Local Altimeter Setting?

th
 
MauleSkinner said:
Maybe your understanding of English and common knowlege is a little weak. Even if anyone didn't know that an AC wasn't binding, surely they wouldn't believe that a CANCELED AC was binding.

If you want to argue that someone can sit on the ramp in their airplane and provide a usable altimeter setting, fine. If you want to try to pick nits that aren't there, don't waste your time. I'm done wasting mine.
Click to expand...
How'd I get drug into this. My shootin the approach thing was pure punchline. I say it all the time. My bad for doing it as a reply to your post.
 
luvflyin said:
Yup. They should. Many of those who won't do it are familiar with it. In dense airspace with lotsa other airplanes around, a "Contact Approach gone 'wrong'" can be a controllers worst nightmare. Some just refuse. Some know when, where and how to do it.
Click to expand...

Traffic is a valid reason for refusing a request for a contact approach. Or any other request.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Maybe your understanding of English and common knowlege is a little weak.
Click to expand...

They're not. Nor is my spelling.

If you want to argue that someone can sit on the ramp in their airplane and provide a usable altimeter setting, fine. If you want to try to pick nits that aren't there, don't waste your time. I'm done wasting mine.
Click to expand...

I just asked what the law had to say about it. You obviously didn't know, you could have saved more time by not responding.
 
A contact approach from KEUG or KSLE might have worked, or in truth even VFR at 1500 or so as visibility was 6+ under the layer but I don't think the MVAs would have been low enough to get me below the layer to begin it without an approach somewhere. From the east the MEA on the airway is 3000 and the layer was about 2000-3000 and I didn't see any obvious holes.
 
chartbundle said:
A contact approach from KEUG or KSLE might have worked, or in truth even VFR at 1500 or so as visibility was 6+ under the layer but I don't think the MVAs would have been low enough to get me below the layer to begin it without an approach somewhere. From the east the MEA on the airway is 3000 and the layer was about 2000-3000 and I didn't see any obvious holes.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, given the weather, I would have had no problem with just doing the CVO approach. Yeah, it would've been violating the letter of the law, but not the intent. If something had gone wrong and your flight investigated it might have come out that you had violated local altimeter needed, with or without that Note. As far as doing a "contact approach 'From' EUG or SLE" you wouldn't do that. If you wanted to use a Contact Approach to accept the responsibility for terrain clearance instead of using the altitudes on the Approach Chart, which you can't legally do without the local altimeter setting, you would just do a Contact Approach to CVO.
 
roncachamp said:
Note that the "contact" in contact approach comes from contact flying, what we now call pilotage. Flying an ILS when cleared for a contact approach may not strictly violate any regulation but it's definitely inconsistent with the spirit of the procedure.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The whole point is so you don't have to go "way out there" following all the pretty bold black lines on the chart when you can damn well just point your plane at the airport, get down and land without bumping into rocks and stuff.
 
luvflyin said:
All the approaches at KOTH have Amendment dates of 25JUN15. None of them say anything about 'altimeter.' None of the subjects on the Charting Forums list of things they're working on mentions altimeter. Has anyone found any other approaches that say N/A without local altimeter?
Click to expand...
Well, there's one theory down the toilet ;)
 
I managed a private airport with a ADF and later GPS approach, We had two altimeters at the airport, you would set them both to the airport elevation. They had to be within a certain range, I cannot remember the range. Then you gave the airplane the lowest of the two barometric pressures. Just like an airplane we had to have the altimeters recertified every 2 years.
 
mscard88 said:
How can they refuse it? Thought they would have to?
Click to expand...
Why would they have to? What if, for example, separation requirements preclude a pilot meandering around? Emergencies aside, I can't think of many pilot requests ATC has to go along with.
 
Well because they are there to provide a service. Obviously if other traffic precludes issuing a clearance then that's understandable. But to refuse a contact approach clearance because they're not familiar with it, when it's in the controller handbook (7110.65), is not a valid reason in my opinion. When I was a controller years ago I don't recall ever issuing one (may have, don't recall) but if requested from a pilot and nothing precludes clearing a pilot for it, I would clear the pilot for it.
 
luvflyin said:
All the approaches at KOTH have Amendment dates of 25JUN15. None of them say anything about 'altimeter.' None of the subjects on the Charting Forums list of things they're working on mentions altimeter. Has anyone found any other approaches that say N/A without local altimeter?
Click to expand...
My guess is that the note was put there to clarify that the previous ability to use the Eugene altimeter setting had been removed. But you'd probably have to ask the guys that put it there if you want to know for sure.

Wally has stated more than once that consistency is not a forte of the charting people.
 
MauleSkinner said:
My guess is that the note was put there to clarify that the previous ability to use the Eugene altimeter setting had been removed. But you'd probably have to ask the guys that put it there if you want to know for sure.

Wally has stated more than once that consistency is not a forte of the charting people.
Click to expand...
Yep. I don't understand this one. But, I did find the following statement in Order 8260.19H:

If a suitable backup altimeter source is not available, deny use of the SIAP via the following note: “Chart note: When local altimeter setting not received, procedure NA.”
Click to expand...
 
aterpster said:
Yep. I don't understand this one. But, I did find the following statement in Order 8260.19H:
Click to expand...
The plot thickens. Now the CVO chart is right and the ones that don't have alternate altimeters And no Notes are wrong.
 
Who says the FAA doesn't have a sense of humor(from 8260.19H):
chart the airport location: “Chart Flippin Muni AWOS-3.”
Click to expand...

luvflyin said:
The plot thickens. Now the CVO chart is right and the ones that don't have alternate altimeters And no Notes are wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually, another paragraph in that section says that it's ok for that note not to be there if certain conditions are met, and the chart doesn't have to say anything about alternate altimeter settings.

ASOS/AWOS/Non-Fed AWOS that transmit to WMSCR, do not require a published backup altimeter source. No notes are required on the procedure. However, a suitable backup source must be determined and adjustment computed for contingency purposes; annotate this data in “Remarks” on Form 8260-9. Each OSG-FPT must determine if a procedure requires a full time remote altimeter setting note to be published, based on reliability of the ASOS or AWOS.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't answer for CVO, but it explains why that note is not that common.
 
midlifeflyer said:
100 miles is for enroute (and doesn't have much practical application these days). Yes, approach plates will sometimes give an alternate altimeter setting, along with the associated changes in target altitudes. But it's not proper to roll your own.
Click to expand...
Yeah, perhaps I didn't express that very well, but that's what I meant. That's why I said about different approach minima for nearby settings. I didn't express myself properly in that post.

That said, with so many years now flying 135/121, I do get a bit confused.
 
chartbundle said:
Who says the FAA doesn't have a sense of humor(from 8260.19H):




Actually, another paragraph in that section says that it's ok for that note not to be there if certain conditions are met, and the chart doesn't have to say anything about alternate altimeter settings.



Still doesn't answer for CVO, but it explains why that note is not that common.
Click to expand...
Ah. The good ol' WMSCR. I'm not being snarky, just having a sense of humor. Things are starting to pass a logic check, as complicated as it seems. Guess it boils down to just RTFC. Read The F***king Chart. Or now I'll start sayin Read The Flippin Chart. What are those paragraph #'s?
 
roncachamp said:
75 miles is the limit for a Remote Altimeter Setting Source.
Click to expand...
No clue about this one. I'm certain you'll enlighten it.

Disclaimer: when descending to an altitude from a flight level they always give a setting. I roll with that.
 
Kritchlow said:
No clue about this one. I'm certain you'll enlighten it.

Disclaimer: when descending to an altitude from a flight level they always give a setting. I roll with that.
Click to expand...
75 miles is just one of many factors. An airport 20 miles away may not qualify depending on the application of some four pages of criteria (attached).
 

Attachments

  • RASS Criteria.pdf
    552.8 KB · Views: 5
Kritchlow said:
No clue about this one. I'm certain you'll enlighten it.
Click to expand...

Criteria for Remote Altimeter Setting Sources is in Order 8260.3C. In short, the distance from the airport cannot exceed 75 miles, the altitude difference cannot exceed 6000 feet.

Disclaimer: when descending to an altitude from a flight level they always give a setting. I roll with that.
Click to expand...

The limits above apply to approaches. For enroute operations as you describe, the altimeter setting of the station nearest the point the aircraft will descend below the transition altitude is to be assigned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top