Contact approach

I've heard that ATC may give you a maximum altitude. As for minimum altitude, I'm not sure how far you can be from the airport and still have the "when necessary for takeoff or landing" exception apply to the minimum altitude rules of 91.119.
 
There is no specific exception for contact approaches in 91.119, but there are also no legal cases in the NTSB file on point. One assumes that you are not to climb above your last assigned altitude (it just makes procedural sense from a traffic separation standpoint), but again, that's not specifically stated anywhere. So, if you don't climb to the point where you cause a traffic conflict, and you don't hit the ground or anything attached to it, and you aren't doing anything silly like flying at 100 AGL from five miles out and scaring all the neighbors, I don't think the FAA will care much about the altitude you fly during a contact approach.
 
That's what I thought, you can do much as you please - I am amazed that this has not been abused to the point of cfit or removal of the option by the FAA.
Anyone want to guess at what point atc would offer low altitude warnings? The same as the approach it is predicated upon? (I had not considered higher excursions, only lower. ie a guy could drop into a hole and scud along at 100'agl for 5 miles and still be mostly legal....but!)
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
That's what I thought, you can do much as you please - I am amazed that this has not been abused to the point of cfit or removal of the option by the FAA.
Click to expand...
I guess it's because not enough pilots are dumb enough to abuse contact approaches this way -- the NTSB doesn't list any accidents involving contact approaches in the last 10 years. Heck, most pilots don't even seem to know they exist, and since they have to be requested by the pilot, that means they aren't often issued.
Anyone want to guess at what point atc would offer low altitude warnings?
Click to expand...
I suspect most contact approaches occur below radar coverage, so the controller can't tell what you're doing.
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
That's what I thought, you can do much as you please - I am amazed that this has not been abused to the point of cfit or removal of the option by the FAA.
Anyone want to guess at what point atc would offer low altitude warnings? The same as the approach it is predicated upon? (I had not considered higher excursions, only lower. ie a guy could drop into a hole and scud along at 100'agl for 5 miles and still be mostly legal....but!)
Click to expand...

I don't think I'd do that even over the ocean unless it was some sort of dire emergency. When I was scud running up the Pacific Coast in the 1990s, my personal minimum over the water was 500 MSL, and I would only go lower for a short time, and only if I could see better conditions on the other side of the obscuring phenomenon.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
That's what I thought, you can do much as you please - I am amazed that this has not been abused to the point of cfit or removal of the option by the FAA.
Click to expand...

CFIT accidents have happened on visual approaches (night time mainly) so I wouldn't doubt if it has occurred in the past. I think with the advent of RNAV procedures and the associated ability to have an approach at airports previously without any approaches that the number of pilots who may be able to utilize a contact approach will dwindle down to nothing in the next 10 years. As it is right now, the most common use of the contact approach that I have seen were when the ceilings were below that required for a visual approach and the pilot's didn't want to waste time with a full procedure approach (non-radar environment - like Ron said). So far, from what I have seen, there are very few pilot's who use a contact approach in weather conditions that are anywhere close to the minimums for a contact approach. Most seem to use better judgement and go land at a more suitable airport.



Anyone want to guess at what point atc would offer low altitude warnings? The same as the approach it is predicated upon? (I had not considered higher excursions, only lower. ie a guy could drop into a hole and scud along at 100'agl for 5 miles and still be mostly legal....but!)
Click to expand...
That would depend on a couple of things.... First, can they see you at that airport, and second what type of altitude alert system do they have. Some have an MSAW system where a computer calculates the descent rate and issues a warning when the aircraft (on an unchanged descent path) is projected to impact terrain within so many seconds -- I think it's 30 but not certain. Other then that, I believe the only other warning they are supposed to give would be to notify you that the MVA/MIA is above you if you were to ask for any terrain seperation assistance (as in - asking the controler what the lowest altitude they may suggest for the contact approach).

I think if someone were to ever plan on doing a contact approach, the most prudent plan would be to evaluate the sectional chart and topography around the airport.... and from that you would derive your minimum altitude for your contact approach.

I'm not sure if you were suggesting it.... from what you said about scud running, I don't think ATC would want you to stay in the system that long? I've never done anything like it... but, I'd imagine most controllers would not like a pilot flying a contact approach to one airport and not cancelling until on the ground at another --- I'll have to go double check real quick, but I don't think you can shoot a contact approach to an airport that does not have a SIAP in the first place...... I think that until you cancel you tie up departures and arrivals at the first airport you were using to get below the scud.

Bob
 
bob_albertson said:
I'll have to go double check real quick, but I don't think you can shoot a contact approach to an airport that does not have a SIAP in the first place
Click to expand...

You are correct.
 
I have used the procedure once, and from the speed with which the controllers cleared me and handed me off to tower, I think they were tickled I remembered it.

Nearly entire terrain between me and runway was over water, and doing so allowed me to avoid being vectored into a storm on the Loc approach; it was the perfect scenario for the use of Contact App. Had I been just a little closer to the field (behind and to right), I could have called a Visual.

I would not request one if not very certain of terrain and ability to reach the runway without danger (and that is the intent).
 
i once really wished i had had the presence of mind to request a contact approach. filed was reporting somewhere between 3 and 5 miles and i was coming in from the east, not really aligned with any of the approaches. it was the home base so i figured i could get the visual no problems. only problem was i had to stay up at 3 or 4000 for MVA until i had field in sight and didn't pick up the field until 3 miles out. had to dump a lot of altitude in a hurry. once i landed i realized if i had just asked for a contact approach i could've started my descent at a more reasonable distance out and still made it in just fine.
 
Thanks.
It sounds tremendously useful.....and in the wrong hands, great potential for misuse.
I can think back to a few times when I could have used it safely and successfully.
 
It is a good way to get into an airport where "special VFR" is not allowed. Portland Oregon comes to mind, after cruising through the Columbia Gorge.
 
SCCutler said:
I have used the procedure once ... it was the perfect scenario for the use of Contact App. Had I been just a little closer to the field (behind and to right), I could have called a Visual.
Click to expand...

I've similarly used it only a couple of times. Both instances were at an airport where there is often a coastal layer, but only over part of the airport (and not over the runway at all). It was essentially visual conditions, except for the layer at the opposite end of the airport.

In general, though, I think that it's a good thing that contact approaches don't get used that often.
 
kgruber said:
It is a good way to get into an airport where "special VFR" is not allowed. Portland Oregon comes to mind, after cruising through the Columbia Gorge.
Click to expand...

Probably not that good. A contact approach would probably be denied for the same reasons SVFR is not allowed.
 
someone use their googlefu to search for 'contact approach' in the ntsb reports. Just curious.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Are there any altitude limitations during a contact approach?
Click to expand...

Possibly. The controller might issue an altitude restriction that provides vertical separation between the aircraft on the contact approach and higher aircraft overflying the area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top