interesting moment yesterday on final

[Jose]

>> Nobody with two brain cells
>> left whips out a sectional while in the pattern to
>> locate the idiot IFR pilot.
> So VFR pilots don't use sectionals in preflight planning or while in flight.
> Why do they carry them at all?

They use sectionals in planning but don't memorize the location of all
intersections enroute. Therefore if they need to find an intersection,
they would need to consult the chart. Intersections are not prominant.

They carry sectionals to refer to in flight, and smart pilots refer to
them when looking out the window isn't critical. Smart pilots, for
example, aren't looking for an intersection on a sectional while a
hundred feet above the threshold, or when they are near an airport and
scanning for traffic in the pattern (and other traffic shooting through
the pattern).

I don't want to go into what dumb pilots do with sectionals. :)

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:03:15 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote in >:
>
>> Your citation of AC90-66A [1] appears to
>> clearly indicate that the FAA prefers that IFR pilots report their
>> positions by transmitting their distance from uncontrolled airports
>> when landing at same:
>
> How do you resolve that conclusion with the third paragraph from the
> end below:
>
I really don't see a conflict. Considering the *intent* of these regs, it
is obvious that clear communications are required. In an IFR-only
environment, the communication in that paragraph is clear and concise. In
a mixed environment, it is inadequate, which is why the other examples and
regs are given. This seems so obvious that it makes me wonder how this
thread has gone on for so long.

Neil

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Then the FAA has it's head in a very dark place. But this won't be the
> first time.
>

The FAA often has it's head in a dark place, but this isn't one of those
times.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Do that. It hasn't been.
>

It's been required for more than sixty years. From "Digest of Civil Air
Regulations for Pilots", October 1943:


Requirements for Certification

Private Pilot Certificate

Aeronautical Knowledge

Applicant shall be familiar with and accomplish satisfactorily a written
examination covering so much of the provisions of Parts 01, 20, and 60 of
the regulations as are pertinent to his certificate, prevailing weather
conditions in the United States as encountered in flying, and the
forecasting thereof, the analyzing of weather maps and sequence reports as
furnished by the United States Weather Bureau, practical air navigation
problems and the use of maps, navigation by terrain (pilotage) and by dead
reckoning, including the use of instruments and other aids to navigation in
visual contact flying, and the general servicing and operation of aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> http://skyvector.com/#22-28-3-2358-2654
>
> There's the sectional for my home airport KELD. Please let me know from
> this section where the fixes are ann what there names are.
>

That cannot be determined from a sectional. You have to examine the IAP
charts to find the FAFs, they're free online at several sites. I use
www.aeroplanner.com.

The IAPs, FAFs, and the distances from FAF to threshold for KELD are:

ILS or LOC RWY 22 LADOS LOM 5.2
RNAV RWY 4 WOSDO 4.6
RNAV RWY 22 ODIRY 5.2
VOR/DME RWY 4 CHIPP 3.5
VOR RWY 22 ELD VORTAC 3.5


The only one that's published on the sectional is El Dorado VORTAC, but you
can easily add the others.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:25:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>>
>> Then the FAA has it's head in a very dark place. But this won't be the
>> first time.
>>
>
>The FAA often has it's head in a dark place, but this isn't one of those
>times.
>

Why not? Surely you see the contradiction between the two ACs.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>
> See, there is a gradation, not a sharp line. If you take the phrase
> literally, "all" means all, "available" means available, and "information"
> means information. You'd never take off.
>

The phrase is not "all available" information, it's "all available
information concerning that flight." Since use of the FAF is preferred in a
self-announce broadcast and that information is readily available, the names
and locations of those fixes is "available information concerning that
flight."

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> t...
>>
>> Do that. It hasn't been.
>>
>
> It's been required for more than sixty years. From "Digest of Civil
> Air Regulations for Pilots", October 1943:
>
> Applicant shall be familiar with and accomplish satisfactorily a
> written examination covering so much of the provisions of Parts 01,
> 20, and 60 of the regulations as are pertinent to his certificate,
> prevailing weather conditions in the United States as encountered in
> flying, and the forecasting thereof, the analyzing of weather maps
> and sequence reports as furnished by the United States Weather
> Bureau, practical air navigation problems and the use of maps,
> navigation by terrain (pilotage) and by dead reckoning, including the
> use of instruments and other aids to navigation in visual contact
> flying, and the general servicing and operation of aircraft.
>
You do realize that NONE of the above pertains to IAPs, don't you?

What parts of "...pertinent to his certificate...", or "...visual contact
flying..." confuses you so badly?

Neil

[Jose]

> The FAA often has it's head in a dark place, but this isn't one of those
> times.

Yes it is.
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> That cannot be determined from a sectional. You have to examine the IAP
> charts to find the FAFs, they're free online at several sites.

So now, in a busy pattern, the pilot, after hearing that somebody or
other is "at CHIPP inbound", turns his head away from the window and
down at his sectional to fail to find CHIPP. He then reaches into his
flight bag and pulls out the approach plate book. No, not that one,
this one. Ok, we're at South Arkansas Regional/Goodwin. Is it filed
under Goodwin, or under South Arkansas? Or maybe under El Dorado, the
nearest town. Flip flip. Ok, found it. Examine the ILS 22. Nope.
Not there. Now look at the RNAV 4. No joy. How about the RNAV 22.
There it is... nope. Misread it. How about the VOR 4... here it is.
CHIPP. Now, where is it in real life; there isn't a scale of miles.
How about down here in the plan view... ok 3.5 miles from the....

At this point our pilot acquires the aircraft visually, as its left
wingtip pierces the cockpit.

I have a much better idea. Give position reports in latitude and
longitude. That's readily available on the sectional, and easily
determined from the GPS.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> The phrase is not "all available" information, it's "all available
> information concerning that flight." Since use of the FAF is preferred in a
> self-announce broadcast and that information is readily available, the names
> and locations of those fixes is "available information concerning that
> flight."

Well, it doesn't matter what is preferred. It matters what is used.
And "the lady" and "the tanks" and "the hospital" are all used by pilots
to announce their position. So, that information is also "information
concerning that flight".

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> People that insist on straight in approaches at uncontrolled fields are
> just as bad if not worse. Not following FAA recommend procedures is
> proabably worse.
>

Like the FAA recommended procedure to use the FAF to identify one's position
in a self-announce broadcast specified in Advisory Circular 90-42F "Traffic
Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control Towers" when
executing an IAP? Is that the kind of FAA recommended procedure you're
referring to?

Not following the right-of-way rules in FAR 91.113 is worse.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Yes it is.
>

It has been demonstrated in this discussion that it is not. Learn it, do
it, be a better pilot.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> So now you are going to try to convince us that final doesn't follow base
> leg. Do you have a reference?
>

No, I've been explaining that final extends beyond the base leg. It's clear
now that that fact is beyond your ability to understand.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Just as it's stated. If two aircraft turn final from base leg, 91.113g is
> still very useful.
>

Of course. FAR 91.113(g) states aircraft on final have the right-of-way.
If two aircraft turn final from base leg 91.113(g) gives the right-of-way to
the aircraft on final. How could I have ever missed that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Since AC 90-66A doesn't speak to that particular point, and I'm not aware
> of anything that does, maybe you should ask the FAA?
>

I was answering your question. Do you see the point now?

[Jose]

>>Yes it is.
> It has been demonstrated in this discussion that it is not.

It has been asserted, not demonstrated.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Where?
>

In AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating
Control Towers, which I posted three weeks ago in this thread.


11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES. It should be noted that
aircraft operating to or from another nearby airport may be making
self-announce broadcasts on the same UNICOM or MULTICOM frequency. To help
identify one airport from another, the airport name should be spoken at the
beginning and end of each self-announce transmission.

(3) Practice Instrument Approach:

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC
(NAME - FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING
THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY
THREE FIVE STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC
PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH COMPLETED OR TERMINATED
RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I believe the "definition" in that circular is implicit in the labeling of
> the airport operation diagrams in appendix 1. The line out from infinite
> to the point where it joins the base leg is labelled "straight-in
> approach"
> and the narrative for point (3) labels the line from the base leg to the
> runway as final.
>

The "final" label in that diagram is on the side of the base leg away from
the airport, indicating that final extends past the base leg. That is
consistent with the definition of final found in the Pilot/Controller
Glossary

The narrative for point 3 is, "Complete turn to final at least l/4 mile from
the runway." That does not even approach suggesting that final does not
extend beyond the base leg.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I think you've made your point. Your citation of AC90-66A [1] appears to
> clearly indicate that the FAA prefers that IFR pilots report their
> positions by transmitting their distance from uncontrolled airports when
> landing at same:
>

How do you reconcile that with AC 90-42F?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> To paraphrase Walt Whitman:
> It is the FAA. It is large, it contains multitudes. It contradicts itself.
>

So which practice should be followed? The one in AC 90-66A which provides
reliable information to none or the one in AC 90-42F which provides reliable
information to some?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>
> They use sectionals in planning but don't memorize the location of all
> intersections enroute. Therefore if they need to find an intersection,
> they would need to consult the chart. Intersections are not prominant.
>
> They carry sectionals to refer to in flight, and smart pilots refer to
> them when looking out the window isn't critical. Smart pilots, for
> example, aren't looking for an intersection on a sectional while a hundred
> feet above the threshold, or when they are near an airport and scanning
> for traffic in the pattern (and other traffic shooting through the
> pattern).
>

We've not been discussing the common practices of smart pilots, we've been
discussing the common practices of typical VFR pilots. Smart pilots
recognize and know where the FAFs are at their home airports and will obtain
that information as part of their preflight planning for fields they intend
to operate at.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why not? Surely you see the contradiction between the two ACs.
>

Jose was referring only to AC 90-42F, as was I in my response.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
et...
>
> You do realize that NONE of the above pertains to IAPs, don't you?
>
> What parts of "...pertinent to his certificate...", or "...visual contact
> flying..." confuses you so badly?
>

It is you that is confused. Jose asked, "How many newly minted VFR pilots
even know how to read an approach plate?" I responded, "Every newly minted
VFR pilot should be able to identify the fixes in the plan view of an IAP."
If one has the knowledge of aeronautical charts required by FAR 61.105 then
one has the knowledge to examine the legend and plan views of IAPs in a TPP
and determine the locations of FAFs.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> So now, in a busy pattern, the pilot, after hearing that somebody or other
> is "at CHIPP inbound", turns his head away from the window and down at his
> sectional to fail to find CHIPP. He then reaches into his flight bag and
> pulls out the approach plate book. No, not that one, this one. Ok, we're
> at South Arkansas Regional/Goodwin. Is it filed under Goodwin, or under
> South Arkansas? Or maybe under El Dorado, the nearest town. Flip flip.
> Ok, found it. Examine the ILS 22. Nope. Not there. Now look at the RNAV
> 4. No joy. How about the RNAV 22. There it is... nope. Misread it. How
> about the VOR 4... here it is. CHIPP. Now, where is it in real life;
> there isn't a scale of miles. How about down here in the plan view... ok
> 3.5 miles from the....
>

No, smart pilots already know where the fixes are. They obtained that
information during their flight planning.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Well, it doesn't matter what is preferred. It matters what is used. And
> "the lady" and "the tanks" and "the hospital" are all used by pilots to
> announce their position. So, that information is also "information
> concerning that flight".
>

No. Those are bad practices.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>
> It has been asserted, not demonstrated.
>

It has been demonstrated.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> http://skyvector.com/#22-28-3-2358-2654
>>
>> There's the sectional for my home airport KELD. Please let me know
>> from this section where the fixes are ann what there names are.
>>
>
> That cannot be determined from a sectional. You have to examine the
> IAP charts to find the FAFs, they're free online at several sites. I
> use www.aeroplanner.com.
>



So let's make this clear. It is your assertion that it is the duty of a
pilot flying, under VFR rules, to have the IAP charts with them or to have
them memorized?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> So let's make this clear. It is your assertion that it is the duty of a
> pilot flying, under VFR rules, to have the IAP charts with them or to have
> them memorized?
>

No, I made no such assertion.

[Jose]

>> Well, it doesn't matter what is preferred. It matters what is used. And
>> "the lady" and "the tanks" and "the hospital" are all used by pilots to
>> announce their position. So, that information is also "information
>> concerning that flight".

> No. Those are bad practices.

No they aren't. Following the FAA's advisories to the letter without
thinking about whether that's a good idea are bad practices.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> It has been demonstrated.

No it hasn't. Look, I'm not going to argue any more until I've been paid.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> So let's make this clear. It is your assertion that it is the duty
>> of a pilot flying, under VFR rules, to have the IAP charts with them
>> or to have them memorized?
>>
>
> No, I made no such assertion.

You most certainly did.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>
> No it hasn't. Look, I'm not going to argue any more until I've been paid.
>

You're a student here. Students don't get paid.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> You most certainly did.

If you believe I made an assertion that it is the duty of a pilot flying
under VFR to have the IAP charts with them or to have them memorized it
should be a simple matter for you to cite that assertion. Please do so.

[Jose]

> You're a student here.

Perhaps. We all are. But I picks my teachers carefully. On this
topic, you ain't it.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Perhaps. We all are. But I picks my teachers carefully. On this topic,
> you ain't it.
>

Actually, you're just a poor student.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> et...
>>
>> You do realize that NONE of the above pertains to IAPs, don't you?
>>
>> What parts of "...pertinent to his certificate...", or "...visual
>> contact flying..." confuses you so badly?
>>
>
> It is you that is confused. Jose asked, "How many newly minted VFR
> pilots even know how to read an approach plate?" I responded, "Every
> newly minted VFR pilot should be able to identify the fixes in the
> plan view of an IAP." If one has the knowledge of aeronautical charts
> required by FAR 61.105 then one has the knowledge to examine the
> legend and plan views of IAPs in a TPP and determine the locations of
> FAFs.
>
My question to YOU was when the ability to understand IAPs was added to
the Private Knowledge or Practical tests? The fact is that it is NOT a
part of the requirements for a Private certificate. The direct route to
realizing that fact is to simply read the published requirements. They are
not secret documents. So, your references to irrelevant regs (twice, no
less) is clearly an indication that you are quite confused about the
requirements and expected abilities of private pilots.

Neil

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
>
> My question to YOU was when the ability to understand IAPs was added to
> the Private Knowledge or Practical tests? The fact is that it is NOT a
> part of the requirements for a Private certificate. The direct route to
> realizing that fact is to simply read the published requirements. They are
> not secret documents. So, your references to irrelevant regs (twice, no
> less) is clearly an indication that you are quite confused about the
> requirements and expected abilities of private pilots.
>

That was NOT your question to me. I stated, "Every newly minted VFR pilot
should be able to identify the fixes in the plan view of an IAP. Your
question in response was, "Oh? When was this added to the Private Knowledge
Test or Practical?" The fact that you don't know what you asked is a clear
indication that it is you that is confused.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You most certainly did.
>
> If you believe I made an assertion that it is the duty of a pilot
> flying under VFR to have the IAP charts with them or to have them
> memorized it should be a simple matter for you to cite that
> assertion. Please do so.


You said...

"No, smart pilots already know where the fixes are. They obtained that
information during their flight planning."

How is one to do that without having the charts or memory?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> You said...
>
> "No, smart pilots already know where the fixes are. They obtained that
> information during their flight planning."
>
> How is one to do that without having the charts or memory?

One can choose to have the charts if they desire, they're free online and
can be printed. I don't do that myself. I just examine them to identify
the FAFs, then I go to Aeroplanner.Com. Select Smart Chart (Sectional/WAC)
under the Charts Menu. Select Fix/WPT or Navaid and enter the FAF. A black
plus sign will appear at the location of the FAF on the sectional image. I
transfer it by eyeball to my paper sectional write in the name. Simple and
quick. Here's an example that shows CHIPP, the FAF for the VOR/DME RWY 4
approach at KELD:

http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/chart/chart.cfm?chart=Sectional&typ=FIX&txt=chipp

[Jose]

> Actually, you're just a poor student.

.... and you are not a teacher. You are a professor.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> t...
>>
>> My question to YOU was when the ability to understand IAPs was added
>> to the Private Knowledge or Practical tests? The fact is that it is
>> NOT a part of the requirements for a Private certificate. The direct
>> route to realizing that fact is to simply read the published
>> requirements. They are not secret documents. So, your references to
>> irrelevant regs (twice, no less) is clearly an indication that you
>> are quite confused about the requirements and expected abilities of
>> private pilots.
>>
>
> That was NOT your question to me. I stated, "Every newly minted VFR
> pilot should be able to identify the fixes in the plan view of an
> IAP. Your question in response was, "Oh? When was this added to the
> Private Knowledge Test or Practical?" The fact that you don't know
> what you asked is a clear indication that it is you that is confused.
>
My question to you had to do with the basis for your assumption.
Specifically, what in the Practical or Knowledge Tests -- the ONLY
requirements for becoming "a newly minted VFR pilot" -- assures that your
assumption is valid. Since there is no requirement that a "...newly minted
VFR pilot..." has even SEEN an IAP, your assumption is not reasonable.

Neil

[Jim Logajan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> So which practice should be followed? The one in AC 90-66A which
> provides reliable information to none or the one in AC 90-42F which
> provides reliable information to some?

I've found a very helpful AOPA document that provides useful guidance on
this subject (and provides me an answer to your questions):

"Safety Advisor
Operations & Proficiency No. 3
Operations at Nontowered Airports":

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa08.pdf

It states:

"Pilots practicing instrument approaches at nontowered airports on a
VFR day should announce their position in both IFR and VFR terms,

"Frederick traffic, Seminole Three-Six Lima, RICKE inbound, four-mile
final, Runway Two-Three, Frederick."

VFR pilots will benefit from a little education about instrument
operations at a nontowered airport. Learn if the airport has IFR
approaches and, if so, to which runways by referencing the A/FD. Have
an instrumentrated pilot or instructor describe the approach
procedures and explain the phraseology IFR pilots use to announce
their positions and intentions.
....
If you know where the missed approach holding fixes are and how
instrument traffic navigates to those fixes, you’ll know where IFR
pilots are headed when they announce on the CTAF they are executing a
practice missed approach."

There is more relevant material (including advice on when a straight-in
approach is not recommended) but the document's recommendations appear to
be (to me at least) better than the too-brief recommendations in the two
FAA ACs referenced above. So my answer to your questions would be
"neither," and would follow the practice recommended by the AOPA document.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> People that insist on straight in approaches at uncontrolled fields are
>> just as bad if not worse. Not following FAA recommend procedures is
>> proabably worse.
>>
>
> Like the FAA recommended procedure to use the FAF to identify one's
> position in a self-announce broadcast specified in Advisory Circular
> 90-42F "Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control
> Towers" when executing an IAP? Is that the kind of FAA recommended
> procedure you're referring to?
>
> Not following the right-of-way rules in FAR 91.113 is worse.
>

Asked and answered Steven, your just trolling because you don't like the
answer.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> So now you are going to try to convince us that final doesn't follow base
>> leg. Do you have a reference?
>>
>
> No, I've been explaining that final extends beyond the base leg. It's
> clear now that that fact is beyond your ability to understand.
>

Asked and answered Steven, your just trolling because you don't like the
answer.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Just as it's stated. If two aircraft turn final from base leg, 91.113g is
>> still very useful.
>>
>
> Of course. FAR 91.113(g) states aircraft on final have the right-of-way.
> If two aircraft turn final from base leg 91.113(g) gives the right-of-way
> to the aircraft on final. How could I have ever missed that.
>

Asked and answered Steven, your just trolling because you don't like the
answer.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Since AC 90-66A doesn't speak to that particular point, and I'm not aware
>> of anything that does, maybe you should ask the FAA?
>>
>
> I was answering your question. Do you see the point now?
>
>
>

I have seen your point ever since you began deigning 90-66.
Asked and answered Steven, your just trolling because you don't like the
answer.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Where?
>>
>
> In AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating
> Control Towers, which I posted three weeks ago in this thread.
>
>
> 11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES. It should be noted that
> aircraft operating to or from another nearby airport may be making
> self-announce broadcasts on the same UNICOM or MULTICOM frequency. To help
> identify one airport from another, the airport name should be spoken at
> the
> beginning and end of each self-announce transmission.
>
> (3) Practice Instrument Approach:
>
> STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC
> (NAME - FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING
> THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY
> THREE FIVE STRAWN.
>
> STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC
> PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH COMPLETED OR TERMINATED
> RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.
>

Asked and answered Steven, your just trolling because you don't like the
answer.

[Maxwell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:03:15 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote in >:
>
>>Your citation of AC90-66A [1] appears to
>>clearly indicate that the FAA prefers that IFR pilots report their
>>positions by transmitting their distance from uncontrolled airports when
>>landing at same:
>
> How do you resolve that conclusion with the third paragraph from the
> end below:
>

It seems clear to me that most VFR pilots, as well as many IFR pilots flying
VFR in unfamiluar areas, an not going to be aware of all IFR reporting
points. Therefore, if someone wants to convey their position to all pilots
on CTAF, IFR reporting points will never be completely reliable. It also
seems the FAA understands this, or they wouldn't have clearly mentioned it
in the AC.

So I would think we could assume the FAA was thinking of an IFR situation
when the example in 90-42 was written. I don't see how any reasonable person
could report himself in reference to an IFR reporting point, in VFR
conditions, and expect all others to understand. Right or wrong, someone
doing so doesn't seem to be making his reporting position clear.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> I believe the "definition" in that circular is implicit in the labeling
>> of
>> the airport operation diagrams in appendix 1. The line out from infinite
>> to the point where it joins the base leg is labelled "straight-in
>> approach"
>> and the narrative for point (3) labels the line from the base leg to the
>> runway as final.
>>
>
> The "final" label in that diagram is on the side of the base leg away from
> the airport, indicating that final extends past the base leg. That is
> consistent with the definition of final found in the Pilot/Controller
> Glossary
>
> The narrative for point 3 is, "Complete turn to final at least l/4 mile
> from the runway." That does not even approach suggesting that final does
> not extend beyond the base leg.
>
Asked and answered Steven, your just trolling because you don't like the
answer.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> I think you've made your point. Your citation of AC90-66A [1] appears to
>> clearly indicate that the FAA prefers that IFR pilots report their
>> positions by transmitting their distance from uncontrolled airports when
>> landing at same:
>>
>
> How do you reconcile that with AC 90-42F?
>

It doesn't have to reconcile Steven. Clearly you can use either method for
reporting, and still be within the FAA's recommendations. But if you want to
increase your chances of being seen and understood by all, including those
operation without a radio, you might want to strongly consider the
references in AC 90-66. It does outline recommendations made about 3 years
later than 90-42.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:04:36 -0500, "Maxwell" >
wrote in >:
>So I would think we could assume the FAA was thinking of an IFR situation
>when the example in was written.

AC90-42 clearly states:

(3) Practice Instrument Approach:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME -
FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE)
PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

Practice instrument approaches are conducted in VMC, so the FAA wasn't
thinking of "an IFR situation when the example in was written."

>I don't see how any reasonable person
>could report himself in reference to an IFR reporting point, in VFR
>conditions, and expect all others to understand. Right or wrong, someone
>doing so doesn't seem to be making his reporting position clear.

Be that as it may, the FAA is clearly instructing pilots to do so in
AC90-42.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> Well, it doesn't matter what is preferred. It matters what is used. And
>> "the lady" and "the tanks" and "the hospital" are all used by pilots to
>> announce their position. So, that information is also "information
>> concerning that flight".
>>
>
> No. Those are bad practices.
>

If you think VFR pilots flying without knowing the IFR reporting points is a
bad practice, then you need to replace your preflight inspection with a full
annual.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> et...
>>
>> They use sectionals in planning but don't memorize the location of all
>> intersections enroute. Therefore if they need to find an intersection,
>> they would need to consult the chart. Intersections are not prominant.
>>
>> They carry sectionals to refer to in flight, and smart pilots refer to
>> them when looking out the window isn't critical. Smart pilots, for
>> example, aren't looking for an intersection on a sectional while a
>> hundred
>> feet above the threshold, or when they are near an airport and scanning
>> for traffic in the pattern (and other traffic shooting through the
>> pattern).
>>
>
> We've not been discussing the common practices of smart pilots, we've been
> discussing the common practices of typical VFR pilots. Smart pilots
> recognize and know where the FAFs are at their home airports and will
> obtain that information as part of their preflight planning for fields
> they intend to operate at.
>

What if it's not one of their home airports?

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Be that as it may, the FAA is clearly instructing pilots to do so in
> AC90-42.

I'm pretty sure they are advising, not instructing, otherwise wouldn't the
documents be ICs, not ACs? :-)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Jun 10, 2:55 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>
> It doesn't have to reconcile Steven. Clearly you can use either method for
> reporting, and still be within the FAA's recommendations. But if you want to
> increase your chances of being seen and understood by all, including those
> operation without a radio, you might want to strongly consider the
> references in AC 90-66. It does outline recommendations made about 3 years
> later than 90-42.
>

Right. Pilots operating without radios would understand the format of
AC 90-66A far better than that of AC 90-42F.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Jun 10, 3:03 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> ">
> > We've not been discussing the common practices of smart pilots, we've been
> > discussing the common practices of typical VFR pilots. Smart pilots
> > recognize and know where the FAFs are at their home airports and will
> > obtain that information as part of their preflight planning for fields
> > they intend to operate at.
>
> What if it's not one of their home airports?
>

See above.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 10, 3:03 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> ">
>> > We've not been discussing the common practices of smart pilots, we've
>> > been
>> > discussing the common practices of typical VFR pilots. Smart pilots
>> > recognize and know where the FAFs are at their home airports and will
>> > obtain that information as part of their preflight planning for fields
>> > they intend to operate at.
>>
>> What if it's not one of their home airports?
>>
>
> See above.
>
>

Only relative if you want to change your pre-flight inspection to an annual.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
>
> My question to you had to do with the basis for your assumption.
> Specifically, what in the Practical or Knowledge Tests -- the ONLY
> requirements for becoming "a newly minted VFR pilot" -- assures that your
> assumption is valid. Since there is no requirement that a "...newly minted
> VFR pilot..." has even SEEN an IAP, your assumption is not reasonable.
>

The basis for my assumption is that anyone that possesses the chart
knowledge specified in Part 61 can pick up a TPP, examine an IAP and the
legend if need be, and identify a FAF. Or do you take the position that
typical VFR pilots are not that intelligent?

[Maxwell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:04:36 -0500, "Maxwell" >
> wrote in >:
>>So I would think we could assume the FAA was thinking of an IFR situation
>>when the example in was written.
>
> AC90-42 clearly states:
>
> (3) Practice Instrument Approach:
> STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME -
> FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE)
> PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.
>
> Practice instrument approaches are conducted in VMC, so the FAA wasn't
> thinking of "an IFR situation when the example in was written."
>
>>I don't see how any reasonable person
>>could report himself in reference to an IFR reporting point, in VFR
>>conditions, and expect all others to understand. Right or wrong, someone
>>doing so doesn't seem to be making his reporting position clear.
>
> Be that as it may, the FAA is clearly instructing pilots to do so in
> AC90-42.
>

But they clearly change that recommendation three years later in AC 90-66a,
7f.

"Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly
alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the flow
of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should include distance and
direction from the airport, as well as the pilot's intentions upon
completion of the approach."

I would suppose a pilot could claim to be within the FAA recommendations
while using either method. But using IFR fixes only, would not be consistent
with the latest recommendations, and would not be conveying their position
to all pilots.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:44:25 -0500, "Maxwell" >
wrote in >:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:04:36 -0500, "Maxwell" >
>> wrote in >:
>>>So I would think we could assume the FAA was thinking of an IFR situation
>>>when the example in was written.
>>
>> AC90-42 clearly states:
>>
>> (3) Practice Instrument Approach:
>> STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME -
>> FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE)
>> PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.
>>
>> Practice instrument approaches are conducted in VMC, so the FAA wasn't
>> thinking of "an IFR situation when the example in was written."
>>
>>>I don't see how any reasonable person
>>>could report himself in reference to an IFR reporting point, in VFR
>>>conditions, and expect all others to understand. Right or wrong, someone
>>>doing so doesn't seem to be making his reporting position clear.
>>
>> Be that as it may, the FAA is clearly instructing pilots to do so in
>> AC90-42.
>>
>
>But they clearly change that recommendation three years later in AC 90-66a,
>7f.
>
>"Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly
>alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the flow
>of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should include distance and
>direction from the airport, as well as the pilot's intentions upon
>completion of the approach."

You'll notice that that excerpt from AC 90-66a relates to instrument
approaches presumably conducted under IFR, while the seemingly
contradictory information in AC 90-42F is in reference to PRACTICE
instrument approaches which are conducted under VFR. So it seems that
the drafters of one AC were probably unaware of the information in the
other, because it would seem that the opposite recommendations would
be more appropriate.

>
>I would suppose a pilot could claim to be within the FAA recommendations
>while using either method.

The way I see it, the seemingly contradictory information in the two
ACs creates a "Catch 22" situation, that the pilot only resolve by
using both reporting procedures concurrently, the FAF AND the distance
from the airport.

>But using IFR fixes only, would not be consistent with the latest
>recommendations,

It would be for _PRACTICE_ IFR approaches, but not actual IFR
approaches.

>and would not be conveying their position to all pilots.
>

I understand your concern. But if the VFR pilot on downwind hears an
aircraft report being inbound on a practice approach, he should know
that the pilot broadcasting that is about five miles out on a
straight-in, regardless of the name of the FAF.

[Maxwell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>But they clearly change that recommendation three years later in AC
>>90-66a,
>>7f.
>>
>>"Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly
>>alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the
>>flow
>>of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should include distance and
>>direction from the airport, as well as the pilot's intentions upon
>>completion of the approach."
>
> You'll notice that that excerpt from AC 90-66a relates to instrument
> approaches presumably conducted under IFR, while the seemingly
> contradictory information in AC 90-42F is in reference to PRACTICE
> instrument approaches which are conducted under VFR. So it seems that
> the drafters of one AC were probably unaware of the information in the
> other, because it would seem that the opposite recommendations would
> be more appropriate.

Since the used the word "wish", instead of something like "must", my first
assumption was practice or at least optional instrument approaches. But it
seems to me they are clearly stating all instrument approaches, since they
don't specify.

>
>>
>>I would suppose a pilot could claim to be within the FAA recommendations
>>while using either method.
>
> The way I see it, the seemingly contradictory information in the two
> ACs creates a "Catch 22" situation, that the pilot only resolve by
> using both reporting procedures concurrently, the FAF AND the distance
> from the airport.

I'd have to agree, and that seems unfortunate for instrument approaches. But
do you think the FAA would actually frown on using only distance and
direction reports at uncontrolled fields during actual or practice
operations?

>
>>But using IFR fixes only, would not be consistent with the latest
>>recommendations,
>
> It would be for _PRACTICE_ IFR approaches, but not actual IFR
> approaches.
>
>>and would not be conveying their position to all pilots.
>>
>
> I understand your concern. But if the VFR pilot on downwind hears an
> aircraft report being inbound on a practice approach, he should know
> that the pilot broadcasting that is about five miles out on a
> straight-in, regardless of the name of the FAF.

That should be true, and is indeed very good information that should be
taught to all VFR pilots. But I was actually bitten by this one very lately.
I know this will sound like the usually negative fantasy often quoted at
this point in a Usenet discussion, but I hope you will give me the benefit
of the doubt.

Saturday, 6/2/07, I was leaving KOKM after a vista to an small airport 60
miles or so from my home base. Other than the usual VFR info, I'm not really
familiar with the airport. Just seconds before taking the active after my
run-up, I hear a pilot announce himself as inbound from an IFR reporting
point, with a signal strength and clarity that was absolute. Naturally I did
a 180 and took a very hard look up the flight path, so myself and my pax
could watch his approach. Nothing to be seen. I hesitated for a good two or
three minutes while watching for him, it was a very clear day. About the
time I was considering calling him, he declared a missed approach and his
intentions to go around. This time he included the runway number and I
realized he was approaching downwind. I turned back 180 and he was about
200' over the north end of the runway.

Granted, if he had included the runway number in his first call, as he
should have, his position would have pehaps been a little clearer. But if he
had given his distance and direction, I would have known immediately.
Naturally since I was waiting to take off, this was just an inconvenience.
But if I had been landing, and seeing no traffic on final, it could have
been more dangerous.

[Dave[_5_]]

> Saturday, 6/2/07, I was leaving KOKM after a vista to an small airport 60
> miles or so from my home base. Other than the usual VFR info, I'm not really
> familiar with the airport. Just seconds before taking the active after my
> run-up, I hear a pilot announce himself as inbound from an IFR reporting
> point, with a signal strength and clarity that was absolute. Naturally I did
> a 180 and took a very hard look up the flight path, so myself and my pax
> could watch his approach. Nothing to be seen. I hesitated for a good two or
> three minutes while watching for him, it was a very clear day. About the
> time I was considering calling him, he declared a missed approach and his
> intentions to go around. This time he included the runway number and I
> realized he was approaching downwind. I turned back 180 and he was about
> 200' over the north end of the runway.
>
> Granted, if he had included the runway number in his first call, as he
> should have, his position would have pehaps been a little clearer. But if he
> had given his distance and direction, I would have known immediately.
> Naturally since I was waiting to take off, this was just an inconvenience.
> But if I had been landing, and seeing no traffic on final, it could have
> been more dangerous.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I had a similar experience awhile back. While taxiing out for takeoff
I heard an announcement on the CTAF - delivered so fast as to be
unintelligible. After completing my checklist I did a 360 to
scan for traffic. Nothing - So I took the runway and announced my
takeoff. Then somebody piped up on the channel lambasting me about not
keeping clear of the runway for the "approaching IFR traffic".
So I looked again - and lo and behold, there it was: a speck in the
sky approaching from downwind. I could easily have taken off and
turned crosswind before there would have been a conflict - but elected
to hold on the ground. Then I discovered that my place at
the hold short line had been taken by another aircraft, and there was
no room to return to the taxiway (without going off into the grass).
So I announced "holding at the departure end" and remained there until
the approaching aircraft declared a missed and passed overhead.

So who is right and who is wrong in that situation? Am I obliged to
vacate the runway by any means (at the risk of damaging my aircraft)
just because somebody is "landing" (though he may actually be planning
to execute a missed approach) - or is the runway "mine" because I am
occupying it, and got there first?

David Johnson

[Maxwell]

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I had a similar experience awhile back. While taxiing out for takeoff
> I heard an announcement on the CTAF - delivered so fast as to be
> unintelligible. After completing my checklist I did a 360 to
> scan for traffic. Nothing - So I took the runway and announced my
> takeoff. Then somebody piped up on the channel lambasting me about not
> keeping clear of the runway for the "approaching IFR traffic".
> So I looked again - and lo and behold, there it was: a speck in the
> sky approaching from downwind. I could easily have taken off and
> turned crosswind before there would have been a conflict - but elected
> to hold on the ground. Then I discovered that my place at
> the hold short line had been taken by another aircraft, and there was
> no room to return to the taxiway (without going off into the grass).
> So I announced "holding at the departure end" and remained there until
> the approaching aircraft declared a missed and passed overhead.
>
> So who is right and who is wrong in that situation? Am I obliged to
> vacate the runway by any means (at the risk of damaging my aircraft)
> just because somebody is "landing" (though he may actually be planning
> to execute a missed approach) - or is the runway "mine" because I am
> occupying it, and got there first?
>

Although he made one or more mistakes in not clearly announcing is position
and intentions, and perhaps approaching the wrong direction (depending on
the winds) - the landing aircraft does have the right-of-way over aircraft
operating on the surface. The only exception is aircraft that have just
landed, and are attempting to clear the runway.

Your post also states that you took the runway, and then announced your
intentions. Always announce taking the active at least 10 seconds on so
before you actually do. That way a landing aircraft has time to respond. If
he knew you were taking the active, you would have probably heard from him
before you crossed the line.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:09:07 -0700, Dave > wrote in
. com>:

>
>While taxiing out for takeoff
>I heard an announcement on the CTAF - delivered so fast as to be
>unintelligible. After completing my checklist I did a 360 to
>scan for traffic. Nothing - So I took the runway and announced my
>takeoff.

It may have been more prudent if you had made your announcement BEFORE
taking the runway.

>Then somebody piped up on the channel lambasting me about not
>keeping clear of the runway for the "approaching IFR traffic".

While I can understand that pilot's attempt to warn you of the
approaching hazard, technically his broadcast was contrary to FAA AC
90-42 which only permits self-announce broadcasts of position and
intentions.

>So I looked again - and lo and behold, there it was: a speck in the
>sky approaching from downwind. I could easily have taken off and
>turned crosswind before there would have been a conflict - but elected
>to hold on the ground.

Why? If you're sure your departure was possible without undue hazard,
you should have made it, IMO. (I'll tell you a little story about my
experience later.)

>Then I discovered that my place at
>the hold short line had been taken by another aircraft, and there was
>no room to return to the taxiway (without going off into the grass).
>So I announced "holding at the departure end" and remained there until
>the approaching aircraft declared a missed and passed overhead.
>
>So who is right and who is wrong in that situation? Am I obliged to
>vacate the runway by any means (at the risk of damaging my aircraft)
>just because somebody is "landing" (though he may actually be planning
>to execute a missed approach) - or is the runway "mine" because I am
>occupying it, and got there first?
>

Personally, I don't see anybody as being wrong. It's a matter of
pilot desecration, IMO.

Here's an incident I still remember after 37 years:

Many years ago during a dual cross country training flight in a
slow Cessna 150 (before the inception of CTAFs), I encountered a
frightening situation. As I was lined up on ~1 mile, full-flap
final approach at the then uncontrolled Chino Airport, I observed
an SNJ/T6 taxi onto the runway on which I was about to land. The
frightening part was the fact that he began to depart downwind and
headed directly for me head-on! I was stunned, but my instructor
told me to continue the approach, and I did.

The powerful military trainer was off in a few seconds, and the
pilot adroitly side-slipped out of my path. I landed normally,
and he departed without further incident.

At the time I felt that the behavior of this pilot was arrogant
and reckless. But, upon reflection after my pulse rate returned
to normal, aside from his nearly causing a wet spot on my seat
cushion, his departure was safe, even if it was rude. He knew
that his aircraft was easily capable of completing his departure
without incident. But, I had no way knowing if he had seen my
aircraft nor that he intended to slip out of my path.

This incident taught me a valuable lesson early in my training:
expect to encounter the unexpected. Or, to put it in the
vernacular, s**t happens; deal with it.

My 2¢

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:05:42 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>
>It would be for _PRACTICE_ IFR approaches, but not actual IFR
>approaches.
>
>>and would not be conveying their position to all pilots.
>>
>
>I understand your concern. But if the VFR pilot on downwind hears an
>aircraft report being inbound on a practice approach, he should know
>that the pilot broadcasting that is about five miles out on a
>straight-in, regardless of the name of the FAF.

Not necessiarily straight in for a runway. Here when you hit the FAF
on the VOR-A you are still talking to ATC at a different airport. You
drop from 2400, to 1160 MSL and some where in there get to change
frequencies and anounce your position. Be it practice or for real IFR
giving the fix , approach and position from the airport (unless it's
so bad there is no traffic in the pattern) as you will be coming in on
a heading of 137 to a circle to land on 18, 36, 06, or 24 at half the
pattern altitude. So you have the two GPS approaches with VNAV for 06
and 24 with the FAF just over 5 NM out which would e straight in plus
the VOR-A which doesn't line up with anything.

I doubt many VFR pilots flying cross country even bother to know where
and what the IFR approaches are for most of the airports they fly into
let alone the ones they pass. We had one plane load fly in to one of
our pancake breakfasts that flew right across the center of KMBS at no
more than a 1000 AGL which required an airliner to break off an
approach and go-around. (There were people waiting to talk with the
pilot when he landed here) <:-))

Of course there was the day the pres was due in town and we heard
"Ahhhh... MBS approach, this is cherokee *** about 5 miles South.
There's an F-16 off my wingtip. What's going on? The TFR had been
published for some time.