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.