Anyone Request Contact Approaches Anymore

B

bonefishpete

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Nov 10, 2024
Messages
1,361
Display Name
Bonefishpete
Contact Approach 1 mile flight visibility and clear of clouds. Does ATC controllers even know about them now a days?
 
Used to flying into east Hampton years back

Been a long time since I used that tool recently
 
I’ve gotten more resistance from the people I fly with than from ATC. The only times ATC has refused was because they said pilots were requesting them and not finding the airport.
 
Like having a 7.5 mm socket in your toolbox, it's nice when you need it.
 
Seems similar risk to circling.
So many good approaches down to 300’, can’t see why.
Save a few minutes,do legal scud run?
 
bonefishpete said:
Contact Approach 1 mile flight visibility and clear of clouds. Does ATC controllers even know about them now a days?
Click to expand...
And you don't have to have the airport in sight, which is a critical distinction from a visual approach. And a big risk - you've got to know what you're doing and be familiar with the area.
 
I request them with some regularity. I've run into controllers unfamiliar with them who have delayed approval due to that lack of familiarity. One even apologized to me because he delayed approval; that's not a problem as I've caused the controllers more grief then they have ever caused me.

I've had them refused due to ASOS being out of service as weather at destination is required. I will never request them at night. Most of the time I request them is going into my home airport. Home airport approach only gets to 1600 AGL. I'm obviously very familiar with the area. Clouds frequently break up in the raising terrain around my airport which can result in clear pathways to navigate visually though still in legal instrument conditions.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Seems similar risk to circling.
So many good approaches down to 300’, can’t see why.
Save a few minutes,do legal scud run?
Click to expand...
Not every contact approach has to be at the minimum one mile vis. And if you’ve don’t leave MVA until you see the airport, you’re just as well protected as on a visual.
 
The question about whether or not the cintroller would have a clue what you want is a good one. From what I’ve heard, it depends on the facility and which controller is on the radio.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The question about whether or not the cintroller would have a clue what you want is a good one. From what I’ve heard, it depends on the facility and which controller is on the radio.
Click to expand...

The procedure is still covered by Order JO 7110.65W which means any controller is responsible to be familiar with it. If the controller sitting in position isn't then the supervisor should be.
 
Doc Holliday said:
The procedure is still covered by Order JO 7110.65W which means any controller is responsible to be familiar with it. If the controller sitting in position isn't then the supervisor should be.
Click to expand...
I know it’s covered. It has to be. But people are people.
 
Never used this as I just go with an approach route as the controllers are familiar with the routing, I don't have to worry about obstacles within the protected area, and the adventurous local pilots will have a good idea of where to expect traffic in dubious VFR weather.

Can see the value in saving a bit of fuel and extending the TBO date by cutting a corner. Makes sense. At the same time, it is rare when my destination field is the only one within 10 - 15 miles which raises the risk from somebody else deciding to fly a marginally legal scud run. Sure, the controller will allegedly spot another aircraft squawking VFR. But then again, I also can think of at least two airports, one of which is a popular location, both have other airfields nearby, where RADAR coverage is spotty and controllers legally terminate RADAR coverage between IAF and FAF.

So, there is a fair amount of "it depends" to the decision.
 
I've used it once, and it was a lifesaver.

Flying into Pensacola from the west, being vectored for the approach, I'm something like number 5 or 6 for the approach (behind a buynch of Navy Texan 2s). Vectoring is going to take me way out over the gulf and into some pretty vigorous clouds with embedded nastiness.

Meanwhile, airport has about a 1500' ceiling and I'm flying over Escambia Bay at 3,500 or so, looking down at (1) the bay (in clear view), and (2) the edge of the clouds that are covering the airport, and looking ahead at the wall of doom into which I'm being expected to fly.

I asked for the Contact Approach and was instantly cleared for it and handed off to Tower. Gear down, right 180, descend under the clouds to see the airport clearly and easily, landed without incident or risk. The T6 pilots and their IPs were taxiing in one by one to the FBO, and they were plenty sweaty from flying through all that crap.

I was *very* happy to have the Contact Approach as an option; it was safer and faster. I would never use a contact approach in lieu of an IAP where the IAP is needed to safely navigate to the field, but in this instance, it was the right tool for the job.
 
Out of curiosity, how long ago was this? Before ATC had weather RADAR?

Reason for the question is that I am now finding it difficult to fly through any clouds with precipitation and ATC turns me rather than send me through. Sometimes the clouds are not dropping the rain yet, but are wet enough to paint returns. Before ATC had weather RADAR, the pilot definitely had to firmly advocate routing to avoid visible nastiness.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Not every contact approach has to be at the minimum one mile vis. And if you’ve don’t leave MVA until you see the airport, you’re just as well protected as on a visual.
Click to expand...
Contract approaches are not utilized much these days. The question is the age of RNAV and increased situational awareness is why not?

A contact approach is simply an IFR procedure initiated by a pilot to land at an airport in visual conditions (at least 1 SM visibility, clear of clouds) without completing the full instrument approach.
 
SkyGazer said:
Out of curiosity, how long ago was this? Before ATC had weather RADAR?

Reason for the question is that I am now finding it difficult to fly through any clouds with precipitation and ATC turns me rather than send me through. Sometimes the clouds are not dropping the rain yet, but are wet enough to paint returns. Before ATC had weather RADAR, the pilot definitely had to firmly advocate routing to avoid visible nastiness.
Click to expand...
Probably 6-8 years ago?

They had radar, and they had their hands FULL of people looking to get on the ground before the worst hit. It was pop-up, vigorous and fast-moving weather. Hell, it was the Gulf Coast in summer. Normal.
 
Clip4 said:
Contract approaches are not utilized much these days. The question is the age of RNAV and increased situational awareness is why not?

A contact approach is simply an IFR procedure initiated by a pilot to land at an airport in visual conditions (at least 1 SM visibility, clear of clouds) without completing the full instrument approach.
Click to expand...
As is a visual approach, and I do them both for the same reasons.
 
In both of the contact approaches that I recall, I was on the verge of of being late for an event. In one of them I was over the Monterey Bay shoreline and about to overfly the marine layer. The reported ceiling was something like 1500, so I asked for a contact approach to MRY instead of the ILS, which goes out over the cold Pacific waters. (My IFR instructor liked to refer to this as "the shark approach.") After what seemed like a (relatively brief) stunned silence, I was cleared for the contact approach, so I spiraled down while I was still over the clear area and flew under the marine layer just offshore.

For the other contact approach, I was at something like 4,000 or 6,000 MSL over the Sacramento Valley with McClellan Airfield in sight. I requested a visual approach, but the airport was reporting two miles visibility (via AWOS, I believe), so ATC could not clear me for it. I asked for a contact approach and landed without issue. I landed long, so as to shorten the taxi time. (This was after the field became public use, so there was no longer an operating control tower.)

One time I asked for a contact approach when I was returning to Palo Alto Airport during a presidential TFR centered on San Francisco. (IIRC, Palo Alto had an instrument approach by this time, but the rental plane was not equipped to fly it.) The reported ceiling was high enough for a visual approach, but ATC didn't want to give me that, in spite of the fact that the reported ceiling and visibility were high enough. There was a large hole in the clouds over San Jose Airport, so I asked for a contact approach, but he suggested canceling IFR instead. Taken literally, the wording of the TFR did not allow that, but when I questioned it the controller assured me it was OK since I was in contact with him. I figured that he was the one in contact with armed aircraft, so I went along with it, spiraled down, and landed with no problem.

From that I concluded that a contact approach under class B airspace was unlikely to be granted (although I never had occasion to ask for one near a class B airport again).
 
Last edited:
Only issued one contact approach before while working arrival / approach. I knew darn well what it was but couldn’t believe the pilot that requested it knew what it was.

Basically had an F-18 on right dogleg for a PAR to rwy 23. Busy as crap and the final controller lost radar contact on him. I identified him (ident) and told him I’d sequence him back for another PAR. He immediately (to my surprise) asked for a contact. I knew darn well if I didn’t give it he would declare either min fuel or even emergency fuel. By this time he was too far to make a hole on rwy 23 so I asked if he could accept a contact to the crossing runway 32. He replied yes and I cleared him with that restriction. Unfortunately tower had an HH-46 on runway 32, they sent my F-18 around and he ended up declaring emergency fuel anyway. So yeah, my one and only contact as a controller was a **** show. :confused:
 
I just did one back late last year going into KSGJ. They are notorious for calling IMC weather to keep the kids out of the traffic pattern. Daytona approach was getting ready to hand me off and told me to expect the RNAV in. I told approach that I was at 5000' and could literally see the airport from almost 20 miles out. They simply replied the KSGJ was calling it IMC and set me up to be vectored to the IAF for Rwy 13.

I told them that I wanted a contact approach and they replied they would work on it for me. After switching me over to tower, the tower gave me the contact approach (still in VMC) and I didn't have to fly past the airport by 15 miles. The ground controller made a quick comment about me asking for the contact approach saying not too many people know about it and even fewer use it.

FWIW, my son, who was working on his instrument rating and had already passed the written had no idea what it was.
 
I've only requested a contact approach a few times, all under the same circumstances: While being vectored for the ILS that's on the other side of the airport, the clouds break an opening and allow a nice view of the airport and mostly clear air between me and the airport. Easily allowing time and abundant VMC conditions to reduce power, dirty up, and descend to land.
 
I'd absolutely use one if the situation called for it.

The one I can remember best, I was coming into an airport from the southeast, winds favored landing to the south, and doing the RNAV approach would have added ~20-25 miles to the trip. ATC got me as low as they could, but there was a scattered to broken layer at maybe 1500 AGL with tops below me and I couldn't see the airport. However, I could easily see the Interstate that ran just along the north side of the airport. Requested a contact approach, navigated via the "other IFR" (I Follow Roads) to a left base for 18 and landed. Easy peasy.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I'd absolutely use one if the situation called for it.

The one I can remember best, I was coming into an airport from the southeast, winds favored landing to the south, and doing the RNAV approach would have added ~20-25 miles to the trip. ATC got me as low as they could, but there was a scattered to broken layer at maybe 1500 AGL with tops below me and I couldn't see the airport. However, I could easily see the Interstate that ran just along the north side of the airport. Requested a contact approach, navigated via the "other IFR" (I Follow Roads) to a left base for 18 and landed. Easy peasy.
Click to expand...
I pretty much quit following roads in crappy weather (not that I ever really did) when, as part of a 4-ship flying to Green Bay during Oshkosh week, I saw 6 airplanes below us following the highway coming up to Fon Du Lac from the south. We were at 600 feet and they were below us. I know they were following the highway because they all followed the S-curve.
 
Why I asked is SUA has a rnav 30 approach which can with vectors take SE planes well offshore. This winter I saw many SE aircraft 5-10 miles offshore at 2K. Some days they had small craft advisories out.

I never requested any contact approaches as in the old days our airport had a Grumman run tower but no approaches or control zones. It was a mile clear of clouds airport. We had other ways of getting in.
 
I've only used it once, but it really helped me learn what a contact approach is good for. I'll admit the study material for the rating doesn't give much in the way of usable detail, at least to me. The only thing I remembered about the contact approach was that I had to have 1 mile vis, clear of clouds, and had to request it.

My one and only was on one of my first Part 135 trips. I was PF, while my mentor and instructor was PM. We were coming back to our home drome, solid overcast about 2,000 AGL, right at MVA, and spotty rain showers obscuring visibility. We were really hoping for the visual to avoid having to fly out the full procedure from the opposite direction, but were in and out of the bases. About the time we were going to give up we hit a small hole in the clouds, directly over my house 5 miles from the airport. We didn't have the airport because of the rain showers, but I knew exactly where I was and knew I could get to the airport safely. That's when the PM piped up, let's ask for the contact approach! That was my Ah Ha moment for contact approaches.

Never been in the same situation again, so haven't been able to use one since. But now I understand and could better teach it to my instrument students. I try to draw comparisons to Special VFR. A contact approach is similar to Special VFR, except while on an IFR clearance.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I've only used it once, but it really helped me learn what a contact approach is good for. I'll admit the study material for the rating doesn't give much in the way of usable detail, at least to me. The only thing I remembered about the contact approach was that I had to have 1 mile vis, clear of clouds, and had to request it.

My one and only was on one of my first Part 135 trips. I was PF, while my mentor and instructor was PM. We were coming back to our home drome, solid overcast about 2,000 AGL, right at MVA, and spotty rain showers obscuring visibility. We were really hoping for the visual to avoid having to fly out the full procedure from the opposite direction, but were in and out of the bases. About the time we were going to give up we hit a small hole in the clouds, directly over my house 5 miles from the airport. We didn't have the airport because of the rain showers, but I knew exactly where I was and knew I could get to the airport safely. That's when the PM piped up, let's ask for the contact approach! That was my Ah Ha moment for contact approaches.

Never been in the same situation again, so haven't been able to use one since. But now I understand and could better teach it to my instrument students. I try to draw comparisons to Special VFR. A contact approach is similar to Special VFR, except while on an IFR clearance.
Click to expand...
A cruise clearance is good for when those breaks in the clouds are too small to request and receive a contact approach.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I pretty much quit following roads in crappy weather (not that I ever really did) when, as part of a 4-ship flying to Green Bay during Oshkosh week, I saw 6 airplanes below us following the highway coming up to Fon Du Lac from the south. We were at 600 feet and they were below us. I know they were following the highway because they all followed the S-curve.
Click to expand...
Heh. My instructor told our ground school class, "When you follow railroad tracks to be sure to stay on the right side or you'll meet Arthur Godfrey comin' down the other way!"
 
Last edited:
There was a SoCal controller on the now-defunct AOPA forum (the "red board") who regarded contact approaches as suicidal. I tried to explain that there are circumstances in which they can be done safely, but I don't think I convinced him.
 
Velocity173 said:
Only issued one contact approach before while working arrival / approach. I knew darn well what it was but couldn’t believe the pilot that requested it knew what it was.

Basically had an F-18 on right dogleg for a PAR to rwy 23. Busy as crap and the final controller lost radar contact on him. I identified him (ident) and told him I’d sequence him back for another PAR. He immediately (to my surprise) asked for a contact. I knew darn well if I didn’t give it he would declare either min fuel or even emergency fuel. By this time he was too far to make a hole on rwy 23 so I asked if he could accept a contact to the crossing runway 32. He replied yes and I cleared him with that restriction. Unfortunately tower had an HH-46 on runway 32, they sent my F-18 around and he ended up declaring emergency fuel anyway. So yeah, my one and only contact as a controller was a **** show. :confused:
Click to expand...
How could he have been on the dogleg for 23 without a ‘hole’ on 23?
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
The question about whether or not the cintroller would have a clue what you want is a good one. From what I’ve heard, it depends on the facility and which controller is on the radio.
Click to expand...
Wanna have some fun? Put a bunch of Controllers in a room with a keg of beer, yell Contact Approach, and lock the door.
 
luvflyin said:
How could he have been on the dogleg for 23 without a ‘hole’ on 23?
Click to expand...
Well because of the nature of the clearance, it allows them to navigate as necessary to the airport. I have to resolve any potential conflicts before clearing him. There was no way I could ensure radar sep with the F-18 in front (his lead) or the flight of two now on right base behind him. No way I was getting visual sep with 2 miles vis either. If was safer to just let him extend a bit south of final, then clear him with the restriction for 32. Even that was pushing it because a contact approach intent is to navigate to the airport and not direct a specific runway. But, he accepted that restriction so I rolled with it.
 
Last edited:
Surprised at the rarity of experience in these. Most often they just help with the last few miles of a visual approach where the controller bails out and wants to give vectors to an IAP, but the pilot has everything under control and sees the runway or a familiar landmark close to the airport to visually navigate from. Usually, around here, it's due to a snow shower moving over part of the airport. It isn't something you do from, say, 10 miles out.
 
bonefishpete said:
Why I asked is SUA has a rnav 30 approach which can with vectors take SE planes well offshore. This winter I saw many SE aircraft 5-10 miles offshore at 2K. Some days they had small craft advisories out.

I never requested any contact approaches as in the old days our airport had a Grumman run tower but no approaches or control zones. It was a mile clear of clouds airport. We had other ways of getting in.
Click to expand...
What airport is that that had Grumman run tower?
 
Velocity173 said:
Well because of the nature of the clearance, it allows them to navigate as necessary to the airport. I have to resolve any potential conflicts before clearing him. There was no way I could ensure radar sep with the F-18 in front (his lead) or the flight of two now on right base behind him. No way I was getting visual sep with 2 miles vis either. If was safer to just let him extend a bit south of final, then clear him with the restriction for 32. Even that was pushing it because a contact approach intent is to navigate to the airport and not direct a specific runway. But, he accepted that restriction so I rolled with it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, relying on him to just continue straight in, in the hole he was already in, could have gone wrong. How did things work out at the runway intersection? That could have been an adventure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top