|

Contact Approaches

Almost all IFR pilots are familiar with visual approaches and what the requirements are in order to fly a visual approach. As a refresher, the Instrument Procedures Handbook defines a Visual Approach as “an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is not an [Instrument Approach Procedure]” (page 4-56).

For ATC to issue a Visual Approach, the pilot must have the airport or the traffic to follow in sight. Once the pilot reports the airport or the traffic in sight, ATC can clear the aircraft for a visual approach.

A limiting factor for a visual approach is ATC’s Minimum Vectoring Altitude. “This altitude, based on terrain and obstruction clearance, provides controllers with minimum altitudes to vector aircraft in and around a particular location” (Instrument Procedures Handbook page 1-42). ATC has to restrict aircraft to these MVAs, which can sometimes be quite high due to terrain or obstacles in the vicinity of the airport.

Every pilot has been in a situation with a high MVA that ATC can’t get them below, but it’s solidly MVFR or VFR at the destination airport. The MVA keeps the pilot in the clouds, so a visual approach isn’t possible since the pilot can’t see the airport or the traffic to follow. This can lead to extra time to go out and fly an approach.

Enter a Contact Approach. A Contact Approach is different then a Visual Approach. “The main differences between a visual approach and a contact approach are: a pilot must request a contact approach, while a visual approach may be assigned by ATC or requested by the pilot; and a contact approach may be approved with 1sm visibility if the flight can remain clear of clouds, while a visual approach requires the pilot to have the airport in sight, or a preceding aircraft to be followed, and the ceiling must be at least 1,000 feet AGL with at least 3sm visibility” [Instrument Procedures Handbook page 4-57].

Here’s the simplified explanation: A pilot does not have to have the airport in sight to request a contact approach. All that is required is for the airport to be reporting at least 1sm visibility and for the pilot to remain clear of clouds.

When would this be helpful for an IFR pilot? Good question. Here’s a scenario.

Pilot Smalls is about 20 minutes from his destination, which is an uncontrolled airport with only one approach to runway 17. He is approaching from the south and the initial approach fix for the approach to 17 is about 15 miles north of the airport. The airport is under Center control. When he has arrived at this destination in the past, Center usually could only vector him down to 4,000 AGL. He is very familiar with this airport and the surrounding area as he comes to this destination at least 2-3 times a month for business.

Pilot Smalls listens to the AWOS, which is reporting a 2500 foot scattered layer and 10 miles visibility. He knows it is right traffic for 17 since there is a 2,000 foot antenna on the east side of the field. There is some hilly terrain around, but all the terrain is well below pattern altitude and doesn’t cause a safety issue.

Looking out at the clouds, Pilot Smalls observes that the cloud layer is scattered to broken, but more scattered on the west side of the airport, with several large openings that he can see the ground through. Center asks for his approach request and Pilot Smalls requests a visual approach. Center gives him a descent to 4,000 AGL, their MVA for the area. They tell him to report the airport in sight for the visual approach.

At 4,000 AGL, Pilot Smalls is going through the scattered layer of clouds, but can see the ground in between the clouds and deems he has room to maneuver safely between the clouds and stay clear of them. He can’t see the airport, so a visual approach seems unlikely. He can’t cancel IFR because then he would have to keep the VFR cloud clearance and visibility requirements in Class E airspace (1,000 feet above, 500 below and 2sm horizontally), which isn’t possible in this case.

5 miles from the airport, ATC states, “N12345, I’m going to have to send you out for the approach since you don’t have the airport in sight.” Pilot Smalls then requests a Contact Approach. ATC clears him for the Contact Approach to his destination, so Pilot Smalls descends through a break in the clouds, remaining clear of clouds, until he gets below the base of the ceiling. He maneuvers onto the right downwind, lands and cancels IFR.

Contact approaches can be useful at controlled and uncontrolled airports. The first time you request one, do so with a higher ceiling and some room to maneuver to keep your safety margins. After you’ve done a few, you can determine what your personal minimums are for a Contact Approach.

I would not recommend doing a Contact Approach at an airport you are unfamiliar with. It’s vital to know what obstacles are around since on a Contact Approach, the pilot is now responsible for traffic avoidance and terrain avoidance, whereas on a visual approach, ATC resumes that responsibility.

For more reading on Contact Approaches and another good scenario, check out Bold Method’s article on Contact Approaches.

Similar Posts

  • 2020 Texas Top Aviation Santa Fe Golf Fly In Rescheduled

    The 2020 Texas Top Aviation Santa Fe Golf Fly In has been re-scheduled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine. The new date is September 3rd-5th at the Santa Fe Buffalo Thunder Resort and Towa Golf Club.

    For more information on the event and to register, please click here.

    The 2020 Texas Top Aviation Santa Fe Golf Fly In has been re-scheduled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine. The new date is September 3rd-5th at the Santa Fe Buffalo Thunder Resort and Towa Golf Club. For more information on the event and to register, please click here.

  • MMOPA Vision Video

    The Malibu & M-Class Owner’s and Pilot’s Association recently released their MMOPA Vision Video. It is a great video detailing the history of the Piper PA46 & the history of MMOPA. The PA46 would have ceased to exist without the founding of the original Malibu Coalition.

    Checkout the video above (and Texas Top Aviation’s Hank Gibson even gets a cameo!).

    The Malibu & M-Class Owner’s and Pilot’s Association recently released their MMOPA Vision Video. It is a great video detailing the history of the Piper PA46 & the history of MMOPA. The PA46 would have ceased to exist without the founding of the original Malibu Coalition. Checkout the video above (and Texas Top Aviation’s Hank…

  • Circle to Land Approaches

    When I was doing my instrument and multi-engine training, we did a lot of circle to land approaches.  As a student, I could never figure out why these types of approaches would ever be practical when you could an approach straight in to another runway.  But, as a good student, I never asked my instructors the purpose of them, I just did them to the best of my ability.

    Now, having been flying in the IFR system for almost a decade, I’m finally beginning to fully understand the practical purpose of a circle to land approach.  I have actually elected to do an approach where I had to circle to land on several occasions in actual IMC conditions.

    One important note to remember on circle to land approaches is that the minimum descent altitude (MDA) is always higher than on a straight in approach.  The reason for this is that you are basically joining the pattern for a different runway and you have to be able to visually keep yourself clear of towers and other obstacles.  So, you need a higher visibility and a higher ceiling than if you were just lining up to come straight in.

    Here are a couple of practical circumstances where it would make sense to do a circle to land approach.

    Airports with only 1 straight in approach

    This one is easy.  There are a number of airports scattered around the US that have only 1 straight in instrument approach published for it.  Around my part of Texas, the first one that pops into my mind is the RNAV 31 at T85 in Yoakum, TX.  Most of the year, the prevailing wind is out of the south, so 13 is the favored runway at T85.  During the winter is when most of the IMC weather happens in South Texas, so that is why the approach is for 31.

    Of course, especially this year during the summer, there are some IMC days where an approach to T85 would be necessary.  When there is a strong wind out of the south, landing on 31 is impractical, so a pilot would fly the approach to 31, then circle to land on 13.

    Approaching from the opposite direction

    Take a look at the RNAV 19 at KBMQ, Burnet, TX.  The two initial approach fixes (IAF) are IXANY and JIBAJ.  If a flight is approaching BMQ from the west or north, this is an easy approach to join.  If a flight is coming from Austin (directly the the east and a little south) or San Antonio (almost directly south), it would be a bit of extra flying to get configured properly for the approach.  Especially coming from Austin, because the degree of turn to join at JIBAJ wouldn’t make the approach practical.

    Well, how about vectors?  Unfortunately, Houston Center doesn’t have this approach depicted so vectors aren’t a possibility.  Center can give you vectors north to make the angle a little easier to join at JIBAJ, but they can’t vector you onto the approach.

    Direct DLORA to join is another option, but again, if you are approaching from the southeast, the angle is wrong.

    Insert the RNAV 01 approach with a circle to land.  AMUSE is right on V163, so it’s really easy to join the approach there coming from the south.  Coming from Austin, joining the approach at SUBIE works out great. Fly down to the MDA, join the left downwind for 19, and everyone is happy.

    VOR Circle to Land Approaches

    Every instrument pilot has had an instructor “force” them to do a VOR A or VOR B approach and no one enjoys them.  I personally think they are good practice.  With the number of RNAV systems and RNAV approaches out there, though, VOR approaches are becoming a bit archaic.

    They do have a place in this discussion, though.  A VOR approach is given an A or B designation when the angle of the final approach course is greater than 30 degrees to the runway (VOR A KLZZ), or the final approach course is lined up with the runway, but the MDA is too high to practically descend and land (VOR A KGRK or the VOR/DME C KASE).

    So, there are practical uses for a Circle to Land approach.  The next time you do some IMC work with an instructor, ask him/her if you can include one.

    When I was doing my instrument and multi-engine training, we did a lot of circle to land approaches.  As a student, I could never figure out why these types of approaches would ever be practical when you could an approach straight in to another runway.  But, as a good student, I never asked my instructors…

  • Dallas Airspace Changes

    As was the case with the Class B Airspace around Houston several months ago, the Class B Dallas airspace has been overhauled as well.  These changes were implemented at the last database update on September 18th.  If you’ll be flying into any of the Dallas airspace airports IFR, make sure you have current charts and your GPS databases are updated.

    According to AOPA, 14 SIDs and STARs were deleted, a number of new procedures were added, and changes were made to most of the other remaining procedures.  The new procedures in the Dallas airspace consist mainly of RNAV procedures for turboprops and jets, so most GA aircraft won’t be affected by those.  The legacy procedures that remained in place over went changes, including new frequencies, so piston aircraft going into the Dallas airspace are still affected.

    From AOPA, departures from Dallas Love (KDAL) that file their flight plan with special equipment /G in their flight plan will automatically be given an RNAV departure procedure.  This does not appear to affect piston aircraft as all the new RNAV SIDs in the Dallas airspace are for turboprops or turbojets.

    The reason for the changes to the Dallas airspace?  Similar to the changes in Houston, these airspace changes are meant to streamline departures and arrivals in the Dallas airspace area, reduce controller workload, and give continuous descent angles for arriving high altitude traffic.

    Don’t be surprised the next time you are in the Dallas airspace area if you receive a clearance that states:  “Descend via the arrival.”  In that case, just check the chart and aim for the appropriate altitudes at the appropriate fixes.  As we move closer to the ADS-B requirement, I believe we will see more and more of these terminal procedure overhauls, so be prepared and keep those charts and databases up to date.

    As was the case with the Class B Airspace around Houston several months ago, the Class B Dallas airspace has been overhauled as well.  These changes were implemented at the last database update on September 18th.  If you’ll be flying into any of the Dallas airspace airports IFR, make sure you have current charts and your…

  • Cessna TTx Production Ceases

    Sadly, in January, a pretty great airplane was put out to pasture.  Textron (the conglomerate that now owns Cessna, Beechcraft, Hawker, and Lycoming) announced it was ceasing production of the Cessna TTx.  With the end of the Cessna TTx production, an airplane that was the main “competitor” to Cirrus (if you can call it competition; Cirrus consistently outsold the Cessna TTx by a wide margin each year), it leaves the SR series to stand alone atop the High Performance piston single market.

    I got to go through Cessna’s FITS Accepted Instructor (CFAI) course back in 2012 and have flown in the Cessna 350 and 400 (which is what they were known as at the time; the Cessna TTx name came around in 2011) for about 120 hours.  I really like the airplanes.  I’m partial to the Cirrus, but the Cessna 350 & 400 are fast airplanes and great for 1-2 people.  I flew a 350 (the non-turbo charged version) from New York to San Antonio last fall and routinely saw 170 knots at 12 GPH.

    Columbia started out making the 350 & 400 (the turbo-charged version) in the early 2000s, but went bankrupt in 2007.  Lancair started Columbia to make a certified version of their popular kit planes.  If you see a Lancair ES floating around, you would swear it’s a Columbia with only 1 door.  Cessna bought the design from Columbia in 2007 to begin manufacturing the airplanes themselves.

    Cessna then made a huge mistake as they moved the production facility from Bend, Oregon to Mexico. Production completely halted in 2009 as the planes coming out of Mexico were found to have defective composite work.  The sales never really recovered, even though Cessna put the Garmin G2000 panel in the Cessna TTx, complete with a touchscreen key pad.  A FIKI system was added as an option in 2012.

    A prospective buyer can still get a great value on a used 350, 400, or TTx, as they are valued a little lower than a Cirrus.  The 350, 400 or TTx all make excellent single pilot or two person speedsters with very comfortable amenities.

    Information for this article was taken from Flying Magazine’s website.

    Sadly, in January, a pretty great airplane was put out to pasture.  Textron (the conglomerate that now owns Cessna, Beechcraft, Hawker, and Lycoming) announced it was ceasing production of the Cessna TTx.  With the end of the Cessna TTx production, an airplane that was the main “competitor” to Cirrus (if you can call it competition;…

  • 7 Reasons An Airplane Buyer Should Use An Airplane Broker

    In the realm of buying airplanes, navigating through the complexities of the market can be as challenging as piloting through turbulent skies. Whether you’re a seasoned aircraft owner or a new pilot looking to acquire your first aircraft, enlisting the expertise of an airplane broker can significantly streamline the buying process. Here are some compelling reasons why engaging an airplane broker is a smart move for buyers:

    1. Expertise and Experience:
      Aircraft brokers are seasoned professionals with in-depth knowledge of the aviation industry. They understand what aircraft models fit different missions (you don’t want to have an expensive jet for 200 mile trips for 2 people), market trends, airplane values, and technical knowledge to help avoid “lemon” airplanes before even the inspection begins. Leveraging broker expertise can help buyers make informed decisions, avoid pitfalls, and secure the best deal possible.
    2. Access to a Vast Network:
      Airplane brokers have extensive networks comprising sellers, manufacturers, and maintenance facilities. This network gives buyers access to the experts on the aircraft they are wanting to buy. Whether you’re in the market for a brand-new aircraft or a pre-owned gem, brokers can tap into their connections to make sure the airplane selected is a well maintained aircraft.
    3. Time and Resource Efficiency:
      Searching for the right aircraft can be a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. From researching available options to arranging pre-buy inspections and negotiations, the tasks can quickly pile up. By entrusting these responsibilities to a broker, buyers can save valuable time and resources. Brokers handle the legwork, allowing buyers to focus on family, life and work while still staying informed and involved in the decision-making process.
    4. Objective Guidance and Advocacy:
      When emotions run high during the aircraft buying process, having an impartial advocate can be invaluable. Airplane brokers act as trusted advisors, offering objective guidance and a high level of knowledge about different airplanes. That knowledge comes in handy when evaluating aircraft specifications, assessing market value and negotiating terms. Brokers provide valuable insights and ensure that buyers make well-informed decisions aligned with their goals.
    5. Streamlined Transaction Process:
      Purchasing an aircraft involves navigating a complex web of legal, financial, and logistical considerations. Brokers are well-versed in handling these intricacies and can streamline the transaction process from start to finish. They coordinate with legal experts, financial institutions, escrow companies, maintenance shops and regulatory authorities to ensure a seamless and hassle-free experience for buyers, minimizing potential delays and complications along the way.
    6. Cost-Effective Solutions:
      While some buyers may be hesitant to engage a broker due to concerns about additional costs, the reality is that brokers often help buyers save money in the long run. By leveraging their industry knowledge and negotiation skills, brokers can steer buyers away from airplanes that are potential money pits and toward airplanes that have excellent maintenance pedigrees. Brokers are often able to secure favorable pricing and connect buyers to other experts in maintenance, insurance, and other essential services.
    7. Peace of Mind:
      Perhaps most importantly, working with an airplane broker provides buyers with peace of mind throughout the buying process. From the initial search to the final closing, buyers can rest assured knowing that they have a dedicated professional by their side, guiding them every step of the way and ensuring a successful outcome.

    While purchasing an aircraft can be a daunting endeavor, enlisting the services of an airplane broker can turn the journey into a smooth and rewarding experience. With their expertise, industry connections, and commitment to client satisfaction, brokers empower buyers to make informed decisions, secure the best possible deal, and embark on their aviation adventures with confidence. So, whether you’re in the market for a single-engine propeller plane or a luxurious corporate jet, consider partnering with an airplane broker to navigate the skies of aircraft acquisition with ease.


    Texas Top Aviation, LLC has 10 years of experience helping our customers purchase amazing airplanes. We specialize in TBM, Piper PA46, Cirrus and Columbia aircraft, but have extensive knowledge about a wide variety of piston and turbine aircraft. Contact us today to discuss our services for your next airplane.

    In the realm of buying airplanes, navigating through the complexities of the market can be as challenging as piloting through turbulent skies. Whether you’re a seasoned aircraft owner or a new pilot looking to acquire your first aircraft, enlisting the expertise of an airplane broker can significantly streamline the buying process. Here are some compelling…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *