"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.