interesting moment yesterday on final

"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.

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.

"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.

"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?

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? :-)

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.

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.

"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.

"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?

"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.