Cleared for an approach?

PC12flyer · Post by **PC12flyer** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:57 pm

I heard this coming into Sioux Lookout today.

An aircraft was cleared the approach, requested the contact. Got cleared the contact. Comes in and about 4 miles back loses contact with the ground. Tells YXL radio that he lost contact with the ground and is turning around and doing the RNAV approach onto 16 via the T fix.

My question is, does centre not have to issue a specific missed approach instruction or is the pilot in this instance allowed to break off a contact approach and back track 6-10 miles to shoot a RNAV approach without getting a clearence from centre?

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:50 pm

At an FSS, if the pilot did something like that, I'd be quick to update the controller as to what was going on. Since there isn't really a M/A procedure for a contact, would his previous clearance still be valid? (and this is a question, not a statement...) If a pilot can break off an arc or FP approach once he get ground contact to do the contact or visual if it's been approved, can he go the other way?

Pygmie · Post by **Pygmie** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:15 am

Well, one of the requirements for issuing a contact approach to an aircraft is that there is an approved functioning instrument approach, or published GPS/GPS overlay approach for the airport (MANOPS 466.1.B) so this leads me to belive the pilot can then shoot an IFR approach if he is unable to complete the contact.

Though MANOPS also says alternate instructions should be issued for contact approached in marginal weather, so I'm not sure what the standard is when no alternate instuctions are present. . .

jonathan_tcu · Post by **jonathan_tcu** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:50 pm

A contact approach question, just what I wanted. What does a pilot do with the aircraft during a contact approach? If the weather is wide open VFR, and pilots request a contact approach well before they get field visual, do they maintain the same altitude until they get field visual?

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:44 pm

If the weather is wide open then you would have the field in sight some distance away and would request a visual, not a contact.

Altitude is pilot's discretion.

Wheels · Post by **Wheels** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:52 am

Whenever I ask for the Contact I always get " Roger advise when able" I thought I just said I was? Do you just want me to confirm that I am 1 mile vs & clear of cloud? Can you request the contact while IMC?

pokaroo · Post by **pokaroo** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:08 am

Phraseology could be a problem here. If a controller asks you 50 back what approach are you planning and you come back with "request the contact" that could case some confusion.

Having said that however; if controllers are asking you to advise when able after you have already requested the contact they are wrong. Our book states that that if a pilot requests a contact you can take that as they have met all the requirements. The metar could read 1/4 and 100 feet and we as controllers can approve it if requested.

cinical · Post by **cinical** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:18 pm

I was cleared once by Center for the RNAV GPS App/ w the option for a contact approach.

gumbofats · Post by **gumbofats** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:35 pm

Asking for a contact approach absolutely kills your published missed approach. Burn it, wipe your ass with it, blow your nose on it.....whatever keeps you from thinking it means anything anymore.

The most annoying misnomer in aviation has to do with the missed approach from a visual versus a contact approach. As far as what was published in an instrument approach.....the only thing that is different is the protection given by ATC. Altitude protection is not there from a visual or a contact because how the hell could some surveyor know from where one could begin the missed!

For exactly the same reason.....the TOCA at any airport should never be mistaken for a GOCA! (this point is 99/100 moot but....)

There was a time when the visual approach was just a seperation issue and missed approaches were considered valid......

AIM 9.6.1 correctly defines that this is no longer true.

The original post (while I get down from my soapbox) was about the issue of someone doing an IFR procedure after being cleared for a contact approach. Certainly, there was a precedent set for a violation....Certainly, there was a moment when the contact was no longer possible that IFR altitudes were at least unclear.

All that being true.....sometimes the weather changes and it sounds to me like the pilots did a very cool headed sweet ass job of getting their asses back to somewhere they knew they were safe! Do it again......

Provided that these guys did this as a matter of how the day went and not as an intentional thing........good on the controller for letting them away with it.

Fly well,

Gumbo

Pratt · Post by **Pratt** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:10 pm

gumbofats wrote:Asking for a contact approach absolutely kills your published missed approach. Burn it, wipe your ass with it, blow your nose on it.....whatever keeps you from thinking it means anything anymore.

Gumbo

Gumbo, I think you are wrong. When you are on a contact approach and lose visual contact you should go missed approach, common sense would dictate that you do the missed approach for the approach that you were deviating from while on your contact approach, or any missed approach procedure that will keep you safe. Once you are on the missed approach, you should advise ATC of that fact and request further clearance, that would include your request to go and do the GPS overlay or whatever other approach.

What PC-12 flyer is saying is that the guys just told FSS what they were doing without getting further clearance. Which I think is required before commencing another approach.

That is my understanding of it.

gumbofats · Post by **gumbofats** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:26 pm

What I was saying regarding the missed approach is not in contrast from what you say about what a pilot should do (necessarily) in the event they lose visual reference during a contact approach. My point is this. The missed approach is an IFR procedure based on climb gradients and IFR starting points. IF you deviate from the published IFR procedure.....as you do by going "contact" instead of following the IFR approach.....there is no guarantee that you can regain the profile of the IFR missed approach procedure.

I'll put this a few ways so it's clear. An IFR approach and missed approach has lateral boundaries defined by the sensitivity of the approach type......hence an ADF approach has higher minima than an ILS....agreed?

The reason for this is (most of the time) simply to guarantee terrain clearance. When you are on a contact approach you "MAY" deviate left/right and lower as necessary to maintain contact with the ground that will lead you to a visual landing. During these deviations there is no way of knowing that you may have vertical or lateral seperations from terrain....

And for an extreme example....Castlegar....

You can be 30 miles from the airport at right angles from the IFR approach and see the valley over Nelson, know the area, know the weather at Castlegar, etc......get the contact and safely conduct the CONTACT approachdown the valley way below sector. At no time during that would the safest missed approach be to fly the published missed......

I know that was an obtuse example but, even for the flatlanders out there the meaning of an IFR missed approach is still important.

And because of this...in the flatland starting a climbing turn toward the IFR fix....just makes good sense. (probably)

Better explanation or not?

Gumbo

Pratt · Post by **Pratt** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 7:16 pm

Yes, much better, in your first post it sounded like you were saying that you couldn't go missed off of a contact approach.

Your second post was much clearer and I totally agree with you.

Cheers

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:00 pm

I select the FAF on the GPS if there is any question of loosing the ground. Then (this is usually outside radar coverage) if the wx gets a little low, I just head there and turn left or right. This, and the fact you KNOW the cloud cover is high enough for a contact, you can descend at the FAF and regain visual...this works.

gumbofats · Post by **gumbofats** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:36 pm

I must be missing something....

"DOC"

If you leave the IFR profile during a contact approach, please do not assume that climbing towards the FAF has any guarantee of regaining the profile....

I never intended to say that lost as one might be during an event where one screwed up a contact approach that they shouldn't do what is prudent.

My point is simple.

The published IFR "go-around" is strictly terrain based on executing it during the IFR approach.

It is the same rule that dictates that if you begin a "missed" early you cannot turn until the MAP" (missed approach point)

If I can help anyone understand this better....PM me.

YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEED TERRAIN DURING A PUBLISHED MISSED APPROACH IF YOU DEVIATE DURING THE MANOUVERING OF A CONTACT APPROACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

iF YOU GET AWAY WITH THIS GREAT!

Don't try it everywhere.

I am not interested in a pissing contest.

Anyone who says I wrong on this....

Well,

Fly well without my kids onboard!

Gumbo

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:16 am

O.k. as far as what to do if you go IMC, you should have instructions given to you for that, the controller messed up and was lucky that he had no traffic around when the pilot chose his own missed as well as his next approach. Yes he needed a new clearance for that approach.

RAC 9.6.1 "(refering to ATC) ...and will issue specific missed approach instructions if there is any doubt that a landing will be accomplished."

As far as the "Roger advise when able" they probably are just getting you to confirm that you are 1mile and clear of cloud. Once they clear you for the contact, they are wiping their hands of your terrain clearance responsibility. If someone is IMC and knows the ceiling is just below VFR limits, they may request it before breaking out. This is poor practice but it probably happens regularly. I would think that the controller just wants to make sure that you are in fact visual with the ground at that point not just anticipating that you will be.

ahramin, you shouldn't request the visual just because you have the field in sight. There are certain forcast requirements required for a visual approach clearance. If it is VFR the controller will ask you to report the field in sight if he is anticipating you to break clear some distance away and have the airport in sight. If it is below limits, he can't offer the visual and needs you to request the contact. If you want a visual, you'd have to cancel IFR.

Jonathan_tcu, the pilot will do whatever he has to keep clear of terrain and cloud. If they're familiar with the area they may drop right down to the deck if they're not they may stay at their current altitude until visual.

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:22 pm

justplanecrazy wrote:ahramin, you shouldn't request the visual just because you have the field in sight. There are certain forcast requirements required for a visual approach clearance. If it is VFR the controller will ask you to report the field in sight if he is anticipating you to break clear some distance away and have the airport in sight. If it is below limits, he can't offer the visual and needs you to request the contact. If you want a visual, you'd have to cancel IFR.

Please note what we were talking about:

jonathan_tcu wrote:If the weather is wide open VFR, and pilots request a contact approach well before they get field visual, do they maintain the same altitude until they get field visual?

ahramin wrote:If the weather is wide open then you would have the field in sight some distance away and would request a visual, not a contact.