interesting moment yesterday on final

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.

"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.

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

"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.

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¢

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.