interesting moment yesterday on final

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

That aircraft in the pattern have the right of way. You know, the part
you
snipped.


AC 90-66A does not indicate that aircraft in the pattern have the
right-of-way over aircraft on final.

It does indeed, you just don't happen to like it.





IFR fixes provide zero informaiton to a VFR pilot.


Is bad information better than no information?



Only because you wish to ignore the FAA recommendations in AC 90-66.
Aircraft entering on a straight in approach should not disrupt traffic in
the pattern.


I'll ignore all recommendations that are discourteous , reduce safety, and
are inconsistent with the FARs. Everybody should.

They are none of the above, and nobody should. If you think you are above
following the recommended procedures of the FAA, you are simply unsafe. But
go ahead, as we can be certain you will. Someday, you or some other IR
cowboy like you, will kill someone, and perhaps the FAA with firm things up
a bit.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

You can read, can't you?

Yes, very well.


Then read the material. Your questions have been asked and answered.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

AC 90-66A, if you believe in such things.

Please cite them.

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.

"Maxwell" wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

Do you know of any regulation or recommendation from the FAA that even
suggests a VFR pilot should know the IFR reporting points?

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:

"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."

It seems pretty clear that calling out IFR reporting points on CTAF is
contraindicated. I'm not sure why this argument is continuing since the
safest course of action seems pretty clear.

[1] http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Maxwell" wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

Do you know of any regulation or recommendation from the FAA that even
suggests a VFR pilot should know the IFR reporting points?

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:

"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."

It seems pretty clear that calling out IFR reporting points on CTAF is
contraindicated. I'm not sure why this argument is continuing since the
safest course of action seems pretty clear.

[1]
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

Thanks Jim, it seems pretty clear to me.

I think the FAA has done a good job of showing it's complete support for
standard traffic pattern operations, without eliminating the possibility of
straight in approaches when an airport has no traffic. Seems to me like we
all win.

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:


http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...A?OpenDocument
AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports without Operating
Control Towers

9. SELF-ANNOUNCE POSITION AND/OR INTENTIONS.
a. General. ‘Self-announce” is a procedure whereby pilots
broadcast their position, intended flight activity or ground
operation on the designated CTAF. This procedure is used primarily
at airports which do not have a control tower or an FSS on the
airport.
...
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.

(1) Inbound:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU, (POSITION), (ALTITUDE),
(DESCENDING) OR ENTERING DOWNWIND/BASE/FINAL (AS APPROPRIATE)
RUNWAY ONE SEVEN FULL STOP,
TOUCH-AND-GO, STRAWN.

* STRAWN TRAFFIC APACHE TWO IWO FIVE ZULU CLEAR OF RUNWAY ONE
SEVEN STRAWN. *

(2) outbound:
$TRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO (LOCATION ON
AIRPORT) TAXIING TO RUNWAY TWO SIX STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FCVE FIVE BRAVO DEPARTING
RUNWAY TWO SIX, DEPARTING THE PATTERN TO THE (DIRECTION),
CLIMBING TO (ALTITUDE) STRAWN.

(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.

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


12 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED COMMUNCATIONS PROCEDURES.
...

Larry Dighera wrote:
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:
....
AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports without Operating
Control Towers
....
11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES.
....
(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.

To paraphrase Walt Whitman:
It is the FAA. It is large, it contains multitudes. It contradicts itself.



"Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself (I am large, I
contain multitudes)."
--Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

Rule out straight-ins? Easy. Just put the requirement in the FARs that all
arrival aircraft at nontowered fields fly a full pattern and eliminate
straight-in minima those fields.

We could rule out "holding out" too, but the FAA decided not to do it
that way. They just made up their own interpretation. I don't see any
reason why they can't do it here too.

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.

Is bad information better than no information?

Often it is. IT depends on how bad the information is. "five miles
northeast" when the aircraft is really five point six miles east north
east is "bad information". But I'll find him.

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.

I don't see a reason to study those which he'd be flying past, but examining
the plates of the airports where he intends to land would be a good idea.

There are many things that might be a good idea. What is =not= a good
idea is expecting other pilots to do them.

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.