"Cleared Straight-In Runway X; Report Y Miles Final"

Thanks for your comments, Peter. Here's my thoughts:

Frankly, I don't see how "be careful about this" is patronizing or
otherwise
indicates a person having a bad day.

It was a matter of her tone. Like most pilots, I like to think I know what
I'm doing. And, when I'm doing things right, I don't like a controller
"correcting" me--especially what I feel is an uncivil and patronizing tone.
The real issue is: "Was I right?" Based on the many responses, there
appears to be some difference of opinion on that.

commenting on that to Jim, he now has (I hope) learned the proper
procedure
(which he obviously did not know prior).

IS this the proper procedure? Pilots tend to resolve things definitively on
this forum by quoting the FAR, AIM, or other appropriate authority. In the
absence of such explicit guidance, we can only offer opinion backed by
informed logic and experience. So, let me restate: Where does it
unequivocally state that being on the extended center line is a requirement
for a "straight-in" VFR approach? If so, please define "on the extended
center line" for me. How close is close enough? 10 ft? 100 ft? 1/4 mile?
30 degrees at 20 miles? Perhaps some of the folks on this forum can just
fly much more precisely than I do g. Indeed, that is why I believe in the
IFR domain, the definition of "straight-in" includes the 30 degrees. This
provides for a REASONABLE definition of "straight-in" that clearly should be
sufficient for VFR applications.

Regards, Jim

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 158...

The term 'final' may have a correct definition according to the AIM, but
why would the controller care whether you fly a straight-final or an
angled-final unless there is a traffic conflict?

I think the most important answer is for the same reason it's important to
report your CORRECT position while at an uncontrolled field: it simplifies
the business of actually SEEING the airplane reporting their position.
The
tower is just as interested in seeing you as other airplanes are. If you
are not where you claim to be, that's a problem, and a rather serious one
at
that.

Other reasons include things like other traffic in the vicinity (though
the
tower controller is not tasked with separating airborne traffic, they
still
do help with that), trying to keep traffic away from noise-sensitive
areas,
or sequencing (trying to help along the process of airplanes arriving at
the
runway with an even spacing).

Bottom line, there are a number of reasons the controller might care that
you report the correct position.

In that case, the
controller should have issued a traffic alert and to maintain visual
separation. In the absence of any such alert, I can only assume that the
controller was just having a bad day.

It wasn't necessarily other traffic that was an issue, this time. But
even
if it was, the controller may well have expected Jim to be somewhere
different, in a position that would not have required a traffic alert be
issued to him. Perhaps the controllers comments were along the lines of
"this didn't matter this time, but you should get it right next time,
because it might matter then".

Frankly, I don't see how "be careful about this" is patronizing or
otherwise
indicates a person having a bad day. I have had to deal with controllers
who were genuinely having a bad day, and they were downright abusive. A
pilot *should* be careful about reporting an incorrect position, and by
commenting on that to Jim, he now has (I hope) learned the proper
procedure
(which he obviously did not know prior).

He used words like "snippy" and "rude" and "patronizing", but until I hear
the tape, I'm not going to take his word for it. None of the *words* he
quoted indicate any of those things, and the controller was well within
her
rights to point out Jim's error. It's just as likely that Jim was being
defensive about his own actions, coloring his interpretation of what the
controller said.

Pete