"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.