What's a Contact Approach?

skyflyer8

skyflyer8

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
967
Display Name
Display name:
skyflyr
Not "contact approach" as in "Cessna 12345, contact approach..." No, the other kind-- the one that is an instrument flying procedure.

Even though I'm rated to teach instruments, I don't understand the contact approach because my books don't give the topic much attention. In my limited IFR experience I haven't heard of the procedure being used.

What exactly is a "contact approach?" When and why would you request a contact approach? What's the difference between this and a regular visual approach?

From the AIM:

5-5-3. Contact Approach

a. Pilot.

1. Must request a contact approach and makes it in lieu of a standard or special instrument approach.

2. By requesting the contact approach, indicates that the flight is operating clear of clouds, has at least one mile flight visibility, and reasonably expects to continue to the destination airport in those conditions.

3. Assumes responsibility for obstruction clearance while conducting a contact approach.

4. Advises ATC immediately if unable to continue the contact approach or if encounters less than 1 mile flight visibility.

5. Is aware that if radar service is being received, it may be automatically terminated when told to contact the tower.
Click to expand...
(snipped the controller part)

Cloudbusters, please share your knowledge and experience! I know this is in the books and I can probably find more technical info, but I'm more interested in its practical use.
 
The simplest description of it I can come up with would be as if you were flying under SVFR but still on an IFR flight plan with separation provided.
 
I will answer using the Socratic method!
  1. At controlled airports, what are the minimum cloud clearance and visibility requirements for a visual approach? For VFR?
  2. Can ATC offer you a visual approach if conditions are below #1?
  3. Are most instrument approaches generally a pain in the *ss and do they burn more fuel compared to a more direct approach to the runway environment?
  4. Can you envision a scenario in which you can actually see the airport, want to save time and gas over the IAP but yet ATC cannot offer a visual approach and you can't legally cancel IFR due to minimums not being met?
Then the contact approach is for you!

BTW ya' have to request it, they ain't gonna offer it! If they could they'd give you the visual.
 
Last edited:
Generally, I expect to get a visual if the reported conditions are MVFR or better. A pilot can request a contact approach in weather worse than that. Generally, I wouldn't request it unless I was very familiar with the airport. EdFred could use it to get into 6Y9 in some pretty miserable conditions, even though it doesn't have an instrument approach. Without weather reporting, I don't think that ATC would offer a visual unless the AF's called for VFR.

Those with more experience, please speak up. These are my recollections; I haven't walked upstairs to grab my copy of the Instrument Flying Handbook!
 
Flying past RDU one day I heard the following exchange:

"Cessna N1234X conditions are IFR, expect the ILS 23L"
"Roger Cessna N1234X ILS 23L"
"Raleigh approach, N1234X has the airport in sight. Request the visual"
"Cessna 1234X condions are IFR at the airport, expect the ILS 23L"
"But N1234X has the airport in sight. Request the visual."
"Cessna N1234X conditions are IFR, turn the heading 300 and expect the ILS 23L."
"Cessna 1234X contact approach 23L."
"Roger 1234X magic words recieved contact approach 23L."

Basically, if the conditions are less than visual, but the aircraft can see the airport and proceed without losing sight of the runway environment and sucessfully complete the landing the pilot may request a contact approach. The pilot is the only one who can request this and it cannot even be suggested by ATC. The pilot is responsible for terrain and cloud clearance so you need to be very sure you can complete this approach sucessfully.

Hope this helps.
 
Mark's example is a good one. Like special VFR, this procedure must be requested by the pilot, who then assumes a large amount of extra responsibility for terrain and obstacle clearance.
 
gprellwitz said:
EdFred could use it to get into 6Y9 in some pretty miserable conditions, even though it doesn't have an instrument approach.
Click to expand...
Not really, because the airport to which the contact approach is made has to have an instrument approach procedure.

5-4-24. Contact Approach​
a. Pilots operating in accordance with an IFR flight plan, provided they are clear of clouds and have at least 1 mile flight visibility and can reasonably expect to continue to the destination airport in those conditions, may request ATC authorization for a contact approach. ​
b. Controllers may authorize a contact approach provided: ​
1. The contact approach is specifically requested by the pilot. ATC cannot initiate this approach. ​
EXAMPLE-
Request contact approach.​
2. The reported ground visibility at the destination airport is at least 1 statute mile. ​
3. The contact approach will be made to an airport having a standard or special instrument approach procedure. ​
4. Approved separation is applied between aircraft so cleared and between these aircraft and other IFR or special VFR aircraft. ​
EXAMPLE-
Cleared contact approach (and, if required) at or below (altitude) (routing) if not possible (alternative procedures) and advise.​
c. A contact approach is an approach procedure that may be used by a pilot (with prior authorization from ATC) in lieu of conducting a standard or special IAP to an airport. It is not intended for use by a pilot on an IFR flight clearance to operate to an airport not having a published and functioning IAP. Nor is it intended for an aircraft to conduct an instrument approach to one airport and then, when "in the clear," discontinue that approach and proceed to another airport. In the execution of a contact approach, the pilot assumes the responsibility for obstruction clearance. If radar service is being received, it will automatically terminate when the pilot is instructed to change to advisory frequency. ​
 
yea to get into 6Y9 youd have to shoot an approach into a nearby airport and then go SVFR if necessary.
 
Legalized scud-running.;)
FWIW, in all my years of flying, I can only recall using a contact approach once. I was heading into SBY from the northwest, with the weather called about 800 broken, visibility around 4 miles. They gave me the VOR 5 approach, and as I approached the on-airport VOR at 2000 feet, I could see the layer was closer to 50% than 80% cover, and the airport and runways were clearly visible. I asked for the contact, spiraled down over the approach end of 5, and landed. Be very wary of contact approaches in low vis -- that's what can really get you killed.
 
tonycondon said:
yea to get into 6Y9 youd have to shoot an approach into a nearby airport and then go SVFR if necessary.
Click to expand...
Except you can only go SVFR where the controlled airspace is to the ground, so it has to be truly VFR. But since it's class G, not much difference; 1 mile, clear of clouds day. He's under a Victor route, so it's class G only up to 1200' AGL. Of course, he might be going in there at night again!:hairraise:
 
Ron Levy said:
Legalized scud-running.;)
FWIW, in all my years of flying, I can only recall using a contact approach once. I was heading into SBY from the northwest, with the weather called about 800 broken, visibility around 4 miles. They gave me the VOR 5 approach, and as I approached the on-airport VOR at 2000 feet, I could see the layer was closer to 50% than 80% cover, and the airport and runways were clearly visible. I asked for the contact, spiraled down over the approach end of 5, and landed. Be very wary of contact approaches in low vis -- that's what can really get you killed.
Click to expand...
Amen!
 
NC Pilot said:
Basically, if the conditions are less than visual, but the aircraft can see the airport and proceed without losing sight of the runway environment
Click to expand...

IIRC, you don't even need to see the airport or runway environment, you just need to maintain ground contact without going below the prescribed WX mins on your path to the airport.

Example: Your airport is along the interstate, and you recognize where you are over the interstate, but can't see the airport. You can follow the road to the airport and land IF you don't go below the WX minimums.

Do I recall correctly?
 
Bill Jennings said:
IIRC, you don't even need to see the airport or runway environment, you just need to maintain ground contact without going below the prescribed WX mins on your path to the airport.

Example: Your airport is along the interstate, and you recognize where you are over the interstate, but can't see the airport. You can follow the road to the airport and land IF you don't go below the WX minimums.

Do I recall correctly?
Click to expand...

That is my understanding. Real IFR, as in I Follow Roads :eek:
 
Bill Jennings said:
Example: Your airport is along the interstate, and you recognize where you are over the interstate, but can't see the airport. You can follow the road to the airport and land IF you don't go below the WX minimums.

Do I recall correctly?
Click to expand...
Yes you do, but this should be done only in an area you are very familiar with. The risks are very high and the responsibility is all on the pilot's shoulders.
 
The most practical use of the Contact Approach IMO is to allow you to descend from the MIA before you have the airport in sight when the visibility is marginal VFR. Typically the other alternative is the visual approach which may leave you at 3000-4000 AGL until you spot the airport from 3-4 nm out (or less if the strip is hard to find visually) leaving little time to get to an altitude suitable for landing. Asking for a contact approach when you are 10 miles beyond visual range of the field relieves the controllers need to keep you at the MIA by shifting the terrain avoidance responsibility to the pilot.

Another far less common situation that begs for a contact approach is when there are scattered low clouds near the approach path and the AWOS is reporting IFR conditions. The reported weather precludes a visual approach even if you can clearly see the runway, a contact approach reduces the requirements from 3 miles and 1000 ft to 1 mile visibility and any ceiling.
 
Great explanations. In all my years of flying, I've only had a couple times I felt comfortable using it, but it's a good tool to have in the bag.

A perfect example for me is when flying to Portage C47 from Rockford KRFD when I visit my nieces. The GPS approach to 17 takes me right over the field at about 2,500 feet. If there is a break in the weather and I can see the field or prominent features near it, I can break off the approach and go in using the contract approach rather than going miles to the north, doing the procedure turn and coming back.

There were a couple times approach hinted to me where it was apparent they were thinking I might request one, but conditions were such that I just did the entire procedure to be safe.

Another consideration is where fields don't have a tower (like Portage) where other folks may be trying to get in or depart. From the time you are cleared for the approach until you call on the ground to cancel, the airspace is tied up. The contact approach may get you in quicker and allow others to use the space more quickly. A friend in the Chicago area is located under the Class B for Midway. In order to get in or depart, Midway traffic has to be clear and it can take quite a while. He was waiting to depart one day and sat at idle for 30 minutes while there was one arrival. There are times the contact approach could speed this up.

Best,

Dave
 
Here's another related question. If a pilot requests and receives clearance for a contact approach, can that be considered an "instrument approach" for the purpose of IFR currency? The AIM says that the phrase "cleared for the approach" gives the pilot authorization to execute the approach of his/h choice but specifically does not include a visual or contact approach.
That said, if you did do a contact approach in IMC, can you count it towards currency?
Bill
 
Bill M. said:
Here's another related question. If a pilot requests and receives clearance for a contact approach, can that be considered an "instrument approach" for the purpose of IFR currency? The AIM says that the phrase "cleared for the approach" gives the pilot authorization to execute the approach of his/h choice but specifically does not include a visual or contact approach.
That said, if you did do a contact approach in IMC, can you count it towards currency?
Bill
Click to expand...
That's a good question. I suspect that it would not (with no supporting evidence), and electing to not count it would be the conservative choice. It's one of the reasons I would tend to do the full approach, just to keep logging them.
 
gprellwitz said:
That's a good question. I suspect that it would not (with no supporting evidence), and electing to not count it would be the conservative choice. It's one of the reasons I would tend to do the full approach, just to keep logging them.
Click to expand...

I'm very certain that neither a visual or a contact approach can be applied to IFR currency requirements.
 
Doesn't apply to most of us. But my friend that flys part 135 says he has used them several times since the ops specs say he can't start the approach if the weather is REPORTED below minimums. BUT he CAN use a contact approach as others have described if he can see the airport. Usually a case where the is a cloud right over the ASOS.

Mark B
 
This is a helpful thread to those of us who have never flown one - sometimes better explanations than I've read in a stack of manuals! You guys may laugh but I probably wouldn't ask for one even if it occurred to me because I need all the experience of a full approach in IMC or SVFR-type conditions that I can get here in sunny southern CA. So I'd rather "pretend" that I couldn't see the field and do the full approach - it's money well spent for me. Now if I lived in Seattle or the NE on the other hand .......
 
Good thread. This was prompted by our first leg on the return from KLOM. We shot the ILS into KUNV but there had been some weather on the localizer that Center warned us about. We had the weather in sight, but I was curious if a contact approach would've allowed us to make a deviation to avoid it if needed. As it turned out, we didn't even get the plane wet during the approach.
 
We lost a freight dog in a Caravan about ?five? years ago at BMI on a contact approach. He tilted the radar down, found the 220KV power wires that run to the SW of the airport, and descended right down to 'em....with predictable results.
 
A big thanks to everyone for your helpful replies that have answered my question. This has been an educational thread. Now I finally understand what this type of approach is all about.
 
Bill M. said:
If a pilot requests and receives clearance for a contact approach, can that be considered an "instrument approach" for the purpose of IFR currency?
Click to expand...
No. This is not covered explicitly in 61.57(c), but is discussed in a Chief Counsel interpretation -- only published instrument approach procedures count. Also, IIRC, the proposed changes to Part 61 make this clearer by requiring the approaches to be three precision and three nonprecision -- and a contact approach is neither.
 
Ron Levy said:
No. This is not covered explicitly in 61.57(c), but is discussed in a Chief Counsel interpretation -- only published instrument approach procedures count. Also, IIRC, the proposed changes to Part 61 make this clearer by requiring the approaches to be three precision and three nonprecision -- and a contact approach is neither.
Click to expand...

Ron,
I've seen others mention three precision and three nonprecision approaches under the proposed Part 61 change. I've read through the proposed change several times and can't find that. I see where it says six approaches consisting of precision and nonprecision, but not specifically three of each. I read it as six approaches with at least one in one category and the remainder in the other. I'm not shooting arrows here, but wondering what I am missing. If it is three and three, will you point me to the correct paragraph? Thanks.

gary
 
Last edited:
ghogue said:
I've seen others mention three precision and three nonprecision approaches under the proposed Part 61 change. I've read through the proposed change several times and can't find that. I see where it says six approaches consisting of precision and nonprecision, but not specifically three of each.
Click to expand...
My error, but it does say "Six instrument approaches consisting of both precision and nonprecision approaches." Since a contact is neither, it wouldn't count.
 
Ron Levy said:
My error, but it does say "Six instrument approaches consisting of both precision and nonprecision approaches." Since a contact is neither, it wouldn't count.
Click to expand...

Ron,
Thanks. I wasn't referring to the comments about a contact (or visual approach for that matter), just the number of approaches. As I mentioned, I had heard others mention 3 and 3 and thought perhaps I had mis-read the proposal.

gary
 
Bump...

Here's another good thread that I found on a search. Could have used a contact approach the other day if I'd have read this before I went!
 
skyflyer8 said:
Not "contact approach" as in "Cessna 12345, contact approach..." No, the other kind-- the one that is an instrument flying procedure.

Even though I'm rated to teach instruments, I don't understand the contact approach because my books don't give the topic much attention. In my limited IFR experience I haven't heard of the procedure being used.

What exactly is a "contact approach?" When and why would you request a contact approach? What's the difference between this and a regular visual approach?

From the AIM:


(snipped the controller part)

Cloudbusters, please share your knowledge and experience! I know this is in the books and I can probably find more technical info, but I'm more interested in its practical use.
Click to expand...

I have used contact approaches many times (the sky does get pretty low in Northwest Washington). To do one safely requires sufficient knowledge of the terrain and landmarks around the airport to enable the pilot to follow visual clues until the landing runway pops into view. It's not something you would want to do at a strange airport.

Use Google Earth or www.runwayfinder.com to look at Fairchild International (CLM). See where the trees have been cut down to make a clearway to runway 13? Fly along the shoreline until you reach that cutout and you have the ability to enter a pattern to 8-26. That's just one example.

Bob Gardner
 
The one time that I requested a contact approach--right overhead my home airport--I was denied. Apparently, a contact approach requires a weather observer on the ground to certify that the visibility is adequate (1 mi?). I don't think that the guy in the FBO on Unicom counts, either.

Wells
 
W. Stewart said:
The one time that I requested a contact approach--right overhead my home airport--I was denied. Apparently, a contact approach requires a weather observer on the ground to certify that the visibility is adequate (1 mi?). I don't think that the guy in the FBO on Unicom counts, either.
Click to expand...

ORDER JO 7110.65S Air Traffic Control

Chapter 7. VISUAL

Section 4. Approaches

7-4-6. CONTACT APPROACH
​
Clear an aircraft for a contact approach only if the following conditions are met: ​

a. The pilot has requested it. ​

NOTE-
When executing a contact approach, the pilot is responsible for maintaining the required flight visibility, cloud clearance, and terrain/obstruction clearance. Unless otherwise restricted, the pilot may find it necessary to descend, climb, and/or fly a circuitous route to the airport to maintain cloud clearance and/or terrain/obstruction clearance. It is not in any way intended that controllers will initiate or suggest a contact approach to a pilot. ​

b. The reported ground visibility is at least 1 statute mile. ​

c. A standard or special instrument approach procedure has been published and is functioning for the airport of intended landing. ​

d. Approved separation is applied between aircraft so cleared and other IFR or SVFR aircraft. When applying vertical separation, do not assign a fixed altitude but clear the aircraft at or below an altitude which is at least 1,000 feet below any IFR traffic but not below the minimum safe altitude prescribed in 14 CFR Section 91.119. ​

NOTE-
14 CFR Section 91.119 specifies the minimum safe altitude to be flown:
(a) Anywhere.
(b) Over congested areas.
(c) Other than congested areas. To provide for an emergency landing in the event of power failure and without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(d) Helicopters. May be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paras (b) and (c) above if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. ​

e. An alternative clearance is issued when weather conditions are such that a contact approach may be impracticable. ​

PHRASEOLOGY-
CLEARED CONTACT APPROACH,

And if required,
AT OR BELOW (altitude) (routing).

IF NOT POSSIBLE, (alternative procedures), AND ADVISE.​
 
W. Stewart said:
The one time that I requested a contact approach--right overhead my home airport--I was denied. Apparently, a contact approach requires a weather observer on the ground to certify that the visibility is adequate (1 mi?). I don't think that the guy in the FBO on Unicom counts, either.

Wells
Click to expand...
In order for it to be approved, there must be an approved IAP at that airport and reported weather must be ground visibility of one mile. If your AWOS isn't available to the controller, you're not likely to get it.

Even if those are met, the controller is not obligated to approve it as long as you're under IFR.

Edit: To help with the flip-side of what Steven quoted, Contact Approaches are dealt with in AIM 5-4-24.
 
gprellwitz said:
True, thanks for reminding me. And I doubt his self-published ones would pass muster!:no::D
Click to expand...

Well the rule does say "published" not "FAA approved" so I guess if Ed got the local paper to include it in an issue it would be legal to use.:D
 
lancefisher said:
Well the rule does say "published" not "FAA approved" so I guess if Ed got the local paper to include it in an issue it would be legal to use.:D
Click to expand...
Tell ya what. You try explaining to ATC over the air that the approach really has been published by the airport manager and let me know how that works for y'all!:yes::goofy:
 
It was suggested that a contact approach could be used to land at an airport with a published procedure (like a NDB ) but whose device is not currently working. Since you're able to navigate to the airport by some other method, and you can see your way to it, you can ask for a contact approach.
As an example, Marshfiled MA (GHG) has a NDB which no longer is operative. They also have two GPS approaches. I can find my way to the airport using 2 VORs (one is 30 miles north, the other is about 23 miles southeast). Marshfield has an NDB. Vis is a mile with a 1,500 foot ceiling. So would this be a valid "Contact"?
 
silver-eagle said:
It was suggested that a contact approach could be used to land at an airport with a published procedure (like a NDB ) but whose device is not currently working. Since you're able to navigate to the airport by some other method, and you can see your way to it, you can ask for a contact approach.
Click to expand...

The requirement is a standard or special instrument approach procedure has been published and is functioning for the airport of intended landing.

As an example, Marshfiled MA (GHG) has a NDB which no longer is operative. They also have two GPS approaches. I can find my way to the airport using 2 VORs (one is 30 miles north, the other is about 23 miles southeast). Marshfield has an NDB. Vis is a mile with a 1,500 foot ceiling. So would this be a valid "Contact"?
Click to expand...

Maybe. The requirements for a contact approach include a published standard or special instrument approach procedure at the airport of intended landing and that it be functioning. The NDB approach at GHG doesn't qualify because the NDB is out of service. It appears you lack GPS, else you probably wouldn't be using VOR to find the field. So does a GPS approach that you're not equipped to fly qualify for the contact approach IAP requirement? Well, it doesn't specifically state that the pilot must be able to fly the IAP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top