I didn't see the pilot's friend, contact approach, mentioned.This is how the pilot requests a 'visual,' since by rule the visual can only be given by ATC. When I've got good vis with ground and know my way to the airport I will ask for the contact approach. This can be denied or granted by ATC, usually granted it there's no traffic problems. My memory aid is that Visuals are receiVed from ATC, if you want one you have to ask for a contact approach. All of this is IFR rules of course.

I didn't see the pilot's friend, contact approach, mentioned.

I mentioned it above in post #9 :(

Contact approaches are rare, and to me useless.Contact approaches are essentially scud running. With that in mind, I wouldn't call them a "pilot's friend" but rather a rope in the noose to hang him/her self (in some cases anyway). If I've got the equipment and procedures I'd much rather safely do a full approach than save 5 minutes avoiding clouds at a few hundred feet.

Yes, it is a legalized form of 'scud running'. Contact approaches have their application in cases when pilot knows superbly the airport and terrain surrounding it.

Discounting a valid approach based on opinions that everyone else has about said approach essentially limits your options unnecessarily. To be honest, I've lived in the area I'm in right now for all but one year of my life. With that, I see no reason if I spot a prominent landmark (or even the ground in certain spots) that I wouldn't ask for a contact approach if I had no other more precise approach.A lot of people will call it scud running, but to be honest, I'd argue there's no such thing as scud running when IFR. IFR is legalized flight into the clouds, and you have positive separation (except in a few cases, but those cases are few and far between, as if the clouds are that low, there's no VFR to worry about not having positive sep with). Scud running is a term I'd consider more for VFR guys getting too close to the clouds, and even more so when they're not in contact with ATC.Your only worry at that point should be the ground, and if you have contact with the ground, why not take the contact approach? If the clouds are that low, the only aircraft around will be IFR and you're assured at least 3NM sep in TRACON airspace (5 if the area is covered by an ARTCC), so your worry isn't as much as what's in the clouds. The only concern with the clouds is if they somehow get in the way of you and the ground, and at that point, you could just as easily call the facility and say you're abandoning the approach, while climbing to your last assigned altitude.In summary, since I tend to be verbose: don't discount a legal approach simply because other people have an opinion on it (and most of them haven't flown a contact approach). If you want to be opinionated about it and "safer," that's fine. Personal minimums are to be respected, but keep in mind that those who have broader personal minimums aren't necessarily less safe.

I know guys. But my harsh stance towards certain practices keeps me out of trouble in the plane... That being said if I came across a situation which would be *safer* (not faster) flying a contact approach, I'd obviously do it.I started to explain that it would be an option around my home airport(s) given my familiarity with them, but decided to keep my post short and sweet. I agree with both of you, though. I shouldn't say such things with such certainty.I should also clarify most of my opinions are formed on the basis of a lot (considering how long I've been instrument rated) of single engine actual IFR ; a good bit at night too. :( So yes, I'm opinionated... But yes I'll do whatever I have to do in a given situation!

Being until a couple of years ago under the approach to runway 12L KMSP at my former location of employment even at a dense arrival time of 10:30A local, except for some straight ins I'd see smaller regional jets on short left base closer to the threshold than would be on vectors to the normal intercept further out. They were being sandwiched between slower aircraft strung in along with vectors. I once saw where one hotshot cut too close in front of a straight in slower jet and that second one had to go-around. It was a very clear day and I could see the downwind for 12R as well.Some pilot was looking for points from his boss for 'efficient' flying. If there was an incident report somebody probably was unhappy.

But my harsh stance towards certain practices keeps me out of trouble in the plane...

There is nothing wrong in being extra cautious in flying, specially IFR flying. You don't have to explain yourself :(

There is nothing wrong in being extra cautious in flying, specially IFR flying. You don't have to explain yourself :(

Agreed. No need to explain. It's obvious there was some thought to your decision, but I've come across far too many pilots who do or do not do something simply because someone else told them. Example: DEs, CFIs and others will tell you it's illegal to fly without charts, while that is technically not true (if you don't believe me, you can ask the FAA). Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating or otherwise supporting not having charts with you, but to state that the FAA will take enforcement action against you in a ramp check for not having charts is blatantly false (except in the case of Large/ME aircraft). Of course, few people research this "fact" and it continues to be regurgitated among the community. Again, I'm not saying it's smart, or that you should do it. I'm simply using it as a situation in which people simply regurgitate information without the proper evaluation on the personal level. In a similar manner, some write off contact approaches with no thought, at all. What if the pilot knew the area like his own back yard, could recite all of the power lines, tall structures and everything else, or saw the highway that paralleled the runway but not the runway itself, knowing full well he was entering the runway protection zone (though I'd argue many wouldn't know what this is, or how to define it, and no slight is meant by that, it's more of an airport planner bit of knowledge - link if you're curious)? Is it then dangerous? Not as much as it would be if it was a pilot who didn't know the area at all. Is it not dangerous to walk down the unlit stairs in your house at night? Sure, until you've lived there long enough to develop familiarity. That's my argument for and against the contact approach. To me, it's not dangerous unless you make it dangerous, and that is determined by your familiarity with the area, and your decision to accept your current familiarity given the weather conditions on that particular flight.Pilots are still in the cockpit because flight requires rational and situational thought. A pilot blindly accepting someone else's opinion or way of life ceases to be a part of that decision-making process and becomes a glorified autopilot. If contact approaches are out of your normal minimums, then I congratulate you for coming up with your own standards. I'll support that 100%. My issue comes when people sub conscious decision-making with regurgitation.

Very good post, Kyle. I wish this were on the more frequented forums.I'm only familiar with the airport planning lingo because of an airport planning class I took a few semesters ago.

Very good post, Kyle. I wish this were on the more frequented forums.I'm only familiar with the airport planning lingo because of an airport planning class I took a few semesters ago.

Thanks!I'm only familiar because I took an internship between my 3rd and 4th years of college. It's really cool to see everything that goes into how the airports are planned and evolve. Confusing airport designs start to make sense when you look back on what you learned.

http://www.askacfi.com/1276/are-current-charts-a-required-item.htm

Well, asking ATC for the approach briefing/data counts as "current charts". This is something I argued with my DE on the instrument check ride. What he wanted me to say and what he knew was correct were two different things. Made for an interesting argument (I won). The catch is, what would the NTSB report say when you bent the aircraft up?I like that site you linked, I've used it once or twice.

The catch is, what would the NTSB report say when you bent the aircraft up?

That's quite clearly mentioned in the FAA link I posted on pg 1:

5. "If a pilot is involved in an enforcement investigation and there is evidence that the use of an out-of-date chart, no chart, or an out-of-date database contributed to the condition that brought on the enforcement investigation, then that information could be used in any enforcement action that might be taken."

Reiterating. :(