fly 20 miles past the airport.

You can't cancel, because you don't have 500', and they won't give you lower. Contact approach.
 
Ron Levy said:
For the written test, it's pretty simple:

  • Airport must have a published instrument approach
  • Airport must have at least one mile ground visibility
  • Pilot must request it (ATC can't suggest it)
  • Pilot must be clear of clouds, have one mile flight visibility, and have reasonable expectation of staying that way
  • Pilot must not re-enter clouds without a revised clearance to do so (i.e., there is no missed approach procedure included)
Click to expand...

And in the real world that instrument approach must be operational.
 
AggieMike88 said:
:) Thanks Ron :) Written stuff I got figured out.. It was the real life application I was asking about which you and others have answered.
Click to expand...
We'll spend some time on both contact and visual approaches during your training. Now get back to work on the written!
 
Ron Levy said:
Maybe by Army helos, but we never did them in my 15 years/2000 hours in Navy/USAF tactical jets.
Click to expand...

12 ys in the Army I never did one either. A lot times on instrument rides I'd ask pilots about contacts and they weren't really sure about the requirements. Just not something they did much. Too often in the Army they get into a cookie cutter mentality of either coming back VFR and take a corridor inbound, or come back IFR and shoot the IAP. SVFR was pretty common too.
 
Ron Levy said:
Maybe by Army helos, but we never did them in my 15 years/2000 hours in Navy/USAF tactical jets.
Click to expand...

Velocity173 said:
12 ys in the Army I never did one either. A lot times on instrument rides I'd ask pilots about contacts and they weren't really sure about the requirements. Just not something they did much. Too often in the Army they get into a cookie cutter mentality of either coming back VFR and take a corridor inbound, or come back IFR and shoot the IAP. SVFR was pretty common too.
Click to expand...

As I said, it was done quite often where I was and when I was in. But not always when the weather was cruddy. I always wondered why some of these guys didn't just cancel or request the visual. This was done by the whole gamut, from Seahawks to C-12s.

I will say that getting in while the vis is down was an easy approach. You follow the beach, turn east at the river, then make a left turn to line up on the runway when you see it a few seconds later.
 
Once upon a time I was able to identify a path to the airport formed by a clearcut of trees extending to a shoreline. Flew low over the water until I saw the clearcut, turned and followed it to the airport.

Bob Gardner
 
Anymouse said:
As I said, it was done quite often where I was and when I was in. But not always when the weather was cruddy. I always wondered why some of these guys didn't just cancel or request the visual. This was done by the whole gamut, from Seahawks to C-12s.

I will say that getting in while the vis is down was an easy approach. You follow the beach, turn east at the river, then make a left turn to line up on the runway when you see it a few seconds later.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt you saw a lot of them. I think you were at Mayport correct? In poor vis with a Navy SH-60 I don't think would be much of an issue. I worked mostly fighters. Poor vis with a fighter navigating to an airport I think would be a bit different. Maybe 35 AOA can comment but it's really not something I saw much with fighters. When the one F-18 that did request it, I was actually quite surprised. My first impression was, he must be getting low on fuel to be requesting a contact. He was.

In the Army we really didn't need them. If it's an instrument eval you're required to do a precision and a non-precision so a VA or a contact are out. If we had passengers and on an IFR flight plan with the poor vis at the destination, it was just easier to do the IAP, especially if we weren't familiar with the airfield.
 
Velocity173 said:
I have no doubt you saw a lot of them. I think you were at Mayport correct? In poor vis with a Navy SH-60 I don't think would be much of an issue. I worked mostly fighters. Poor vis with a fighter navigating to an airport I think would be a bit different. Maybe 35 AOA can comment but it's really not something I saw much with fighters. When the one F-18 that did request it, I was actually quite surprised. My first impression was, he must be getting low on fuel to be requesting a contact. He was.

In the Army we really didn't need them. If it's an instrument eval you're required to do a precision and a non-precision so a VA or a contact are out. If we had passengers and on an IFR flight plan with the poor vis at the destination, it was just easier to do the IAP, especially if we weren't familiar with the airfield.
Click to expand...

Yep, Mayport. But we had fighters come in from time to time do them as well. I only worked at Mayport for about a year before I got out, so maybe it was a fad.:dunno:
 
There are two instances I can recall using a contact approach. I think the first was when I was flying IFR to Monterey, CA (MRY), and was being vectored for the ILS. I was just about to overfly a stratus layer, with the airport reporting something like an 800 or 900 foot ceiling. I don't remember the visibility report. As I was a little tight on time, I asked for and received a contact approach, spiraled down in the area that was not overcast, and followed the shoreline to the airport in the 500 to 800 msl range.

The other case I recall was when I was IFR one morning over the huge Central Valley in California, on my way to McClellan Field near Sacramento. The clouds had evaporated, I could see the airport from 5000 feet over the valley, and I was late for a meeting, so rather than fly a long ways farther north for the ILS, I asked for a visual. ATC couldn't give me that because the field was only reporting two miles visibility, so I asked for, and got, a contact approach instead.
 
Essentially, a contact approach allows you to find your own way to the airport to land as long as you have at least 1 miles of visibility and can remain clear of clouds. It is, in essence, the equivalent landing clearance using the same visibility and cloud clearance requirements for a Special VFR departure. Because you may wind up flying below the MSA or vectoring altitudes and not on an established approach procedure, it cannot be assigned by ATC.
 
I agree. It is a needless risk. You're much better off just flying a published approach.
 
SbestCFII said:
I agree. It is a needless risk. You're much better off just flying a published approach.
Click to expand...

See post 13.

If you think unrestricted and 2500 is risky, maybe you need to quit flying.
 
I can imagine situations where a contact approach would allow you to stay out of icing.
 
Palmpilot said:
I can imagine situations where a contact approach would allow you to stay out of icing.
Click to expand...

I can imagine a lot of situations where a contact approach is not even close to risky.
 
I have used the contact approach in situations when it was safer than flying the published.
It is just another tool at our disposal.
 
ATIS reporting let's say 1700' broken x 10 plus, at the minimum vectoring altitude you're just up in the ragged bottems. You've got good ground contact directly below but for only a couple miles ahead, approach has you on a vector with "airport's at twelve o'clock six miles report airport in sight". A contact approach will let you descend just enuf'.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
ATIS reporting let's say 1700' broken x 10 plus, at the minimum vectoring altitude you're just up in the ragged bottems. You've got good ground contact directly below but for only a couple miles ahead, approach has you on a vector with "airport's at twelve o'clock six miles report airport in sight". A contact approach will let you descend just enuf'.
Click to expand...

Sounds like approach is vectoring you for a visual with less than 500' between you and the overcast.
 
roncachamp said:
Sounds like approach is vectoring you for a visual with less than 500' between you and the overcast.
Click to expand...
Yes, weather was improving I suspect approach didn't know exactly where the ceiling was. When I didn't report the airport in sight at 6 miles at minimum vectoring altitude he asked me if I had ground contact out there? At that point he offered vectors for the ILS approach, instead I just requested a contact approach.
 
I'm with Ed...a contact approach doesn't always mean dire weather with one mile vis. It can just be a faster way to get yourself in to the airport.

The two times I've used it have been when I'm getting vectored for an approach (from the far side of the field, so I still have a while to go) while above a layer and I spot a decent size hole in said layer. Get the contact approach, drop through the hole, spot the airport, go land.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
Yes, weather was improving I suspect approach didn't know exactly where the ceiling was. When I didn't report the airport in sight at 6 miles at minimum vectoring altitude he asked me if I had ground contact out there? At that point he offered vectors for the ILS approach, instead I just requested a contact approach.
Click to expand...

They should know where the reported ceiling is. From FAA Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control:


7−4−2. VECTORS FOR VISUAL APPROACH

A vector for a visual approach may be initiated if the
reported ceiling at the airport of intended landing is
at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA and the
visibility is 3 miles or greater. At airports without
weather reporting service there must be reasonable
assurance (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs, etc.)
that descent and flight to the airport can be made
visually, and the pilot must be informed that weather
information is not available.
 
roncachamp said:
They should know where the reported ceiling is. From FAA Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control:


7−4−2. VECTORS FOR VISUAL APPROACH

A vector for a visual approach may be initiated if the
reported ceiling at the airport of intended landing is
at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA and the
visibility is 3 miles or greater. At airports without
weather reporting service there must be reasonable
assurance (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs, etc.)
that descent and flight to the airport can be made
visually, and the pilot must be informed that weather
information is not available.
Click to expand...
So maybe reported weather at the airport was higher than it was 6 miles north? Maybe traffic coming in from other directions were reporting the airport in sight at MVA?
 
SbestCFII said:
I agree. It is a needless risk. You're much better off just flying a published approach.
Click to expand...

Palmpilot said:
I can imagine situations where a contact approach would allow you to stay out of icing.
Click to expand...

FORANE said:
I have used the contact approach in situations when it was safer than flying the published.
It is just another tool at our disposal.
Click to expand...

I have used a contact approach once, and once only; and it was under circumstances in which it was by far the best choice for me.

We were flying into Pensacola from the West, in and out of clouds with some rain, but nothing terribly severe for us. There was, however, a solid line of very heavy rain moving in, and (at the same time) a conga line of Navy trainees inbound.

As I was being vectored for the approach, for which I was probably going to be number three or number four, we over flu the bay adjacent to the airport, with all-terrain in the vicinity of the airport readily visible; continued vectoring, however, was going to take me right into the very heavy wall of water we could see a mile or so ahead of us.

When I said "Niner Two Romeo requests a contact approach…", Approach could not have been quicker to immediately respond, "Niner two Romeo cleared for the contact approach, contact tower…"

I was instantaneously cleared the land, and was on the ground in, perhaps, two minutes, and managed to get most of the bags unloaded before the heavy rain hit, while the trainers were slogging it through the heavy weather, one by one. I was, on that day, very glad that my instructor had discussed the contact approach with me at some length. He had told me, "you may never need it, but you'll be glad to have it if you do." He was right.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
So maybe reported weather at the airport was higher than it was 6 miles north? Maybe traffic coming in from other directions were reporting the airport in sight at MVA?
Click to expand...

You wrote, "ATIS reporting let's say 1700' broken x 10 plus". It's unlikely the MVA at the airport is 1200'.
 
roncachamp said:
You wrote, "ATIS reporting let's say 1700' broken x 10 plus". It's unlikely the MVA at the airport is 1200'.
Click to expand...
Billings, Montana; field elev. 3652', MVA coming in from the northeast is 5300' msl in that area, so do the math. Really Steve, if you just wanna' pick an argument I have neither the time nor the inclination.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
Billings, Montana; field elev. 3652', MVA coming in from the northeast is 5300' msl in that area, so do the math.
Click to expand...

Okay. A field elevation of 3652' + a 1700' ceiling puts the base of the clouds at 5352' MSL, just 52' above the MVA, which is 448' less than the minimum distance beneath a reported ceiling required in order to be vectored for a visual approach.

Really Steve, if you just wanna' pick an argument I have neither the time nor the inclination.
Click to expand...

Nor the arithmetic skills.
 
Holy Christ, he was just throwing out an example, not submitting a thesis.
 
roncachamp said:
They should know where the reported ceiling is. From FAA Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control:


7−4−2. VECTORS FOR VISUAL APPROACH

A vector for a visual approach may be initiated if the
reported ceiling at the airport of intended landing is
at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA and the
visibility is 3 miles or greater. At airports without
weather reporting service there must be reasonable
assurance (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs, etc.)
that descent and flight to the airport can be made
visually, and the pilot must be informed that weather
information is not available.
Click to expand...
The reported ceiling isn't the same as the lowest cloud layer. Once can be in and out of the bases of a scattered deck but still be more than 500 below the reported ceiling. In that case, the pilot may have ground contact but not be able to see the airport. Thus, the controller is playing by the book for vectors for the visual but the pilot can't call "field in sight" to receive the clearance for the visual. That's a case where a contact approach may make good sense. However, with 1700 broken reported, the controller should not have offered vectors for the visual. OTOH, I don't know that there is any prohibition on the controller providing such vectors if the pilot initiates the request.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top